Grrl Power #842 – Legal xeno
I put a little thought into Lorlara’s name. It’s a bit like Arabic names that recount lineage. For example, Alexander Siddig’s full name (Dr. Bashir on DS9) is Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderrahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi. That’s fucking tight. I’d love to see him use his full name in some show.
Anyway, Alari names, at least the nobles and general upper crust, recount not only lineage but house. “Ora” means “of house” and “zar/zvar” indicates whether the recounted ancestor was a matriarch or patriarch. There are other particles to indicate if your progenitor was lowborn or knighted or whatever. “Xe” just means “and I am.” So if you’re being super informal, or your lineage has been properly established, you can just say “Xe Lorlara” i.e. “I’m Lorlara.”
Maxima doesn’t speak a word of Alar, BTW, unlike what some people were speculating. I’m not sure where she would have picked it up.
I do wonder how it would go down if an alien race wanted to start a colony on Earth. It’s not like there’s a unified body that would have any real say about it. The UN is the closest thing, but really the nation hosting the new colony would have the lion’s share of input. I think a major deciding factor would be if the aliens decided to settle in a wealthy country that all the other countries wanted to maintain trade relationships with or not. In the case of them landing in some backwater that’s barely recognized by the UN like Galytn… honestly, I think there might be some super aggressive invitations from other countries to come for a tour before the put down roots – if not a straight up invasion or some sort of CIA/SVR RF (apparently the thing that came after the KGB)/Chinese MSS/etc aided political turnover.
The thing that’s throwing a big ol’ wrench in the usual playbooks is Galytn’s curiously effective military. Effective due to an usual density of supers. Something that might support Deus’s claim about the Galytn’s overall super population. That or he’s just hired a shitload of super powered mercenaries from all over Africa and is a big dirty pants on fire guy.
You may think that “African American” is an odd entry for a form immigrating people into America. (Or applying for a Visa) I would agree with you. I think it’s there because some white guy was building the form and was like “Is it okay to say “black?” Better put other options in as well.”
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.
Huh. I mean… I can’t say I see Deus as the bad guy right now, he seems to be doing good things.
He’s pragmatic to the point of Heroism
Breaking interstellar laws, murdering a tyrant but still murder, setting up a pawn that will do as he says, then using that pawn to somehow create superhero’s (probably tech supers not true supers) and then annexing new area…. Ya not going to see him as a good guy just because he is helping people incidentally while he runs ruff shod over everyone and everything
The winners write the history book. Literally every country on earth has done those exact same things, perhaps excluding the super powers.
To Galytn, he may very well BE a legitimate hero.
I’m going to guess, RobK, that you’re not from the US. If so, you’d know about “Manifest Destiny”, the westward expansion, and the “Indian Wars”, our war with Mexico over Texas, our annexation of California, and Texas, our annexation of Hawaii (after the local white Chamber of Commerce stole it, with the help of a US warship, or at least that’s the bones of the story I remember,) our buying some European claim to a parcel and then … And that’s just within the 50 states. That doesn’t mention our “adventures” in the Philippines.
For Russia, they’re famously expansionist and have been. All the Soviet Bloc nations, that were “Russified”, and often times the locals starved out to make room for (ethnic) Russian settlers. The atrocities in the Katyn forest area during World War II (which the Nazis tried to tell us about in order to sow discord among the Allies, but we helped bury until well after the war). The “Winter War” that drove the Finnish into the arms of the Axis.
You don’t hear about China and Tibet because Tibet asked to join. For that matter, Taiwan was a conquest, that was then used as a retreat and rallying point for the Nationals after the Communists won in the mainland.
Great Britain once famously had colonies all over the world. India managed to get them to leave without TOO much bloodshed, (but certainly not none.) Also, google the Boer War. And the Opium Wars.
Yeah, DEFINITELY include the superpowers in your list.
Lol, I think he meant that the real life nations haven’t used super powers, not that the nations referred to as Superpowers haven’t done anything wrong.
Then why hasn’t he mentioned that?
Interpreting the left-out words as
“…perhaps excluding [creating] the super powers”
which is amusing understatement,
not
“…perhaps excluding the super powers [such as US, Britain and Russia]…”
…which would be a nonsensical statement since super powered nations do that stuff all the time.
I think they meant people with super powers as the example of Galytn using super powered humans to help with the conquering states, not nations as super powers.
But then again, wasn’t there an older page where it was suggested that Supers have existed for a long time, like stories of people doing extraordinary things in war and such? There could very well have been supers helping carry out manifest destiny back in the day.
Yeah, this is clearly in reference to mobilizing Persons of Mass Destruction, not in reference to countries that are dubbed ‘Superpowers’ due to their power and influence.
” If so, you’d know about “Manifest Destiny”, the westward expansion, and the “Indian Wars”,” which we shall never forget, he didn’t mention, the wholesale slaughter of the Buffalo, to starve out the Indians, the corpses and hide we left to rot, and many, many, Indians lost their lives. I’m not forgetting the smallpox infested blankets given to the Indians, and let them die horribly painful death, al of that tribe, died, as none had any immunity, to smallpox. Much more, lies unsaid. I am biracial, both Indian and white.
Technically starving the Indians wasn’t the (primary) goal of slaughtering the buffalo. The goal was to make the plains safe for railroads, because a stampeding herd could easily derail a train. I doubt the people who did it actually thought about the effects on the native peoples who depended on them . . . but I also doubt that they’d have really cared if they did.
why not both?
Also infested blankets was actually a debunked myth. Most disease passed along to the different tribes were largely accidental transmissions, due to people back then having VERY little knowledge of how germs propogated and transmitted, let alone biological warfare.
I think I actually wrote a rather lengthy thing about this a year or so ago on this forum. With citations and everything :).
That being said, the post-colonial americans were largely very brutal to several of the tribes, but starving them via wasteful buffalo slaughter and disease were not the methods (at least not intentional methods).
“For Russia, they’re famously expansionist and have been.”
Well, no. All of Russian motive has been access to ice-free ports. Period. Unfortunately, wherever Russia looks to the south, there is a government holding Russian desires to ransom — on a good day.
Geography is such a bitch!
Most of histories ‘heroes’ were way worse than Deus is being.
In the classical sense of ‘hero’, certainly. The sense where an individual isn’t so much a champion or good guy, but an embodiment of the traits that culture values.
