Grrl Power #815 – Do what I say, and also what I do
Before anyone says that Tamatha’s word bubble in panel 8 has a typo: YouTube
Dabbler really has been stringing poor Tamatha along, hasn’t she? The last 3 pages basically ended with the same gag.
It’s fair to say Dabbler is a moral relativist. She says it’s what we do that matters, and she’s killed thousands of people. (depending on how you define ‘people’) Like laid waste to a whole mess of entities Diablo style, and she’s had sex with… I don’t know, I’m sure the number is well into quadruple digits by now, maybe even quintuple. She is nearly 180 years old after all.
If pressed to defend her actions, Dabbler would simply say, “The people I killed were bad, and the people I had sex with were sexy.” A moral absolutist would probably not find those justifications acceptable, but personally I think moral absolutism is naïve. Sometimes Nazis, the Covenant, Rage Virus Zombies, rabid marauding goblins, and sex traffickers need killing. Most of the time, really.
Despite her mountainous body count, Dabbler considers herself a good person. Not a saint, certainly, but she firmly believes her actions make the universe a better place. One of the greatest problems in all of history, of course, is getting people to agree on what “better” constitutes. :/
So that book I wrote (Tamer: Enhancer) has been edited with even more fixes, and there’s now a .PDF version as well for those of you who had trouble with the e-reader versions for whatever reasons. Check it out here!
If you’re just joining us and this is news to you, it has nothing to do with Grrl Power. It’s actually Tamer fanfiction – in that it uses the same setup but never crosses paths with the characters from the source books. Anyway, it’s about 120K words long, and it’s free! It has dinosaurs, action, humor, xenoanthropology, and smexy times.
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.
Hmmmm – ok, but what do we do with the demon hunter?
charge with abduction and child endangerment?
Don’t forget attempted murder.
Assault with a deadly weapon.
Assaulting a federal officer.
Unregistered super, looking at those extra arms and her jumping three plus stories up a building.
Not sure what to charge for drugging someone. Is there a specific one for that?
Supers do NOT have to register, it is NOT illegal to be a super
That said, her actions will get her registered, again, not because she is a super per se, more because of what she has done
What weapon did she actually use? The knife against Tammy? That’s more a ‘threatening action’ than ‘assault with a deadly weapon’
Assault is the threat of harm…..they talked about this with the vampires
Okay, still confused about that, always felt that ‘assault’ had to involve physical contact, otherwise it’s just a ‘threat’
Nope. That’s Assault and Battery, a much more serious charge.They have her cold on that too, against Sidney, and with a Dangerous Weapon (try to tell any judge a Paralysis Injector isn’t dangerous!)
and on a Federal LEO to boot.
Generally speaking, “assault” occurs when someone threatens bodily harm to another in a convincing way. Assault often is followed by battery, which is defined as unlawful physical conduct (often an act of violence, but also unwelcome sexual contact). Not all threats are considered assault.
Assault with a deadly weapon is using a weapon in a threatening manner such as waving a knife or shotgun in someone’s face. Which Aranea definitely did with Tam.
Battery comes into it when you make an unlawful physical contact (which in some countries also includes blowing smoke into your face as smoke is considered a particle and thus physical) with the person.
You can get arrested for battery in the United States if you spit when you talk and you’re standing too close to a police officer.
i heard about a drunk guy who got arrested for farting too physically near an officer, as in, the officer felt particles
My city has a very rarely used 50 dollar fine that is usually enforced on top of already arresting someone. Cussing in public
So, threat would be: If you don’t do as I wish, I’ll pummel you with my baseball bat I have over there.
Assault: Raises the bat, ready to swing, shouting “Dance, F’er, or else!”
Assault & Battery: “I told you to dance. As you didn’t, you never will…” *sound of shattered knee-cap*
Have I got that right?
You are correct.
Aranea would not be charged with assault on Sydney, since there was no apprehension of an imminent attack. But she is guilty of battery, since the use of the paralytic alone is an unlawful touching which caused harm.
Does that mean that Dabbler is guilty of ‘assault’ from when she threatened to use that spiked club on Aranea a couple of pages back?
Yes, if Aranea can be charged with assault, then so too can Dabbles, specially seeing how Aranea was already restrained
Nope. She wasn’t talking _to_ Aranea, she was talking _about_ her. Yes, yes, this was in front of her, but proving intent becomes MUCH more of a problem.
Still, if that makes it into the after-action report, she and Max are going to have a “discussion” that won’t be any fun.
This is Dabbler we’re talking about… She could always claim the spiked club was actually a sex toy.
So Assault Rifles ARE a thing! They are rifles which are threatening to Democrats.
“Stop! No! That rifle is scaring me!!”
lolololol
Most people find weapons threatening when they’re pointed at them.
Dave’s got his terminology wrong. In Texas, threat of harm with a weapon is tortious assault, but criminally it’s a terroristic threat. Criminal assault is equivalent to tortious battery. Poisoning without fatality or intent to kill is a form of aggravated assault, since it is considered assault with a deadly weapon.
She did actually strike and restrain Tam, as well as striking and drugging Sydney and striking the others. That’s several counts of unlawful restraint, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possibly attempted murder depending on how they would choose to prosecute her attacks on Tam and Dabbler.
Yeah, know all that about the last part, was wondering where the ‘assault with a deadly weapon’ came from (unless they are counting Aranea herself as a ‘weapon’)
*sigh*, threading strikes again. See my reply here: https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-815-do-what-i-say-and-also-what-i-do/comment-page-1/#comment-829405
Poisoning someone, even with a nonlethal poison, is considered assault with a deadly weapon. Like I said, under Texas law it would be considered a form of aggravated assault.
That’s actually “Medical Assault & Battery” when you force any kind of drug on someone else when there is no valid medical purpose.
There is no such thing in the Texas Penal Code. Poisoning is specifically listed under aggravated assault as a form of assault with a deadly weapon.
The point being that assault and battery are state laws and terminology an details vary from state to state.
BTW, assault and battery are two separate crimes, often but not necessarily connected. It’s entirely possible (in most states) to commit battery without assault.
Charging Aranea with any crime would necessitate information about demons getting out, unless Archon wants to subvert the entire legal system, which doesn’t seem very heroic, since her reasoning for kidnapping Tamatha was she is a demon hunter and Tamatha is a demon.
Which is probably why jurisdiction goes to the Council or ArcLight, who are more clandestine and not subject to judicial review and political scrutiny. Although it’s likely that Archon has military courts just like the other branches of the armed services have.
Except Aranea is not a member of any armed service. Soooo… yeah, it explains why the agreement on jurisdiction would be, like Pixel said, the Council and Arc-Light (I know Arc-Light is part of Archon, but they’re the clandestine part and probably have secret courts similar to FISA, even though that’s constitutionally suspect as well, since I personally would argue FISA courts violate the ‘No Case or Controversy clause of Article III of the US Constitution, not to mention the Sixth Amendment, IMHO).
If they trully have to explain why someone tried to kidnap and torture a girl (why would they even have to?), just say that areana tried to kidnap a girl she thought was a succubus and that she thinks there is a malevolent thing called the twilight council. Present her motives entirely accurate, and let everyone else come to the inaccurate belief that areana is a lunatic conspiracy theorist.