*cough* don’t look too closely at the actions of any government when it had an overwhelming balance of power compared to wherever it wanted to go and whoever it wanted to dominate, then.
Not going to condemn in an individual what is condoned for a government.
Well, to create ‘supers’ at least. ‘Heroes’ remains to be seen.
I do not believe we have any canon evidence that the late King’s son is in any way involved in anything other than the serious business of being a figure head and the wealthiest man in Africa after Deus.
I mean, he seemed like a good kid, so I hope he is getting a good college degree and will be able to pick up some management experience. If he is competent at it Deus might even allow him to run a few things in the government. But still, we’ve got no evidence that he’s involved in any kind of superhero creation project. We don’t even have any evidence that Deus is involved in a project of that nature.
interestingly Deus is just typical comicbook villain aka hero to those his twisted justice protects, villain to those said justice harms; eg typical rich guy thats just bit more upfront about his true self than most
Sounds just like the
pi…police…I doubt that this arc is about showing Deus as evil. It looks to just be some conflict set up involving him in the future.
If Dave wanted to show him as evil it would have been super easy to do so by now with only the lightest of changes.
“Crime don’t pay.” Also to establish good/intimate relationships with Max and Harem, being a super villain boss like a Kingpin of the Marvel verse wouldn’t be the best approach.
He seems alot like Lex Luthor. He does all these great and progressive things that grant him power and prestige. But while it helps and does good for the people and places he involves himself in, it gives him power and leverage to get away with anything he wants to do.
Lex doesn’t do that. He kills, or nearly kills, hundreds-to-thousands of people in his quest to bring down Superman.
Lex does both. He’s a villain with good publicity. His company does a TON of beneficial things in the public interest, entirely aboveboard, explicitly so that he can have it do shady stuff in secret and have people be dubious of the claim that Lexcorp could possibly be involved.
I’d liken him more to Doctor Doom. Doom hates the FF, and constantly plots to destroy them, but he’s a passionate defender of his own nation, and would give his life to defend it.
Where are people getting this? Where has Deus EVEr shown any hatred of the superheroes. At all? Please… show me a single page where he’s shown even the slightest bit of hatred towards them. If anything he has an admiration for them, and especially Maxima. He also seems well of Sydney, since they’re both carrying that nerd vibe when it comes to collectibles, and with the trope savvy-ness, and the banter.
I bet Deus even has an infinity pool.
The only similarities that Deus has to Lex Luthor is they’re both incredibly wealthy and they’re both incredibly brilliant. Deus is not obsessed with killing Maxima (or any supers). If he’s like anyone, it’s probably more like David Xanatos, seasons 2 and 3, during and after the Oberon battle story arc. Except Deus has been a lot more virtuous in his actions than Xanatos ever was.
Wait isn’t Gaytln in africa? They can just say they are spaceafroamerican
Musk feel for that. He applied for some university as a African American being born in South Africa and all that.
Technically, he is
My ex had similar issues.
She also got lots of questions from suspicious teachers when picking up her sisters from school (they were both adopted, and black)
Wait, so people like Charlize Theron do count as African Americans?
Only if they have US citizenship
This is…not correct. And I say this as a (white) South African born, naturalized American citizen. Race/ethnicity is not the same thing as nationality. In no world would I be considered African-American (racially) just because my nationality happens to align with “born in Africa and immigrated to the US.”
The whole thing is made weird and somewhat harder to understand by the fact that not all black people are African (or American), but in the US system, they’d still be referred to as “African-American” for their ethnicity, regardless of where they were from. Incorrect, yes, but that’s the system we have.
“Not all black people are black and not all african-americans are african-americans.”
What a weird and complicated world we live in.
That’s just what happens when you have a culture of doublespeak.
If it helps, remember that ‘Black’ includes Melanesians (who aren’t counted as Pacific Islanders for some reason, despite living on islands in the Pacific) and African-American includes people from Jamaica (because the “American” refers to the continents, not the country).
More correctly, because it’s a euphemism for “black living in the US”.
But it’s nowhere near as ridiculous as dealing with “Latino/Hispanic/Mexican/etc”
A Mexican-American may be Latino, or may not, and may be Hispanic, or not.
Nowadays, they may also demand to be called “Latinx”, which is in no sense a Spanish word… it’s fun, as long as you can view it from elsewhere.
I’m waiting for the day when so-called whites start doing the same thing.
Do not insult me by using the biased word that forms ‘whitewash’, ‘white-out’, ‘white water’, ‘white livered’ and other negative things. I am not ‘white”‘. Do not link me to a continent the majority of which I have no ancestors in (European), and not to the other continent where I also have ancestors.
If you want to call me a color, I’m pinky-beige.
If you want to talk genetic origin, I’m Scotch-Cajun-Cherokee.
Today, that is. Tomorrow I may change my self-identification to a different part of my heritage. Misidentify me at your peril
Muwahahahahahaaaa.
so many people know the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ that we should all identify ourselves by our favourite foods.
I’ll be a Sushi today, but i think tomorrow I may just be a cheeseburger
Oh, man, I’d love to identify as sushi today. Saving that to celebrate when gainful employment finally returns *fingers crossed*. For today, I identify as oatmeal and hopefully a nice cheeseburger later.
Hey, maybe we’re distant cousins? XD
It’s because the US confuses Ethnicity with “race”, SCOTUS is too blame for this and the Jews got messed up by US ruling on “race” as well.
African-American is an Ethnicity of mostly Africans who grew up in US culture for generation.
Africans who identify by their nation or tribal allegiance primarily do not share the culture and resent the negative association when it happens in the US. It goes both ways in Africa, there African Americans are Americans who happen to be black and have no local context.
Not so. You can select any cultural identity with which you identify. If you are a white person who, for example, grew up in a largely black community, then you might well identify as African-American. And you could select that on any forms which ask you to select your race/cultural identity.
I have always wondered since part of Russia is in Asia, can those in that country living east of the Ural mountains register as Asians?
If we are going by purely chromatic standards, then Lorlara is ‘black’ but others in the flashback (within the current flashback) are lighter. I guess legally this is still a grey area.
If we go by chromatic standards she is “It’s complicated” and “not human”
Human tribalism really does not apply to Alari nor to other aliens, when you think about it.
“ I guess legally this is still a grey area.”
¡Booooooo!
She’s clearly black. Or dark grey. And Galytn is in Africa, so there you go.
Expo dump ahoy.
I think that space lady is in a heap of trouble.
Anyone wanna bet everything SmugD said on this page was complete trolllshit?
Actually, I think Deus doesn’t outright lie that much all throughout the comic.
It’s too much fun for him to tell the truth and still always get his way
Unlikely… he’s a better liar than that. It’s probably 100% true, but missing some highly relevant detail.
We might assume, for example, that the cause of the triumvirate’s squabbles is in some way related to his machinations, seeing as it’s not really in his best interest to have his territory shared by alien rivals with strong leadership.
That’s why changed it from ‘bullshit’ to ‘trollshit’
It *is* missing a highly relevant detail that Lorlara managed to slip for those who note details and also read author comments. While Maxima notes details, she can’t read author comments as far as I’m aware, so she’s probably still mostly clueless. Depending on the enunciation, she may be wondering if the last bit was ‘Oradeusxe Lorlara’ or ‘Ora Deus Xe Lorlara’. I’m guessing the enunciation was probably an issue like that, because I can only imagine someone spewing out something that long would be wanting to get to the end, rather than savoring each part. Or maybe Lorlara ended with ‘Orazetchzvarhannor Ora DEUS Xe Lorlara’, making it pretty clear she’s really savoring that last bit… Thinking about the selection bias for her particular role… Yeah, I think Maxima has one clue, but doesn’t know what it really means yet. It’s enough for her to go away calm and polite from this meeting, and remain calm until her next conversation with Xuriel, at which point she’ll be infuriated for her next meeting with Deus.
Of course, it’s unclear if that’s just Lorlara, a handful of others, or a large contingent of the Alari.
Thinking about it more, I expect Lorlara is part of the ‘colonize here’ faction, and that’s not the faction with which Maxima would need to negotiate to get a tour of the space ship. Most likely, the ‘colonize here’ faction was in large part the ‘mutiny over the incompetence of the moron who got us into the situation where we needed to make an emergency landing on some god forsaken backwater’ faction, so they didn’t take as much convincing to make that switch. The real decision was whether to declare themselves as a faction on their own, or align themselves with this pathetic human who somehow happens to have technology far beyond what this planet’s supposed to have, and is otherwise very good at knowing things he shouldn’t.
I’m still trying to figure out how he paid for that tech he bought on the space station. (Where Halo was eating ubercurry)
Stolen magical artifacts? It was after the Vault raid…
He had a satchel of metal ingots. Given the value of various silvery metals here on Earth, I’d guess they were platinum.
very often, HALF the truth can be a complete and total LIE.
read up on how propaganda works ; and I’ll bet Deus
has *carefully* studied propaganda as part of his ” salesmanship “
Good thing Maxi isn’t the only one in Archon then, she can just pass it on to Arc-Dark or Space-Arc
Or worse (for the Alari), sick Ari on them, have her double team them with Dabbles
Interesting plan but using that wording with Dabbler in the mix could cause an intergalactic incident. Or it could solve every argument super fast depending on their proclivities.
considering Sciona’s “proclivities” with Deus..
There might be a story Arc in there somewhere.
+1
She should have gone with Black, or Multiracial
Interesting how they class ‘Black’ and ‘African American’ as basically the same thing
Yeah, it’s as though non-African black people, non-black African people, or non-American black African people don’t exist, eh?
Perhaps an indicator in the scroll bar to show that there are more options than we can see would be a useful addition…
I’ll always smile at the memory of an american interviewer asking a black english man if he was British-African, and asked several times, the man replying no, he was English. Period. (not to mention anyone without any link to america with a darker skin tone immediately getting called xyz-american. Almost like they’re trying to keep the divide alive)
I’m amused at a conversation I witnessed between a man with a delightful English accent and a redneck discussing whether the former was African-American or just African, and the former kept insisting he was neither.
Indian-American was apparently not an option that the racist moron was able to conceive, despite the fact that the gentleman in question did not have either an African nose or an African face bone structure. Simply ‘American’ was also not something he’d accept, though he was clearly fully prepared to be outraged at such a claim.
(Just for the record: I do mean English accent, as the gentleman’s family had moved to England when he was a young lad. He *could* do the ‘nearly English’ accent that many Indians who speak English have, but he usually spoke with a slightly Americanized version of Received Pronunciation. That is, RP accent, with a few American idioms.)
The question I have here is, why does that immigration form have a field for “race” at all? Ethnicity I could understand because that has cultural implications. And culture influences how you think. But race?
On a different note: I love to see cultures that have a more elaborate naming scheme.
It’s sad to see this, but that’s just some every day racism by DaveB.
Doubtful it’s racism by DaveB. More likely it’s DaveB faithfully depicting someone else’s racism because, the existence of superhumans aside, working with the world as it is suits his narrative better than trying to fix all of the world’s ills in one go.
If you reproduce racism, it’s still racism.
Uh, what? That’s literally what the US puts in their census forms in real life. DaveB isn’t racist, he’s accurately showing how the US’ bureaucracy classifies people.
Whilst also making fun of precisely the limitations of the form.
It’s parody, not racism. It’s like “Blazing Saddles” – if you think it’s being racist, you’ve completely misunderstood what it’s about
Back in the 80’s there was a TV show so called because the continuity announcer on BBC1 would have to say On BBC1 now its now the Nine O’Clock news On BBC2 its Not The Nine O’Clock News.
One of their sketches was called Constable Savage, the terminology used in the sketch is certainly offensive, so don’t watch if you are a snowflake*. It is basically a higher ranking officer bawling out a police constable over a series of ludicrous “Overzealous” arrest charges (Walking with an offensive wife).
Having called him out on his blatant racial behaviour & there’s no room for a officer like him in his station, instead he’s being transferred to the SPG, who at the time were being called out for the death of a anti-racism protester.
It is funny in the respect its parody\satire highlighting the attitudes of the time.
If you are going to be offended please don’t watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teSPN8sVbFU
*Snow flake = A name frequently used during another UK TV Comedy by a black man, when addressing his white neighbour.
The purpose and presentation of said fictionally reproduced racism is very relevant, but by that argument any actor in a movie that depicts racsim, or any writer that writes racism into a story, is therefore still being racist. That doesn’t really make sense.
Didn’t you learn in Creative Writing class that all villains are supposed to be two-dimensional strawmen? You can’t give them any redeeming qualities or you might be identified with their negative traits, since OBVIOUSLY you agree with them.