Information about aliens IS already out; saying Tamatha is one would be a) correct, b) sufficient. Plus, I don’t know how exactly it works, but I’m sure her real name can be kept off the record, in order to protect her. The judge would probably know, but the general public won’t.
“Unregistered super” is not a crime, but “unregistered vigilante” is. Most likely more so when the vigilantism is basically “everyone of this race is bad, and therefore it is my moral duty to hunt them down.” That didn’t fly as a justification at Nuremberg, and it’s not likely to fly in the Grrl-verse’s justice system either.
Technically, it’s missing the “humanity” part of a “crime against humanity,” and demons aren’t specifically a protected class in terms of hate crimes, but the principle clearly applies.
You can’t be a ‘registered vigilante’ when vigilantism is illegal
True, but you can continue to do similar work under the constraints of Archon oversight & regulations, registering with them.
It’s sorta still vigilante work in the sense of trying to limit public fights, etc, with superpowers and/or cool gadgets that normal cops, National Guards, and/or other trained government-authorized types don’t normally get to play with in the vast majority of cases.
(Btw, I loved that panel DaveB did on the city commissioner or mayor or whatever ranting about how expensive railguns are.)
If they register (which is not required) and work with Archon (or any other LEA), then they are no longer a vigilante
Vigilantism is illegal whether you have powers or money
Stopping crime with your powers is not illegal, as long as you didn’t seek out the crime
Yeah, if CivilianMan chances upon a mugging or robbery, he can totally use his powers to subdue or chase off the crooks and/or conduct a citizen’s arrest. He will, however, have to convince the police that he wasn’t “out on patrol” looking for crime to fight.
If it was the first time, he should be okay, if it was, say, the tenth time (that week)… yeah, he’s getting booked for vigilantism and handed over to Archon :D
a registered vigilante exists, it’s called neighbourhood watch’ and the are rules.
And the everyone of this ease bad’ mitigation get the gate crime enhancer stuck on the underlying crime. However to bring hate crime enhancement though would have to reviled the exists ce of demons into the public
By definition neighborhood watches are not vigilantes because they are encompassed by the law.
But most of them only report violations of the law, they don’t enforce the law.
*Civil War intensifies*
In Canada, drugging somebody without consent is a form of assault and/or Administering a Stupefying Drug. Some serious jail time when combined with Assault and Battery.
I am not sure of Assault on a Federal Officer would apply, yet. While Sydney is employed by a federal law-enforcement agency, she has not completed her training yet and so is not actually a federal law-enforcement officer. Thus she can not identify herself as a law-enforcement officer, and the lack of an officer self-identifying has been used many times to convert Assault on a Police Officer to just Assault, because the criminal said they did not realize that the other person was a cop.
Except, Pixelicious is a federal agent
Your further point still stands
Pixel isn’t a federal agent. She’s military.
She works for a federal agency, just like every other member of Archon (-SWAT, -Light, -Dark, -Weld)
Oh please oh please let the R&D gadgets branch of Archon be called ArcWeld.
and the lesser known gaming assistance branch: ArcAid
Identification is a big deal, of course. But Aranea properly ID’ed The Mighty Halo, and her affiliation with Archon, and continued the attack. “Federal Officer” will kick in this case.
After identifying Sydney, she evaded attack (from Sydney), until Pixelicious and Specs showed up (it’s possible she could see Pixelicious’ Pink Panther ‘battle form’
Supporting your point, Aranea was surprised when she realized that she had just paralyzed a famous member of Archon who was in disguise.
Being a super is like being a sex offender.
We are all capable of having sex. But only the ones who use sex for evil get put on The List. (And I’m not talking about Sydney’s little book…)
And illegal Vigilantism
You realise that that is a moronic ox, right?
There is no so such thing as legal vigilantism, the act itself is entirely illegal, regardless if you have powers or money (and regularly give the local police commissioner blowjobs in your super-mobile so he continues to turn a blind eye to your criminal activities)
That makes it a redundancy, which is the opposite of an oxymoron.
… Yes, you are being with the correct, thank you
In our world, yes. But in Superhero worlds officially sanctioned vigilantes are an extremely common thing. See literally every superhero comic where the hero isn’t a part of the government or a criminal for examples. It’s just one of the legal differences that comes from living in a Fantastic Universe.
That turns out not to be the case.
You can turn up quasi-legal vigilantes in the Marvel and DC comics, the Batman being a prime example.
Those aren’t the only superhero worlds. Take Marion George Harmon’s Wearing the Cape worlds. Artemis was a vigilante that got brought into the light, because although she was temporarily tolerated by the Chicago Police Department, there were many eyes on her. I can think of no others in the WTC universe. Possibly the Young Sentinels of Grimworld. George would have to say.
The point is, that’s at least two worlds where Vigilantes are illegal.
We sort of do have legal vigilantes in this world. They are usually called bounty hunters. Some are registered, some not. Requirements depend on the state.
If they have authority under the law, they do not fit the legal definition of a vigilante.
“someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority.”
Technically, if the average citizen engages in self-defense or defense of others, they could be a vigilante.
Also, bounty hunters aren’t involved in “trying and/or punishing”, therefore aren’t vigilantes.
Of course, the Spanish meaning of vigilante is “watchman” … or from Latin vigilantem (nominative vigilans) “watchful, anxious, careful,” from vigil “watchful, awake”.
So it all depends on what the speaker means by “vigilante”.
Eh, she’s more likely to end up as a Semper Vigilantis. that, or get questioned to see who put her on the whole “demon slaying” path. Plus we don’t know if she herself is actually a super or mythical creature, etc.
So that should at least be covered.
From her point of view, the Semper Vigilantus would be the enforcement arm of the Conspiracy she’s trying to uncover and fight. For her to want to join them, as well as for them to want her to join, she’d need to have a near-complete change of perspective. Given her current attitude, she’d be as likely to join as Chris Hansen would be to become a member of NAMBLA. And the SV would be as likely to let her join as the Simon Wiesenthal Center would be to welcome Josef Mengele.
I’ve got a feeling she might be one of Sciona’s useful idiots
Nah, because Sci-fright knows all about the Council of Evil Twilight, and so would the rest of the Alari she brought back with her
There is a good case that either the Council or ArcSwat could end up with her for trial. She kidnapped and assaulted an alien child under the care of an alien under the jurisdiction of the Council. She assaulted members of both the Council security forces and ArcSwat. She is (probably) an alien and that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Council. She acted in an area, and in a manner, where Arc has jurisdiction. And remember that ArcSwat has a seat on the council itself now. For simple convenience sake she will probably end up in the custody of the Council. She should probably be happy to NOT have ended up in the custody of Dabbler, as it sure looked like Dabs was about to do very bad things to her.
Wait, what? When did ArcSwat (or Archon at all) get a seat at the Evil Council of Evil’s Round Table of Evil? o_O
I am pretty sure that Archon has a strong working relationship with the Council of Weird Beings, but is not actually a sitting member of said Council. I am thinking this would be similar to the relationship between the DEA and city police departments in the U.S.A. The DEA has a broader geographic jurisdiction, but over a much narrower group of criminal charges, and when they plan on working in a particular police force’s geographic jurisdiction, they really should let the local cops know about their operation.