I’d say gender-nonspecific strawperson, but, well, we ALL know that the villain HAS to be a man. Any modern feminist will tell you a woman can’t be evil, and even if she can, she can’t be PORTRAYED as evil.
XD
If they learned THAT in Creative Writing Class, they have one of the shittiest teachers in the history of the course.
Wow, you seem to be a steaming pile.
okay now we get it, you’re checking off your SJW bucket list.
if you can’t accept fictional portrayals of social constructs then you have issues with reality not DaveB.
“you’re checking off your SJW bucket list.” An assumption, on you’re part. “racist” perhaps, I don’t really think so, or believe so! :)
Judging from some earlier pages of this comic, I get the impression that DaveB is anything but racist.
… how exactly is that racism?
Am I missing something? There’s nothing racist about that.
I have no idea if DaveB pulled that off an actual work-visa application or not, since the application form isn’t easily accessible online, but it could certainly be correct although it would not make sense.
That said, I can say for sure that the US petition for alien relative permanent visa form (I-130) does NOT have a field for the applicant’s race at all… but it DOES have a field (with only 5 options; no Hispanic or multiracial) for the petitioner’s race.
Why is it that way? I’d go with Bureaucratic Inertia with a heavy dollop of *trying* to maintain a contenuance of data in the database(s) of people coming to the U.S.A.
As us immigrant with a work visa I can tell you that in the process of obtain a H1B us visa they actually never ask you for your “race” most of the information required is about the country that issued your passport, your work skills, work history, economical status and a few family related details.
However to get a SSN (which you need if you are going to be working on the US) they do ask you for your race but there is an “other” option I do remember that.
I’m actually more surprised at how fast Deus was able to get her a work visa. Unless your country has some specific treaty with the US to allow for a special class of work visa. Getting a work visa for the USA is a multi month process as only a limited number of visas are issued every year through a lottery type system.
Although considering that superpower people are very rare and every country wants them, and assuming that being an alien can be considered a “superpower” then she may have applied for a special ability visa which have a much lower competition but much higher entry bar.
Another option would be that she is in the US as a diplomatic official of Gaytln which would be a complete different class of visa that would have her working officially for Gaytln instead that for Deus. However that means that if she is found to be working for Deus that would invalidate her visa and the US authority would have to deport her.
In conclusion US immigration laws are weird and complicated, specially if you are trying to work in the US.
Okay, so does this lineage work forwards, or backwards? Because “Hannor ora Deus” is an interesting line there – does that make her parent “Hannor”, and also sworn to Deus’ house?
Lor is only two months old, and half-douche
I’m guessing Hannor was the patriarch (I guess?) of House Zetch (ora Zetch zvar Hannor), but since Deus is the living ruler of the house named after him, the zvar might be unnecessary (it would become ora Deus zvar Deus, I guess). And maybe that level of redundancy is not required in Alar.
One major difficulty here is how the Alari view time… Does time flow foward (from the subject’s back to the front), sideways (from one side to the other, left to right or right to left), or vertically (from under to above or above to under)?
From the introduction, I figure Alari society is not gender-dominated, but beyond that it gets murky.
Whatever, this is my interpretation, assuming a falling time-flow:
“I am an Alar
“(descended from) Kanthis of Kanthis
“(born of) Morrundis of Bithlura
“(born of) Liglalathane of Zetch
“(descended from) Hannor
“(now of) the House of Deus
“My name is Lorlara.”
And it doesn’t quite make sense.
Gorblimey posted this
this is my interpretation, assuming a falling time-flow:
-snip-
And it doesn’t quite make sense.
I think I can improve on your version, and make it clearer
“I am an Alar” (nescessaryin an interplanetary civilization)
A Kanthis of House Kantis (i.e. of the main family, not a vassal, like MacGregor of MacGregor)
My mother is Morrundus of Bithura, daughter of Liglalathane of Zetch (either Liglalathane is/was a VIP,or the maternal grandmother is important in an Alar lady’s life, or both)
My father is Hannor (since Lorlara is Kanthis of Kanthis, her father must be too, so no need to specify)
I am a vassal of House Deus (Alari would have no way of saying ” work for the Deus Corporation.” This is the nearest concept.)
My personal name is Lorlara”
So the Americanized name she will need for driver’s licence, library card etc. might be “Lorlara ora Kanthis”
Thank you Michael. This is how science works.
OK. I should have postulated a rising time-flow, not falling. I am still searching for my primary reference which I should have bookmarked 5 years ago :(
And yes, your interpretation does make sense.
It could imply that she’s loyal to him, banging him currently, or both.
Night quite right for Arabic names. The “el” or “al” means “the”. It shows your home town, tribe, clan, or profession. Your parentage is indicated by “ibn” (variant “bin”) (son of) or “bint” (daughter of). Sometimes a man’s sons are claimed by “abu” (father of). There are also cognomens, most commonly “abd Allah” (slave of God).
This all makes Arabic names highly variable. A man can be called by many different names, but will usually begin with his given name. That’s the only part that is really his. Everything else is description.
As being Amer ican Indian, as well as Wite r tyre ŵ
.. I prefer, Muticultural!
F
I had a girlfriend with a long multi-name like that once – I called her Jo. She was grateful for that.
When I was in the Marines one of the pilots in my squadron had a last name with eleven syllables. Not letters. Syllables. His name started with an F, and everybody just called him F11. His name made things like forms…interesting.
When the dutch crown prince (now king) went into the military, he introduced himself as Willem Alexander to his training officer. The reply was “Willem or Alexander, because I cannot be arsed to do both.”
Yeaaaahhhhhh, no. They can keep the politics in that one. I feel for whoever has to deal with that mess. Pretty sure Deus has a huge investment on getting them to repair the ship in the first place. They’d need to manufacture parts and I’m sure he’d be more than willing to update manufacturing capabilities to meet the need of any… interesting… materials that would be required. Them putting down a colony of any kind also has its advantages as well considering who they’re already dealing with. The ship repairs would likely be the most profitable for him though as he’d basically need technical details on virtually everything to meet manufacturing compatibility.
And he can use that as an excuse for why he has ‘alien’ parts and technology that he ‘bought’ from Fracture
“Ug, space politics is outside my job description. No thank you”
– I think Maxima, you have just been out played by Deus.
Not really. Deus has carefully explained that the ship (as happens here in this universe) is not Galytn territory but fundamentally Alari territory and any permissons will have to be sought from what is basically a committee… And good luck with that.
Maxi has just neatly completed a preliminary assessment of the political battleground, and will probably let ArcLight know where they have to look. I assume that since Archon is purely a domstic organisation, ArcLight will probably let the CIA in on the secret.
“ArcLight will probably let the CIA in on the secret”
No need. They already know thanks to the hidden mike they placed into one of the medals she is wearing.
You assume that neither Archon nor Dabbler would have discovered said mic and either disabled it or set it up to transmit only what they wanted. Such as a reading of the dictionary by Edith Bunker.
Or left it running, and possibly just diverted the transmission if it’s sending live. This sort of discussion, you’d want to have a good record of what was (and wasn’t) said so that the analysts can pick it apart for details.
And yet, the ship is in Galytn’s borders, and accessing it (even with Alari permission) require’s
Deus’sofficial government permission to travel through the country, just like with any embassy of a human country.That gives Deus some pretty significant leverage, unless the Alari accept an invite to move somewhere else – which they don’t currently have a lot of motivation to do.
To be fair, diplomacy in general should be outside ARC’s area of responsibility.
That’s why we have a State Department, and embassies aren’t run by the military.
But then, how could we have ARCHON center stage for all this?
Because Deus specifically asked for them and probably will not work with the embassies if he can help it.
He can’t help it. Embassies exist for very practical reasons. He will work with them a LOT. He’s just having dinner with Maxima right now because 1: it advances his interests, and 2: it’s fun for him to tease Maxima.
2 point font that is how it will fit.
The big thing is actually “White” and “Hispanic” being two separate entries like that. By U.S. law, people of hispanic origin ARE White. That’s why, on official forms, you see the choices “White” and “White, Hispanic.”
As being Amer ican Indian, as well as Wite r tyre ŵ
.. I prefer, Muticultural!
Genuine question: is Hispanic considered a race or an ethnicity? I’ve seen it done both ways, but I always understood it to be an ethnicity under Caucasian (like Nordic or Slavic).
Hispanic is literally just someone descended from a country that speaks Spanish, or someone whose prima lingua is Spanish. It’s a ridiculous thing to use as a race or ethnicity alongside the others that are classified in different ways, but here we are.
The late wife used to get so hot and bothered because she, a descendant of the Portuguese side of the Iberian Peninsula, could not claim the set-asides of being Hispanic. So she attended a predominately black college, Norfolk State University, on a minority scholarship.
IIRC, the lamentation of the ILOH’s enemies where epic when he showed them he was, by definition (and even *their* “definition”), Hispanic.
This from a Mexican-American studies class 30 years back:
You just defined Latino. (From a culture with Latin language, especially Spanish or Portuguese).
Hispanic indicates descent from Spain (only).
So a person who lives in Mexico and who speaks solely Zapotec moves to the US, they are Mexican-American but they are not Latino or Hispanic. A black person born and raised in San Salvador with no Spanish blood is Latino but not Hispanic. A person born in Chicago with an Anglo name who speaks not a word of Spanish MAY be Hispanic if her mother was from Ireland but descended from Spain, while not being Latina in any sense.
And don’t even get started with the nationalities.
Considering that biologists no longer hold that the thing called ‘race’ actually exist in a scientific sense, the question is somewhat moot.
Of course ethnicity is kind of a fancy way of saying race without using the word, so I think we should just do away with it and call it tribe. /That/ signifies, for maybe two generations, a relevant cultural difference (unless the tribe is kept isolated in the larger culture and maintains, or develops, its own cultural identity.) A 4th generation descendant of German immigrants no longer in any meaningful way maintains a German identity.
The whole question really should be removed from the various forms as it is only a holdover from the more racist times when ‘racial quote’ were vigorously enforced (to keep the insufficiently white and protestant immigrants out of the country)
It turns out that genetics has reversed that. The human lineage tree conforms fairly well to the old theory of race, not necessarily in terms of any presumed characteristics of the resulting races, but the fact that they are divided up genetically pretty much the way the old scientists had figured out by empirical observation.
This is almost the opposite of what happened with the non-human animals, where the hirax ended up on the elephant tree and so on.
‘Hispanic’ – Romans called Spain and Portugal ‘Hispania’, but the name eventually was adopted by the nation of Spain. Today, the word is used to refer to any nation where Spanish is the official language.
‘Latin’ – A newer term derived from the idea of ‘Latin America’, referring to the parts of America where Romance languages predominated, namely South America and North America south of the Rio Grande.
So, a Cuban is both Latino and Hispanic. A Canadian is neither (although a Quebecois might make a claim to Latino-hood). A Brazilian is Latino, but not Hispanic. And a Spaniard is Hispanic, but not Latino.
Neither term was originally a racial term, referring more to nationality. Modern usage has kinda changed that.
That’s incorrect. You can be white of Hispanic origin or black of Hispanic origin or Native American of Hispanic origin (mestizo).
But having separate boxes means they can pull out the white non-Hispanic for analysis, as the identity-police require.
Unfortunately, they don’t allow differentiation between white people of European and white people of Arabic descent, so “white non-Hispanic” doesn’t actually mean what the group identity folks will pretend it means.
White non-Hispanic includes descent from Britons, Germans, French, lowlanders, Jews, Arabs, non-Arab Persians, maybe even Ainu.
I do wonder if Max caught that Lorlara is ‘Ora Deus”…
Does the US still have a field for “Race” on their forms for work visas? Didn’t they switch to something like heritage, ancestry, origin. I mean, the whole concept that the human species is divided into Races has been disproven in biological science and it’s now known as racism.
Concerning the international reaction to an alien colony in a “backwater”, just look at North Korea: They have the bomb, but they are still isolated and sanctioned. No military force in the world can ensure that a nation will survive a nuclear attack.
Having just filled out my census form, I can testify that I was asked both my race (white, black, asian, etc) and my national/cultural heritage (Irish, German, etc). Both fields were required. So I don’t know about immigration, but the US is still very interested in the race of its citizens.
The US tends to be obsessed with race in many ways. Even if we use other terminology, it’s generally understood that people are talking first and foremost about skin color.
Strangely enough, the people who aren’t obsessed with race, and would just drop all these racial categories, get attacked as ‘racists’. It’s all so very stupid.
Sadly, many real racists have adopted that as a smokescreen. “I’m just hiring the best people. It’s not my fault they’re all white men.”