Which one would be the DEA?
Semper V would be the DEA equivalent (larger geography – worldwide, narrower laws enforced – only council species), while Archon would be closer to being the state police (narrower geography, but wider range of enforcement – any extraordinary activities).
Thank you, just wanted to be sure :)
You made me look it up.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-462-seating-arrangements/
When we first ran into the situation.
See, one of the problems with supernatural societies claiming jurisdiction and whatnot is… they’re SOCIETIES. They’re like social clubs. If you’ve spent centuries avoiding contact with other governments and the public, you don’t get to claim jurisdiction over anyone.
It’s like asking whether someone should be arrested for eating pork when that’s proscribed by both Islam and Judaism. Or whether it should be a crime to sell ice cream on Sundays to people who could be in church. Archon is really bending over backwards to be considerate of the feelings of the Council… but until and unless the Council goes public and establishes official diplomatic relations with other nations, they don’t get to claim to have power over others.
The Demonslayer is almost certainly either a citizen of the U.S. or a citizen of some other nation; if the Council demands to punish her, then that’s vigilantism at best.
This “society” enforces it’s laws on law breakers, up to and including cutting off Sciona’s head. They also probably have access to alien technology and certainly have access to magic.
So their level of power is probably up there with the typical country.
They likely have access to alien starships, so their power is probably equivalent to the power an allience of earth’s nuclear powers.
Having the power to kill threats like Sciona does not make them a government. They’re still on the same level as the unlicensed superheroes that Maxima issued an open-ended ultimatum to.
You’re still working within the system that we built (mostly) under the assumption that supernatural beings don’t exist. And that ignorance was cultivated by the Council to support less murdering.
Systems are legitimate not because they match some formal description but because they function and they don’t bother people too much. That you just realized the Council is functioning doesn’t make it less legitimate.
Prosecution in open court seems unlikely. I’m sure other government agencies would like to start recruiting superhuman talent, no one likes to have to rely on other agencies for muscle
FBI, CIA, even the Treasury maintains their own in house combat teams.
As far as I know, even the US postal service has armed forces…Including armoured vehicles.
IRS has peeps with guns.
Earli in the mornin’
demon hunter feels like it falls under the councils purview even if she’s a super
The same thing superheroes usually do with criminals.
Kill them? Only villains let them go (ie Blatman and the entire population of Arkham, his own personal army)
Put her in a gaol-cell ’till she gets charged, early in the morning?
Talk about 0 to 60, lol.
Who do you want as your first?
That massive hottie over there!
He’s taen by a metal girl even I’m afraid of. Try something… younger.
Lol
Dabbler with a Scottish accent, scary.
Due to fraternization rules, Maxima and Hiro can not have that kind of relationship.
What happens if Hiro was promoted to lt Col himself and then given half the team to command? Like O’Neill and Makepeace were both colonels on Stargate.
Then it probably be fine, and a large portion of the team would likely say “finally”.
The fraternization problem doesn’t come from the fact that they are both on the team, the problem is the power imbalance (and the potential abuses that can cause) from her out-ranking him.
The difference in rank is not at all a problem.
The problem is that he is her subordinate.
To explain another way: Hiro doesn’t need a promotion, he needs to be outside Maxima’s command chain.
Max and Hiro already had that discussion. You may have been distracted by both their states of undress at the time
least not till he rises to a high enough rank to or is moved out of her COC
Only until such a time as Archon opens an Arc Swat command elsewhere. At that time Hiro will likely become the CO there and Maxima will have to train a new XO.
would laugh my ass off if the person Dabbler is looking at in the last panel is Sidney.
huh. A bit unorthodox but if you need to introduce a teen superhero team spinoff, this could work.
But, which is Dabbler more concerned with: her mountainous body count, or her bodacious mounting count.
I see what you did there. Very nice.
personally i’d have gone with mounting body count or body mounting count, but i’m a bit of a minimalist on rare occasions.
“Mountainous body count” is the quote from the commentary… You are right that “mounting” would have given us more to work with, but she’s holding off on the killing – her mounting is mounting, but not the body of bodies or corps of corpses…
That’s just a different KIND of ‘body count’.
You can see the exact moment Tam train of though derails…. exactly like a real train would derail if it had Hiro parked directly infront of it.
I don’t think there’s any humans uh “age appropriate” at her age. She may be ready but they ain’t.
Would anyone be? Do you think The Barberian was ready for Dabbles? Or Jean Green? Or Maxi?
Believe Dabbles meant someone who wouldn’t be arrested for ‘salacious acts with a minor’
Minors are routinely prosecuted for sex offenses, taking a photo of themselves and sending it sometimes gets kids put on the sex offenders register.
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/04/04/meet-your-future-sexual-predator/
That’s because of their actions, not their age (as it should be, the ‘being prosecuted for acts’ bit)
No, it’s based strictly on their age; the identical action would be perfectly legal if they were eighteen. The nominal rationale for laws against child pornography is to protect children from abuse and exploitation, and if an adult is exploiting a minor, I’m fine with punishing that adult. I’m even fine with punishing a minor who is clearly exploiting another minor. But what I think is insane is punishing a minor for “exploiting” him/herself. How can someone lack the maturity to consent, yet simultaneously possess the maturity to face criminal liability? (Especially when, as Jp points out, that conviction can put them on sex offenders’ registry for years or even a lifetime.) It gets even more insane when you consider that the age of consent in many jurisdictions is less than eighteen. So, two seventeen year olds in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is sixteen can legally have consensual sex, but if they take any pictures, they’re guilty of producing child porn. (And if they share the picture(s) with any of their friends, they’re guilty of distribution, and the friends are guilty of possession.)
I’m far from convinced that a little teen sexting is a huge problem, but even if it is, involving the police and courts strikes me as the worst possible solution.
Thank you for explaining that
Thought the ‘being put on sex offenders registry’ was because of what they did
The letter of the law also varies depending on what country you live in of course. I assume you’re talking about the USA.
Sex offender laws are generally state level in the United States, so to find out you have to look up the state statutes.
The example that I think of is someone getting drunk at Mardi Gras in New Orleans and peeing in an alley. He could then be arrested for exposing himself and put onto a sex offender list for life.
My take on it is, “it might be kiddie porn, but to a kiddie, it’s porn”. NO WAY am I convicting someone of selfies. Now, on someone’s phone who is not a minor and not immediatly deleted, that’s a different matter.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have STUPID laws because we have STUPID LAWMAKERS. A US congressman literally asked a marine general if putting more marines on the island of guam would cause it to tip over. I’m not sure whether to be more shocked that a congressman could be dumb enough to ask that, or that the marine general managed to keep a straight face while saying he didnt anticipate that happening. If you want less moronic laws, then vote for less moronic congressmen. The current average IQ in congress would embarrass a poodle.
“The current average IQ in congress … Er, “in congress” with what?
“The current average IQ in congress …” Er, “in congress” with what?
“First, let us suppose you are an idiot. Secondly, let us suppose you are a congressman…but I repeat myself.” – Mark Twain
Most states, including Texas, have “Romeo and Juliet” clauses in their statutory rape laws that negate the offense as long as both parties are minors and/or are within a year in age at the time of the sexual contact. That still wouldn’t get Dabbler off the hook for solicitation though.