Personally, I agree that “race is irrelevant” ought to be considered a reasonable position to take, but nothing is ever that simple.
“Sadly, many real racists have adopted that as a smokescreen.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much it. It’s basically “Don’t have to solve long-standing issues caused by racism if I pretend racism doesn’t exist”
There’s an argument (IMO a compelling one) to be made that *actually* not caring about people’s race would go much farther towards solving those long-standing issues than obsessing over it. But yeah, the smokescreen issue is a problem there.
On the other hand, the explicit “too many white men here” mindset that has been adopted by many people in the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement (not a strawman, I’ve heard those exact words in keynote speeches) is problematic as well.
Yes and no. Affirmative action is a valid method to force changes to a subconscious racism.
People like to hire people like them. This tendency maintains both the group cohesion and the discriminatory status quo.
When people are forced to look beyond their convenient concepts this /may/ change their behaviour. Or it may not. An organisation that feels ‘inconvenienced’ by minorities in their ranks will not be likely to change because of affirmative action (e.g. the position of women in the military remains precarrious because much of the officer corps feels that a mixed gender unit is making things harder for them and would just as gladly return to the good ‘ol days of the army being a boys club. Of course the exact same sentiment was leveled at black americans when they were first ‘allowed’ in the army. People who have internalised their bigotry are never going to be swayed by affirmative action. They will just find in it confirmation of what they already believe no matter what.
This is why affirmative action should always be a temporary measure. After the sunset of it there should be a study to determine if the action caused a lasting change in opinion. If so then it may be reason to renew the action fro another fixed period or to let the changes in subconscious beliefs further spread. And if it did not make a difference then more direct action to address the bigotry may be needed.
I had a long response written out, but it’s probably better to just say that affirmative action, like literally every alternative policy in this area, has both legitimate benefits and valid criticisms. And we are unlikely to agree on a nuanced racial policy for America in the comment section of a webcomic about superhero boobs.
I don’t mind the long reply. You probably are not going to shock me with criticism either.
My opinion is that affirmative action is a tool that may sometimes work in addressing subconscious hiring bias. Outside of that it is pretty useless, and even within those parameters there is no guarantee that it will work.
As it is it has been both poorly used and overused, which exacerbated its poor reputation. making it very easy for those who opposed it for ideological reason to justifiably criticise it.
Also, you may be here for the super boobs. But I am for the killer abs and the buns of steel :)
Just, Dave, if you read this. It is a minority of women who find the ‘wider in the shoulders than tall’ or the ‘arms wider around than the typical female character’ comics book look all that attractive. I mean, defined shoulders and pecs are great and all that, but a lithe dancers body is less intimidating and generally more attractive :) Kind of ‘less Kratos, more Mobius’ ;)
I can’t edit my own post.
I meant to write: making it very easy initially for those wo opposed it for ideological reasons …
(added the initially to make clear that the opposition started out as ideologically motivated before overuse made the criticism more widespread)
Seems like you’re well aware of the specific criticisms of affirmative action, and I doubt my “jerkwad on the internet” level of analysis has anything new to offer. However, I will add that as a white person from a region with many white communities trapped in poverty, it is my observation that much of the racial inequity in this country is symptomatic of socioeconomic inequity. I think the focus on skin color misses a big part of the problem and paradoxically benefits the status quo by ignoring systemic issues in favor of band-aid solutions that divide people.
My basic position is that there are two meaningful ethnic groups – Us and Them (would LOVE to see those as the options on a form). Broadening the definition of Us to include all of us seems like the best solution because I don’t have an optimistic enough view of humanity to think people will stop shitting on Them given the opportunity.
The studies prove that it usually doesn’t. Diversity or inclusion training that focuses on differences and racial or cultural or gender “sensitivity” ends up causing more turnover.
On the other hand, etiquette training and training in professional expectations and behavior, and in developing ALL personnel, results in increased retention and promotion of women and minorities.
What you focus on, you get.
If you want professionalism and growth, focus on that.
If you want people to be “sensitive” and constantly aware of differences, then you get what you pay for.
“(e.g. the position of women in the military remains precarrious because much of the officer corps feels that a mixed gender unit is making things harder for them and would just as gladly return to the good ‘ol days of the army being a boys club.”
There is currently at least one Transwoman in the military, she received a waiver. I saw one pic, of her, and she is gorgeous.
Affirmative action has the explicit effects of 1) requiring that everyone focus on race and 2) ensuring that different groups are treated differently by race. Feel free to explain how either of these things is going to reduce racist attitudes on an ongoing basis.
Certainly, it is justifiable for a period of years (not decades!) when discriminatory intent is proven. But when the first words out of a new HR director to a company quarterly is “this is the whitest place I’ve ever worked”, you know that explicit racism is in the pipe. Yes, this is a first-hand report.
The fact that someone would actually feel comfortable saying that indicates they are probably a bad fit for improving a workplace.
Maybe the best reply might be a cheery, “Cool! So you get a chance to really understand how diverse white people can be!”
Did you know that Alexander Siddig is Malcom McDowell’s Nephew? That is to Cool.
Lil Lorlara has blundered a bit there. It seems she’s using her wings to hover in place ABOVE Max’s head to appear intimidating. Much like a certain bloviating tick of a human who wears lifts in his shoes and leans in the direction of who he’s speaking to in an attempt to loom over them.
Neither works. It shows off their insecurity and, moreso in the fake tan addict’s case, makes them look ridiculous.
Look at Lorlara’s feet. They are definitely above the table, maybe resting on it, and also not very close to the table edge.
Personally I thought she was just showing off… Like a child.
Then the reply would be:
Max: Oh, you can use your wings to fly. That’s nice. [ Slowly increases in altitude, until she is eye-to-eye with Lorlara ] I don’t need wings. Are you sure you are fully prepared?
That’s a level of response Max has no need to stoop to. Max already knows she can crush an Alari blood sorcerer with light to moderate effort. She has power, she doesn’t need to demonstrate it.
Yes, Maxi (and us, the viewers) know that, Lor does not… yet
Where did you get that from? There were no clues to jusfy that
?
You can’t quite see the ends of her toes. The PoV is below the table.
I thought she just hovered over the table to get to the seat at the far side, without having to ask Deus to stand up, and also without extending Max the courtesy of asking for her permission to pass.
You may be right.
Wouldn’t Max have taken off her gloves to eat?
I do not have the chops to say whether it’s proper or not, but I’ve seen people with dinner gloves eat with their gloves on.
It’s my understanding that it’s at least in part a demonstration of skill: you can wipe your hands off on your napkin if you get food on them. That doesn’t work with the dinner gloves, as food adheres to them at least as well as it does to the napkin. As such, ending the dinner with clean gloves indicates a mastery of dining utilities that I not only do not possess, but can’t imagine myself possessing. Despite having witnessed others who clearly do have it.
Yes
Ship repairs would be the single biggest short term investment but compared to long term manufacturing of everything needed to build a colony and keep it happy there is no comparison. Aside from which the colony establishes a continuing relationship with any scientists, engineers and in general opportunities to leach technology.
Note: this was a reply to a comment that seems to have disappeared to the effect that it would be in Deus’ best interest if they repaired the ship.
@Cortanis May 21, 2020, 5:29 am 9 conversations up above?
“You have no need to introduce yourself! I have fully prepared for this encounter!”
I’ll be using that at parties.
Say it as soon as they open their mouth :D
After Seth in Narbonic I’m always tempted to answer “as prophesied” when someone asks me how things are going.
Another great dramatic – yet always valid – phrase is “So. It has come to this.”
I wonder if Lorlara has just totally dissed Maxima, at least from her point of view. “I’ve recited my lineage, but your’s isn’t important enough to recount” seems to be implied.
Very good observation. I stand ashamed.
Thing is, Maxima would presumably agree — her lineage *isn’t* important to the situation. “Lt Colonel Leander” is all the name she needs right now… a name that might as well be “God” for anyone planning on getting in her way.
I suppose that you could make a point that Maxima’s lineage is reckoned differently. “Colonel of the Armed Forces of the United States, Victor in the Battles of the Middle East, Leader of the Archon Supers and protector of the Earth. I am Maxima Leander.”
My original point was just that Lorlara was making a power play that was both petty and blatant, totally consistent with my observation of Lorlara so far.
“Destroyer of Mosques” would probably impress Lorlara the most.
“The one who one-shot a Fel capital ship” should figure prominently in any recitation of Maxima’s bonafides.
USA would typically take the first, second, and last name and use that. So the card would read: Alar Kanthis Lorlara. My mother is from a country where people typically have four names.
My wife is from a country where you use your mother’s maiden name as your middle name. Unless you’re a married woman, at which point you use your father’s family name. (Handy for genealogists, I expect.)
The INS gave her a bit of trouble about wanting a different middle name on her green card than her visa because we’d married. Took a while to get that straightened out.
My nephew’s wife is Spanish, from South America. Doing my homework, I did see something that looks like a Spanish proverb, “The actual father may well be in doubt, but we will always know the mother.”
Appalled fascination…
Yeah, that’s why personally have always hated how lineage is predominately through the father
Guess it’s easier to accuse someone of being a bastard that way
One of the reasons I adore spotted hyenas — their society is highly matriarchal, to the extent that the lowest female (even a cub) ranks the highest male.
They have other endearing habits as well, but the matriarchy shines.
Which hyena has the female with the faux-penis? Spotted or Laughing?
Yes.
Okay, the Spotted Hyena is the only one that “laughs”.
And they do regard humans as menu items. They are apex predators.
They are the same species? Oh, just looked it up, and out of the four species of Hyena, the Spotted laughs (must be great at parties)
I feel like someone would hear that name and just call her Ora, like how the Norsemen called Ahmad ibn Fahlan “Iben” in The 13th Warrior when he rattled off his full lineal name.
Or worse, mis-hear it and start calling her Ara-Ara (apparently that’s a ‘thing’ in Japanese porn)
When I saw her name, the first thing I thought about was ERB and how I learned that Pablo Picasso’s entire name was: Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso
And they even put the entire thing in the rap, lol.
Lorlara buzzes when she flies! Cute!
BTW. Are her wings as destructive and powerful as Sciona’s? Sciona could fly very fast and cut down bridges with her wings… Is it a normal Alari trait, or is Sciona an Alari super?
Lor is still a child, so hasn’t developed killer-wings yet
Wait, she’s a child?
A bad joke (see above for an equally bad joke about her being the spawn of SmugD)
Strictly speaking didn’t Sciona deflect an energy blast not actually damage the bridge herself?
We’ll call it a “controlled deflection”.
From the context it seemed to be fairly obviously a purely defensive reflex, and not in any way aimed. Sciona was relieved enough at simply not being shot down, she didn’t have any reserves of control remaining to aim the ricochet.
I love how Maxima decides to put the political responsibility for touring the ship
Looks to me more like she’s moved out the way of anyone walking past, and into a free seat in the booth. She just hasn’t finished landing yet.
I think at this point I’m starting to root for Deus a bit, he’s kinda awesome in a hammy supervillain way.
If space politics is outside Maxima’s skill chart,then who would be a perfect candidate!?!?
Maxima is ArcSWAT, not Archon. She’s done her job here, the proper agency now is ArcLight, then probably the CIA.
Remember, Maxima has at least General Faulk above her, and he is the one who decides policy matters — at least as for as Lt-Col Leander is concerned.
Pray that Maxima will earn her general’s star (brigadier general)….
And perhaps stand for President one day?
But she would only get 8 years of that, unless she decides to amend the Constitution…
The president and the diplomatic corps
Realistically, even Jeff Bezos level rich is a line item in the US budget, and less than the cost of a single naval ship and many advanced USAF planes. No matter how rich Deus is, he isn’t changing generational poverty in a matter of a few years. Apparently his super power is magic economics.
If the US wanted to break Gaitlyn Deus doesn’t have the resources to stop them. Just in soft power the US could simply suggest companies stop trading with them, which would be partially effective, outspend Gaitlyn in every surrounding country, which given its size is tops, two.
People like Deus, Bezos, and Gates don’t just have fifty billion in cash laying around. The US government does.
Not even governments have that “lying around.” Things like government budgets and billionaires’ net worth aren’t just sitting in a trillion-unit Swiss bank accounts or giant piles of gold* in a McDuck vault. They’re tied up in stocks and bonds and tax collection and supply contracts and a million other things. it’s more about the aggregate access and control over the flow of resources; dollar values are just a useful tool for summarizing and comparing.
* aside from reserves like Fort Knox etc, where no one can just withdraw a bar and spend it anyways. But that’s a different, much longer discussion.
“No matter how rich Deus is, he isn’t changing generational poverty in a matter of a few years.”