Yeah, because setting someone up on a date is solicitationing, or playing ‘match maker’ for your friend(s) makes you a pimp
Only true if money or material goods is part of the equation.
Inducing a person to do anything is solicitation, regardless of the monetary value of the inducement. The fact that it wouldn’t be illegal for Tam to have sex with someone her own age doesn’t mean it’s not solicitation for an adult to set her up. I didn’t say anything about prostitution.
An introduction is not inducing the expectation that sexual activity would have to be stated.
Nobody ever said it is.
Introductions are not inductions… Or inducements…
The Law is an Ass. *
* From a play published by the English dramatist George Chapman in 1654 – Revenge for Honour:
“Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle… For doing deeds of nature! I’m ashamed. The law is such an ass.“
And that’s just ONE reason why succubi are a fucked up race! wooo
Uh… Considering what the average age for that kind of experimentation was in my town- *coughs* Yeah; it was probably chock full of succubi
That is a nice ‘stupid sexy heroes’ expression Aranae is making, no wonder Tamatha got distracted.
That glare itself almost counts as being assault in and of itself……
+1
Well you got to admit Hiro is definitely the equivalent of a nuke in barrel full of fish for teenage succubi. Probably the equivalent of dabbler doing jumping jacks once she noticed him. https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-281-the-power-of-the-grrls/
You have to wonder when Halo stopped noticing it.
Probably here.
Or a few pages prior.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-524-importinent-questions/
Although subsequent experiments with Frix could cause her to reconsider.
180 years × 365 days, assume three sexual partners per day on average = 197,100 partners, assuming each act was with a unique individual.
Yes, it’s probably not quintuple digits, but sex-tuple. Pun definitely intended.
Especially if you understand what the old word “tupping” actually means. It’s the word for a ram copulating with a ewe. (Or for you city kids, a boy sheep having sex with a girl sheep. )
Or a Scots lad having sex with an Irish sheep :P
[Aberdeen accent]
“Wi’ an Irish sheep? Whit kin’ o’ pervert dae ye ‘hink ah am?”
[/Aberdeen accent]
tupping = topping ie ram tops the ewe.
There’s no indication that tupping is derived from topping. Tup is a very old English word for a male sheep or ram, dating back at least 600 years.
Including infancy/childhood? Tone it down a bit, cob’.
This reminds me of The Good Place (the ethics stuff, not the weird chilli):
https://youtu.be/2c-AawAKZ14
You know, she could have just said this from the start.
Not that I mind getting lore, but in this situation it makes FAR more sense to just say “No, demons are not evil. We have some temptations to DO evil that many other races don’t have, but we aren’t inherently evil ourselves” and just leave it at that. Turning it into a long lecture that, in the end, doesn’t answer the original question unless summarized like this, just wastes everyone’s time and patience in the end.
It’s quite possible (if not straight probable) the ‘info-dump’ was as much for Aranea’s benefit (and the rest of the Peanut gang) as it was for Tammy’s
No… Random’s got a point. This could have been done as an info dump in a separate section. You wouldn’t even need any art, just the text. This kind of “telling, not showing” is slowing down the story. It’s good to know this stuff… but we want to see how things progress with the characters…
“This kind of “telling, not showing” is slowing down the story.” …. And this is different from most of Grrl Power how?
+5
Re: Random Wanderer’s post regarding the “info dump”
This is also sort of Dabbler’s personality though, to play teacher and show off her knowledge. Perhaps DaveB could have shortened it into one page like the “Info Corner” pages, but I’m sure he had his reasons for doing it.
Having Dabbler derail into info-dump mode also provides a bigger distraction to stop her and Pixel arguing over jurisdiction, whereas cutting straight to the summary may still have left their tempers up. That is of course an off-page justification rather than on-page: whether Tamatha would have picked up on that aspect at the time, and/or whether it would have been a major motivator for her if so, is a separate question.
The wat Tamatha stared at Hiro makes one to ask,”just how old is she?”
In hyu-mon or succubae years?
Even pre-ten hyu-mons react in similar ways (well, once they figure that whole junk out first, some remain impervious until well into their thirties, or later)
About fourteenish.
Which is old enough for girls who DON’T have succubus super-puberty to find guys like Hiro hot.
Half expected Dabbler to start seducing Tamatha there, the way they appear to be looking at each other in panel 6 implies…. things…. are going to happen, before we cut to shirtless Hiro, at least.
I think dabler is arguing a means Rhea defense of sorts or a misdemeanor vs. Felony argument.
it is always interesting that the crusades are brought up as one of the high points of human evil, is seldom mentioned that the crusades or a counter offensives against the rise of Islam in the post classical world.
if this is surprising or offends please feel free to look up the actual history by date you might be surprised.
Oh the children’s crusade tell just plain stupid!
Why not use something at tad more recent the Mao great leap forward & cultural revolution, the Soviet starvation and Gulag archipelago, Hitler and the final solution, me Turkish genocide of Armenia, Pol pot and The killing Fields, Japan rape of Nanking.
The terror has brought you by Robespierre The incorruptible?
Meet pernicious institution of slavery in the United States (300000 Union Dead to end that)
Human history is replete was tragic and evil stories. Iaxiomatic
Yes, because slavery was the reason for the unCivil War, and that only Union forces died, or that it ended slavery (you are aware that even Lincoln had slaves of his own, right?)
Citation needed on Lincoln. I’m not finding anything.
No, his wife did.
and yes I know he said that “if i can save the union by freeing….” that is not material that the bight of slavery was removed and the most practical abolitionist was those that fired on Ft.
Where the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy brave and fighting for a there nation, yes did the Confederacy declare ware on the United States by Attacking the Ft. Sumter yes. Before you make the claim that Ft. Sumter was in the Confederacy, the Spanish still claim Gibraltar Island as part of Spain and if they were to start shelling the British forces there.. there would be war.
One of the simplest proposals I’ve come across for abolishing slavery in antebellum America was to just buy them all. (From an 1844 presidential candidate, who was assassinated several months before the election)
Haven’t ever found documentation of specifics or counter-arguments, but I imagine straight pay at market rate wouldn’t have been sufficient for the owners because of the perpetual cost to replace free labor with paid labor. But at least on the surface it seems viable.
I suppose on a moral standpoint, a possible concern basically comes from compensating people for enslavement of others, perhaps not unlike paying a kidnapper to release hostages. The obvious difference would be that slavery was different at the time whereas kidnapping is more often not legal.
On the other hand though, would slaveowners even be willing to go along with that? Allowing the government to simply buy something (or something) you own as a way to compensate you for the loss is not likely to sit will with quite a few people. Again it’s a very different issue, but the firearm buybacks proposed in recent years have gotten no end of guff for example.
I suppose compensated emancipation would be a bit like eminent domain seizure of critical real estate for public use – the needs of the many would outweigh the needs of the few, but fair compensation is required to make it an equitable acquisition rather than theft or persecution. Once the legal process is complete, the original owners’ objections and ownership are overruled and the property belongs to the government.
Programs like a firearms buyback on the other hand cannot be mandatory so long as ownership is legal.
Compensating slave-owners for their release was the way the British eventually went about it. There were purists who pushed for straight confiscation, but Parliament realised that a compensated approach had more chance of being more successful more quickly even if it meant getting their metaphorical hands dirty.
https://www.history.com/news/how-many-u-s-presidents-owned-slaves
Ummmm Lincoln did not own slaves.
You sure? Thought he had a child with one of his black
slaveshired workersSounds like you’ve got him confused with Jefferson.
I interpreted it not as the specific (capital-letter) Dark Ages and Crusades but (lower-case) dark ages and crusades in general, of which we have indeed seen enough examples as you have mentioned.
The Crusades were not a defensive action. Islam at the time was a far less violent religion than Christianity. Under Islamic rule other religions were tolerated but not under Christian rule. And I doubt the people living in lands ravaged by war as it was fought back then cared what religion their rapists, murderers and robbers had. No the Crusades were pretty much wholesale slaughter excused by the church for political reasons.
“Less violent”, when people of said religion spent that last few centuries conquering their way into Christian held lands. The crusades were only kicked off cause the Islamic states were knocking on Constantinople’s door and the Byzantine emperor asked for help.
Sure Islamic rule was more tolerant, but don’t forget their centuries of wars of aggression, that came with the pillaging and enslaving and killing wars entailed.
Well, that, and because they up and decided to stop permitting pilgrimages to the holy lands.
The arab rulers -not the religion, but the political bodies- were aggressive expansionists at that time. The first cruisade was originally called to reinforce the city Constantinople that was under siege by arab forces. But it derailed almost immediately as the european recruiters warped the original mission with promises of fame, fortune and divine blessing.
Constantinople was the 4th Crusade 1201 – 1204 AD
First Crusade ended in 1099AD
There is historical argument against your position
https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades
https://isi.org/intercollegiate-review/four-myths-about-the-crusades/
http://hnn.us/articles/1178.html
Constantinople was sacked in the Fourth Crusade, but the first one was called by the Pope in response to the Byzantine Emperor asking for help since the neighboring Islamic Empire had gotten uncomfortably close to Constantinople.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsQrKZcYtqg
Ah yes, the means rhea defense: Any crime is excusable if you use a large flightless South American bird to commit it.
Nice catch was using google voice shroud have noticed. (and good pun of sorts)
Mens Rea. As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness. A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element.
I don’t know about the Crusades being “defensive”. They killed an awful lot of peasants for the crime of being in the way.
I hit enter too soon I do agree whole heartedly with it’s not what you are or what you look like it’s what you do.
See speech by Chamberlain in the movie Gettysburg for a wonderful example.
Puritanical standards aside, there is nothing inherently immoral about consensual sex, which I want to say MOST of Dabbler’s sexual history would be. Granted, that still leaves probably a good 4 digits worth of more questionable encounters (some degree of mind-whammying, less than perfectly informed consent, using an enemy as ’emergency rations’ in a combat situation, etc etc)
You bring up a good point about dabbler’s sex magic. Technically, because she can make someone WANT to have sex with her, we can no longer accept someone’s word on whether they actually wanted to have sex with her. Because she can emotionally roofie anyone in the world (except a few supers probably) with sex magic to make them want to have sex with her, ALL her sex would be considered rape. There would be no way to prove she didn’t just brainwash/gaslight/mindrape/seduce/magic her victims, and because her victims would not only consent, but enthusiastically consent, it essentially destroys any way for her to have ANY consensual sex with a human.
So, because her powers of seduction are so strong, we get to a point where we must consider whether it should be allowed to seduce someone, to make them want to have sex with you, to convince them to have sex with you.
If it is morally or ethically or legally wrong to use means natural to your body (as sex magic is to succubi, or tits to humans, or money for men, or words as is natural for everyone) to seduce or convince others to have sex with you, then every time dabbler has sex is a crime, and moreover most times HUMANS have sex it is a crime.
Under this scenario where no one is allowed to convince anyone to have sex with them using any means at all, the only sex that would happen is two adults would have to walk up to each other say “I want to have sex with you” and when the other person says no, walk away never to see them again. Or perhaps go to a building, sign a waiver that says you agree to consent to seduction, and go seduce each other like normally while on the premises.
But, there is another option here.
If we decide that it should be okay for a man with huge muscles to flex, to attempt to draw in a willing partner, if we decide that using money to seduce someone should be allowed, if we decide that showing cleavage is acceptable in society to attract a mate, if we deem it reasonable that people should be able to talk to each other to woo or seduce or convince each other to have sex, then it is a natural extension that dabbler should be able to use her tits, her words, her muscles, her money and technology to seduce others as well. This means that 90% of her magic, short of straight “mind control” should be allowed. Because whats the difference between tits and magic tits? Tits of a certain kind are going to get at least 25% of the male population horny, and magic tits are going to get about 90% of the male population horny. If it’s okay to use your tits to get someone horny, then it has to be okay to use BETTER tits to get someone horny. Hell, 90% of the time she uses a glamour to look human, so her entire BODY is magical at that point. Since her magic is natural to her, could be considered technology, or is innate to her body, then it is no different than Deus walking into a bar, ripping his shirt off, buying everyone 100 dollar bottles of alcohol, and dancing in a corner. Thats going to seduce someone, and in dabbler’s case it would seduce almost everyone.
It becomes a question of scale, efficiency or efficacy. She is just more effective at seduction than every one else.
You’re courting a very dangerous line there. Arousal does NOT equal consent, and that’s an important distinction because that defense comes up sometimes in rape trials.
Similarly, someone who is totally smashed cannot give meaningful consent, someone getting a whole bunch of people really drunk before trying to seduce them is not OK either.
Bear in mind that, assuming nothing was added to the beverages without your knowledge or consent, becoming blackout drunk is considered giving advance consent. You may not have chosen to do things while inebriated, but you chose to BECOME inebriated while fully aware of what might happen. This is why, when you wake up in a jail cell with a bad hangover, you don’t get to have the charges against you dismissed because “I was too drunk to know what I was doing.”
(This is also why the minimum drinking age in the U.S. is 21. Teenagers are already impulsive and immature enough due to their rapidly changing biochemistry, without adding intoxication into the mix)
That being said, you’re completely correct about how Dabbler’s powers do NOT rob anyone of their ability to give consent. Only a few people in the comic have actually had sex with her during the course of the storyline – her coworkers keep it in their pants, and she’s even been shot down more than once when she propositions them.
This is of doubtful accuracy. You appear to be mixing up consent and intent.
It is not true that getting drunk implies consent to anything. A very drunk person does not have the mental capacity to consent to sex (or to any other act that requires consent). Sex with drunk girls is rape, unless they consented when sober.
However, if you get drunk, then commit a rape, you cannot claim that drunkenness is an excuse. You know that you may do wrong things while drunk. You chose to get drunk regardless of that. That makes you guilty of any wrong you did whiole drunk.
>(This is also why the minimum drinking age in the U.S. is 21. Teenagers are already impulsive and immature enough due to their rapidly changing biochemistry, without adding intoxication into the mix)
No, it’s because the Federal government will refuse to fund road maintenance if your state lets teenagers drink, thanks to campaigning by MADD (Mothers Against Drink-Driving).
Also WTF is that crap about ‘convincing’ people to have sex with you? If someone want to have sex with you, they will let you know.
However hot your dance moves are or however much you practise your pickup lines, that person didn’t magically decide they wanted to have sex tonight. They either came here looking for sex, decided of their own volition that it was something they wanted, or yes – what you did was rape.
“Decided of their own volition that it was something they wanted” after perhaps considering arguments or… benefits presented by the other party. Hence the convincing.
You can definitely convince people to have sex with you without it being a coercive action.
Do you seriously think that people can’t be convinced of things? Damn dude, you cray
You make a convincing argument.
Swap the wording to “persuade” instead of “convince”, if that helps to imply a more open starting point. Not defying the other person’s wishes, but helping them to change a ‘maybe’ to a ‘yes’ and/or ‘with someone to be confirmed’ to ‘with this one’.
On one hand, establishing what counts as consent in context od Dabler’s powers is definitely not easy task. On the other, she can’t really “turn it off”. Well, something, but not everything, and she can’t PROVE she turned it off. And she needs sex to LIVE. So insisting that she is not allowed to have sex because any consent she gets is questionable is not only mean, it’s dead sentence. And with whole species this applies to, genocide.
Also, our laws about sex are already questionable even for humans. People who did nothing wrong being prosecuted, actual sexual predators getting away with it. Maybe we shouldn’t pretend to be authority on subject, when there is option to have someone considerably more qualified.
” consent to seduction” Oxymo9ron, if is agreed to be consensual, then it cannot be seduction, Which from my perspective is rape. INMHO ( sorry for the redundancy)
Seduction simply means convincing by means of making a proposition appear desirable.
Whether it is sex or some other end seduction is not coercion.
↑This!↑[ ×4 ]
Here’s the thing: we can’t prove consent in our world, because it’s an internal state that’s not directly observable. No matter what someone may do in order to express or grant consent, they could have been coerced into doing so, and we cannot prove otherwise.
Interpersonal interactions are a guessing game for all parties. What’s unfortunate is that we’ve put the penalties for guessing wrong in the same ballpark as the penalties for intentionally harming someone, as a result of a long history of responding to problems without thinking them through.
AIUI, “assault with a deadly weapon” can include all sorts of assault that have a good likelihood of causing death. That can include curbstomping, a full-on attack by someone skilled in krav maga, or throwing someone onto the ground—none of which even involve a “weapon” per se.
Dave, I read your Tamer book. It was great! Very much in tone with the series, I liked and connected with the characters. Well done man.
Most video game “heroes” as serious mass murderers. And most RPG “heroes” are little more than murder hobos that roam around killing things and taking their stuff.
That depends entirely on the genre.
… Nope, pretty much every game and genre
Dead wrong.
I Game mastered Champions for more than twenty years and played a couple dozen Superhero Role Playing Games.
Theft or random violence are punished in those games, and characters who are not actively looking for people to rescue and good deeds to do advance slowly, if at all. Characters may not keep and use equipment taken, and experience is not awarded based on body count.
It still happens though, right? Whether they get punished or not doesn’t stop it from happening, or they wouldn’t be punished for doing it
As I’ve argued previously, the number of people Dabbler has killed by acts of omission just on Earth, during her relatively short stay here, make any of her other actions rather pale in comparison from a moral standpoint. That her justification for the thing she actively did isn’t terribly coherent either is not surprising.
Anyone with money beyond “just barely surviving” has probably killed at least one person by omission, so that’s a pretty odd argument to lay just on Dabbler.
The real question is do Dabbler’s ears change color? They’re purple in panel three.
14 year old me definitely sympathizes with her in panel 7.
Adult me is like “Yeah, great, they’re hot, but do they have a bearable personality??”
I don’t think Succubi needs to care about personality, no matter their age.
Hiro could get a shirt on. Dabbler could just teleport in one. But of course that won’t happen. Hiro’s main role is to be shirtless.
Anyone else think Tamatha is just totally adorable? I just want to sit her on my lap and hug her til she feels better.
And that, children, is how Uncle Rory ended up on the Sex Offenders Register …
:D
+9
First you kill nazis, then you kill fascists, then you kill racists, then you kill people who do business with racists, then you kill people who talk to racists, then you kill anyone who tells you to stop killing. Next thing you know you are building killing factories, with industrial sized gas chambers and industrial sized incinerators so you can kill as efficiently as possible.
Replace the word “kill” with “hate”, or “allow killing of”, the result is the same. Hate is hate. There is no such thing as hating the right people.
I like you.
Interesting point but, now hear me out here: Screw Nazis.
They are human garbage that committed one of the worst atrocities in history and those that prescribe to their philosophy still want to.
All things considered, the Nazis got off light with just being hated and having their ideology banned in a few nations after being beaten.
It’s perfectly fine to hate people that want to kill you for the crime of being born a certain way.
The Nazis atrocities were bad but comparatively less that those of the Soviets or the Communist Chinese or the Khmer Rouge, and certainly less barbaric than the actions of Japanese Empire which appalled even their Nazi allies.
And.
None of that was new.
During the nineteenth century, the Swedes killed one third of the Poles. The genetic trace of the Mongol raping hordes can be traced throughout Asia and Europe through the genetic study of graves prior and subsequent to their conquest.
What the Nazis did was to meticulously document their atrocities so thoroughly that there was no way to completely erase the evidence. Upon seeing the Camps Eisenhower was so incensed that her ordered the liberation and conditions of the prisoners filmed, the camps and burial of the dead filmed, and then bundled that with the German’s own documentation and had it widely disseminated to ensure that it was not forgotten.
The Nazis became synonymous with evil not because they had an unprecedented level of evil, but because they proudly recorded their own evil so thoroughly.
Especially given Eugenics was legal AND PRACTICED in a hell of a lot of countries until the late 60s. Someone from my hometown was one of the last people to be forcibly sterilized by the Provincial Government because she happened to be part of an “unwanted ethnicity”. Yes, you read that that. It happened in CANADA.
Honestly, a big part of what got the Nazis in deep shit is the fact they tried to force their own ideologies onto other countries, rather than letting them choose them. Doesn’t mean the world back in the 40s anywhere wasn’t an insensitive amoral shithole by today’s standards.
Good point.
“The Nazis atrocities were bad but comparatively less that those of the Soviets or the Communist Chinese or the Khmer Rouge”
I don’t care.
“The Nazis became synonymous with evil not because they had an unprecedented level of evil”
Also completely missing the point.
***
I never claimed that the Nazis were the be-all-end-all of bad groups. I’m claiming that it’s perfectly fine to hate people that willingly prescribe to a philosophy dedicated to the eradication of races they deem “inferior”.
And that this hatred does not in fact make you just as bad as Nazis. (As Bug was not so subtly insinuating.)
You’re missing the point. If you declare that it’s okay to not only hate people associated with a certain ideology, but also to commit violence against them… where does it end? ESPECIALLY since many people attacked for being “nazis” were in fact nothing of the sort. In one case it was a young man of low IQ (literally, he had the mind of a child) who was kidnapped and tortured by people who actually posted it online because they were proud to be doing such things to a supposed “Trump supporter.” In another, several U.S. servicemen of hispanic descent were accused of being skinheads (And by accused, I mean “they’re light skinned and their heads are shaved START PUNCHING!”)
Especially since the actual motivation of the Nazis was that they wanted to make the world a better place. They sincerely and genuinely believed that killing undesirable persons and spreading their regime would make the world better. And if you were against that, then they understood that to mean you were the villains (after all, they were trying to make the world a better place – and you’re against that, you horrible monster).
So… yeah. If you think that hate and violence against a specific group is justified, then yes you ARE just as bad as the nazis. You want to stop modern bigots and supremacists, you do it with logical arguments, empathy, and appeals to reason. But you don’t throw the first punch. Ever.
“If you declare that it’s okay to not only hate people associated with a certain ideology”
I said it was okay to hate people who willingly prescribe to that ideology.
Like these scumbags: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/10/10/world/09Daily/09Daily-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale
Not to randomly beat on people who you think might have a vague association.
“where does it end?”
At people who emphatically proclaim their desire to wipe out all races they deem “inferior” and that currently commit the largest amount of domestic terrorism in America.
“So… yeah. If you think that hate and violence against a specific group is justified, then yes you ARE just as bad as the nazis.”
Judging people by their actions and words is not the same as being a racist. (I.E. Judging people because of their skin color or racial heritage.)
“You want to stop modern bigots and supremacists, you do it with logical arguments, empathy, and appeals to reason.”
If they cared about that kind of thing, they wouldn’t be Nazis.
Slavery in US wasn’t ended with “logical arguments” and we didn’t push the KKK into obscurity by debating them.
Both of these were accomplished with a combination of outlawing their activities, violence(most of the time in defense against them), public shunning of their views, and/or running them out of places where they spew their propaganda.
And, yes, all of this was driven by quite a large amount of hatred and contempt for them.
***
It has been shown that historically speaking, the best way to deal with violent fascists with a predilection towards murder is to forcibly drive them into obscurity, not to debate them. Because words do very little in the face of violence.
It’s also telling how none of you have responded to HKMaly, who rightly pointed out that: “Killing nazis is self-defense because they would kill you.”
But even though you know Nazis would doubtlessly kill people if they thought they could get away with it, you sill advocate for talking to them for some inane reason.
Hate is an irrational response, hate only hurts the haters.
Hate is a perfectly rational response in the face of unabashed bigotry, especially when aimed specifically at you, your family, or friends.
It’s just that, like all emotions, you can’t let it completely consume you.
Need any more lube for that slippery slope you’re making?
Killing nazis is self-defense because they would kill you.
Ah, genocide as pre-emptive self defense – pretty high burden of proof to claim that in court as an individual, especially when escalated to actual murder.
It’s good to be disgusted by the Nazis. They were disgusting, and a blot on human history.
However, it’s dangerous to focus on the Nazis, as if they were the summit of evil. Many other regimes were just as evil, just as cruel to their own folk or to other folk. Or both. History runs red with them, whether they killed tens or hundreds or thousands or millions.
Many of them live today. Yes, hate the Nazis for what they did in the 1930s and 40s, but look around you today. Who are today’s Nazis?
Will your grandson hate the GOPs for what The Leader Trump did in the 2020s?
You are
judgingcondemning Trump for something that hasn’t even happenedAll those white nationalists and curropt officials he has either put into positions of power or pardoned would disagree.
Look at the history of 1930s Germany, and Hitler’s discussion of the Big Lie in “Mein Kampf” He was discussing his opponents “Big Lie”, but he used the idea well later.
In essence, if you lie often enough, after a while people come to believe that there must be some truth in what you say. Because the lie fits the lies that they tell themselves, what they want to be true.
Mr. Drumpf’s grandson knows this very, very well.
What does what Hitler did have to do with what Trump hasn’t done? o_O
It might seem contradictory, but it turns out that a generally tolerant ideology must be intolerant of one thing: Intolerance. If intolerance is tolerated, if it is not challenged and called out for what it is at the very least, then the intolerant ideology can grow rapidly, and will attack a tolerant ideology as soon as it has the strength to challenge it.
Hating Nazis doesn’t mean turning into them. Nazis are defined by their own credo of hatred. It’s perfectly OK to judge someone based on their choices and actions. Same with other hate groups. Having negative feelings towards them has no ethical ramifications.
But once again we come up on choices: choosing to take illegal actions against someone because they belong to a hate group would itself be unethical. The tolerant ideology has to tread its path much more carefully than the intolerant one, while being careful to not allow the intolerant ideology to grow unchallenged.
That’s the thing: hate the ideology, not the ideologist
Ideologists spread it though and are pretty scummy about it all the while.
Yes, if a man deliberately lies, to spread an ideology of hate, it seems reasonable to hate him too.
I Keep seeing a video that someone made, pretending to show a street in Dublin, Ireland. It’s Neo-Nazi propaganda, so the video is full of people who look like They are from the Middle East
It’s not Dublin. It’s not even any place in Europe. But some Neo-Nazi shit posted it, to make people scared that “Muslims are taking over Europe”.
The same thing is happening in the USA, with fake videos and fake news.
I hate people who do this, just as much as I hate their ideology.
Then you counter the ideology, spread the truth, so that people can see that the idiot is saying lies
If you attack the person directly, you are just playing into their stupidity and hatred: “All I was doing was talking, and they put me in hospital. They must have been afraid I was getting too close to the truth and they wanted to silence me!”
If you counter hate with hate, all you are doing is perpetuating and spreading more hate
“Then you counter the ideology, spread the truth, so that people can see that the idiot is saying lies”
Agreed.
“If you attack the person directly, you are just playing into their stupidity and hatred”
Some- No, let’s be honest, a lot bigots do or support really shitty things that are deserving of personal attack. Like spewing bigotry about minorities, voicing support of violent criminals, excusing pedophiles, etc etc.
As it turns out, most people would rather believe a lie that serves their interests than a truth that doesn’t.
Then that’s on them, you did your part by spreading the truth, no perpetuating hate and violence
Absolutley love Xuriel’s face in panel 3.
“Despite her mountainous body count, Dabbler considers herself a good person. Not a saint, certainly, but she firmly believes her actions make the universe a better place. ”
As does nearly every Global-level bad-guy in history…
And every non-suicidal hero in history…
There’s a book you should check out, “A Hereditary Book on the Art of War” by Yagyū Munenori. He was a samurai and the martial arts instructor to the Shoganate. The book (written from the point of view of a teacher to rulers and leaders) starts with discussing the value of killing in order to protect: “If one person is harming and oppressing thousands, then killing that one person will bring life to their victims. Thus, the sword that kills can also be the sword that brings life.”
The next part is about the importance of avoiding conflict when possible. Including a wonderful analogy when he compares common folk to the feet. “Are the feet any less a part of the body just because they’re farther away from the head than the hands?” Along with a stern warning about sycophants who oppress the people in the rulers’ name, and how the people will (rightly) blame the ruler for the actions done by their underlings, even if the ruler didn’t know about it (so “plausible deniability” just means “I’m either lying, or stupid. Either way, I am at fault.”).
It really is a wonderful read – and MUCH better than Musashi’s “Book of Five Rings.”
Someone more age apropirate?
How old is Noel again??
You’ve pointed to 2 instances of people being nutjobs and extrapolated that people hating Nazis will lead to wholesale slaughter of disagreeable people (if that’s not what you’re saying then please clarify). But let me ask you, if hate is going to so quickly and so inevitably lead to mass murder and lynchings, why are there still Nazis running around? Ten minutes on Google and you could probably find a group who supports Nazi ideals within an hours drive, I know I can. So, why can I? Why hasn’t someone gone and gunned them down yet?
Because it’s illegal. Sounds simple I know, but that’s what keeps a society from sliding down the slippery slope like you suggest. You haven’t provided any sources but I guarantee you’ll find that the people responsible for that kidnapping and those beatings were searched for by the police, possibly found and prosecuted for their crimes. Hating and refusing to tolerate someone is not the same as murdering them and is definitely not guarenteed to lead to murder.
To make my point more clear: Where does it end? It ends where the law says it does, and I personally think it’s at a decent spot with Nazis at the moment.
Sorry if this is incoherent, I’m on my phone and I’m not the best at expressing what I mean to say.
Also ‘they thought they were the good guys’ is as bullshit as ‘from a certain point of view’.
Damnit that went to the wrong comment. I don’t suppose anyone knows how I can delete this? Or even if i can?
Seeing as I’ve already plagued your comment I’ll at least try to answer your question. I have no idea who Noel is but I’ll assume you either mispelt Joel or Leon, and while I don’t think either of their ages have been stated, Joel is old enough to co-own a business and Leon is old enough that him dating Sydney wouldn’t be weird, so I’d say neither are age appropriate.
Lol, Tam’s first line in panel 1….
Same thing the rest of us have been saying over the past several pages. And many pages in the past, and likely many pages to come. Ah well, still quite entertaining.
Moral absolutism doesn’t imply that one must condemn actions like killing somebody to stop them from killing many people. Strict deontology gives you that, and it is a type of moral absolutism, but one does not need to endorse that brand of idiocy to avoid being morally relativist. A more teleological viewpoint can still apply the same rules everywhere without those rules being so ridiculously overspecified as to be usually wrong.
Yeah, lots of moral absolutists of history have thought there were people who needed killing. Some have even been right.
So, odd question but is Dabbler a bigot or a “racist” for lack of a better term? Cause in the 3rd panel she definitely seems to be implying that she finds her species to be superior. However it is decidedly hard to quantify these perspectives from one life form to the next as the shared sense or normalcy would fluctuate between species
Claiming the group you are in is better than all others is intrinsic human (and I´m guessing demon) nature, and when kept level headed, quite fun.
I think she is just having a lark.
Plus, it’s how you treat others, the ones inferior to you, that matters, not simply how you view them
Speciest!
Acacnid-woman strikes me as misguided, perhaps a bit of deprogramming would be in order.
At Dabbler’s age that’s roughly 60,000 days of potential *activities*. For unique partners to be quintuple digits then that’s one new partner every 6 days, which seems like an entirely reasonable number considering her disposition.
> Sometimes Nazis, the Covenant, Rage Virus Zombies, rabid marauding goblins, and sex traffickers need killing.
You forgot people who talk in theater.
And Westboro Baptists.
A tiny cult with their own little book of sacred text spouting out whatever their unlamented fruitcake leader thought would offend the most people on any particular day?
They just needed the press to quit giving them a forum and they would have evaporated within a few years.
Watch the movie “God Bless America”. The name of the movie turned me off for years, but it’s directed by Bobcat Goldthwait, so it’s safe. For people like me. Maybe you? Either way, it’s valid as to your statement.
She should probably wait until her Bat Mitzvah.
You mean the age (which she likely already reached) or the formality?
booooooooh !
I think at this point every time I read Grrl Power, I’ll have the same thing in my head. I’m not broken.
Now that is a catchy song (you should try the 10 hour version of the original copy :D )
Yeah, I didn’t know about it and then Yorp yorped my yorpage, and now that’s a thing in my head.
Yes I’ve listened to the 10 hour version, at least 3 full times. In a row. Yes I went to sleep listening to it and woke up still doing so, and it was background while I was gaming, with the game’s own music off and that on.
Depending on when Yorp yorped you with that song, it’s possible that it was me who first yorped that on Yorpie
It most definitely doesn’t need any music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAtqjt4zhpo
I’m curious about what the demon hunter is, it would be interesting if it turned out she was a type of demon that someone had captured and trained to think she was a meta-human that hunted demons.
Interesting. I always considered ‘bad’ to be a lesser form of evil. Murder = evil (super bad). Cutting in line = bad (lesser evil).
Seems her definition of ‘bad’ is as stated in the comic’s commentary. Stuff that is viewed as evil but isn’t or something you should try to avoid in standard conditions.
When I think of Dabbler being bad, I think of it as something involving a spanking.
Every once in a while bits of odd grammar show up. “I want to go to there”, instead of “I want to go there”, for instance. “You know I do”, instead of “you know I must”.
English as a second language? Or just nobody proof reading?
Ummmm. First, read Dave’s liner notes, the first line is a dead giveaway…
“I want to go to there” has an explicit preposition. However, the preposition in “I want to go there” is missing, presumed understood.
On the other hand, “You know I must” incorporates an element of compulsion. The word “must” indicates an external influence, as does the word “shall”. BUT, “You know I do” says no such thing. What do I do? Has it been mentioned in this conversation?
English as a second language? Yes definitely. Sadly, our native language is no longer taught rigorously in schools, as many of us like to save the money that would otherwise be spent paying the teaching staff. Just because we speak the world’s most difficult language is obviously no (good) reason to teach it properly in schools.
BTW, just ask any teacher who has come back from an exchange arrangement in Australia: Aussies do pay teachers better. Not really enough, but for sure better.
Proof reading… Is that what I should do before I hit “Post Comment” instead of after?
Did you watch the YouTube clip explaining ‘I want to go to there’?
If you mean the one Dave linked, then it’s not explaining.
It explained where he got it from, and that it wasn’t a typo or error on his behalf
In high school, I read “The Notebook of Lazarus Long” by Robert Heinlein, a collection of sayings that Heinlein attributed to his character Lazarus Long. One saying was that sin is causing unnecessary harm to others, and that causing unnecessary harm to self wasn’t a sin, just stupidity. I thought that was a good definition, and a good standard against which to judge my actions. It took me a while to come up with a definition of evil that incorporated that, but I came up with: Evil is causing unnecessary harm to others for personal benefit (pleasure, profit, ego, etc.) So when Dabbler says you can be bad without being evil, and she is a succubus who feeds on others’ energy, I assume she means not to take so much energy as to harm the other person, or perhaps to offer something in return if taking any energy would cause some harm.
Hmm, does her feeding on sexual energy actually harm anyone? I’m pretty sure Max would keep her on a much tighter leash if it did (and she totally can do that).
Depends on how much she feeds on, remember how drained The Barberian was, and how he said he would need a couple days to ‘recover’
Okay, the sexual energy itself probably would hurt them getting drained, the act of producing said energy on the other hoof…
I like Granny Weathervax definition of evil “Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.”