Are you so sure about that? I think all we’ve seen so far is implying Galytn (I keep thinking of it as “Galtyn”, which arguably fits more) is very small and very impoverished. Public policy debates aside it’s easier to improve a tiny slice of the world than a big one.
He’s not doing that with his money
It’s like naming a ranch the ‘Lazy Rocking Circle Running Bar Double Flying Q’
then having to sell it because none of the cattle survived the branding.
Relevant Far Side strip.
All this distraction is making Max careless. She drank from her glass without checking for iocane powder.
Well, it /is/ tasteless and odorless :)
And naturally Maxima trained herself to be resistant to it, so she does not have to fear any sicilian when death is on the line…
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- *thud*
Something that nobody has realized, yet, is that the Alarians have three stages. The first being the prepubescent (covering the baby, toddler, and brat stages), and the last being the adult stage, both of which we have glimpsed. The mid-stage, or “teen” years, starts when the teen form tearing itself from the screaming brat form (to much cheering from family). The teen form is immediately isolated away from polite (as far Alarians go) society, which seems to suit them just fine, as they are quite disruptive and really just very annoying without being useful in any capacity, as well as depressing the heck out of everyone with whom they come in contact. The Alarians have already noted that Earthlings allow their teen forms to actually live amongst the regular populace, and not only tolerate the teen form behaviors, but even, at times, embracing this obnoxious stage. The Alarians realize that the Earthlings have still achieved a decent level of technology and society in spite of this neurotic racial quirk. This one fact, when finally noted by the rest of the galaxy once they start studying Humanity, will be what keeps Earth safe from invasion. The other races will fear Earthlings, for they will mark them as mad.
DaveB needs to upgrade his comment section. Clearly it needs a Like button if only for the above comment.
Also, they use the color red to signify danger (instead of mauve ;) AND they think cricket is a fun sport to watch.
A fun “Blood Sport”.
wat
Pander,
I don’t often check the comments, but when I do, I often see a post by you. So, I assume – or at least hope – that you see this message.
A few days ago, I responded to your question about Democracies, something about appeal to authority. I was fatigued, and in the heat of the moment, I lost myself a bit. Even in my memory (which usually sees what I say as clear, even when it might be less than I’d hoped), what I said seems like incoherent rambling. I’m pretty sure I did not accurately represent my answer, either.
I was losing coherency even before then, alas. I have gone through this post to try and verify that I don’t suffer that issue.
It was when I caught myself responding to the wrong section of the conversation thread that I started to realize. I was losing coherence, attention, and lucidity. I should have left the conversation then. The thread was enough of a mess that I didn’t trust myself to properly go back and add an addendum saying: “I realize that in my fatigue, I lost the ability to accurately and coherently respond. Please ignore my above post.”
I’m not sure I was even coherent enough to do that, if I could properly find the correct “reply” button.
I am not going back to that thread. I have not seen any replies to my most recent posts. I’m sorry for wasting your time with my last posts. I should have realized beforehand that I wasn’t in a fit state of mind to properly respond, and I fear my fatigue-induced idiocy derailed them too much to save. I have rested since then, and should be more myself, now.
As clean a slate as I can manage: I’m not sure I can properly go into deeper detail than context, though I’m pretty sure I’m alert enough to summarize. Also, for the sake of closure, I’m going to explain my arguments, which are entirely on moral grounds. (I view abuse of the letter, or of situations that weren’t anticipated, in subversion of the basic spirit to be atrocious. I also acknowledge that our views on what the spirit is probably differ significantly.)
To be clear, I needed to get this post out of my system, because it’s keeping me distracted at work and awake at night. Personal issues and a partial trigger. Given … everything, including things I’m not mentioning, I’m not going to return to this. But I want to explain my views coherently.
I regard Law and Good as not the same, though there’s definite overlap. Plenty of laws are founded to codify good (no murder, no stealing, etc.) But I use Villain as a moral term, as do many others, and Criminal for the Law term.
Lawful, Villain: Ebenezer Scrooge before his three ghosts
Criminal, Hero: Gandhi (for example, going to the sea and making salt in defiance of the law, to bring freedom to his people).
First, my Deus vs Democracy proper answer: Previously, I rambled about will of the people. I do hold that in high regard, although as something fallible. More importantly to my opinion is this: What I have is a distrust for large corporations, and a firm belief they should have nothing to do with government. Because I don’t trust corporations to have much in mind besides just the bottom line, as opposed to the wellfare of the people. Individuals who lead them, can. I accept that in Galatyn, Deus is an exception to JUST the bottom line. But the system is too easy to abuse. That is why I don’t like Deus spying on a government. That’s for governments. (Corp-Corp is not relevant to this, IMO).
By which I mean, I believe on a matter of principle that corporations should be subject to governments, not the other way around. He’s in violation of that, both with Galatyn and in small part for spying on Archon/US.
Second: I accept that you see Deus as heroic. I accept that THUS FAR, he’d done more good than harm. If that’s your criteria for heroic, then it’s just that our definitions differ greatly. I do not see him as a hero for doing more good than harm. I see his deeds as entirely for himself, which disqualifies him in my book from the term, “hero.” Someone could do everything Jesus, Gandhi, and the entire Underground Railroad did, combined. But, if they did it for themself, and not for others, they would still not be a hero in my book. It’s the “for others” bit. I would accept that they’ve done heroic THINGS, but I regard deeds, intentions, and methods as co-mandatory. Depending on the circumstances, methods may be optional. Given the ashtray scene, I accept that he could be hiding a real “for others” reason behind cynicism and bluster. I do not believe he is, but I accept he could be.
By which I mean, I regard his pure greed, even though it benefits others, as disqualifying the good he does, leaving only the bad (below). That leaves a villain.
If someone did heroic things for both themselves AND others, then I don’t know. I’d probably lean towards hero if their methods were good.
I (sometimes strongly) disagree with his methods, though pending further information in-comic, I could agree to accept them as necessary. My disagreement is a big part of him as a villain, rather than a neutral who brings others up as a side effect of bringing himself up.
Scenes:
Galatyn + Interview (taking over) [this took a few drafts, and I’m still not sure it’s coherent]: 1) he offered to help such a vile person improve his position. He later said he intended to remove that king, anyway, so 2) he wasn’t dealing in good faith [and would have helped maintain said power until the betrayal, keeping problem 1]. 3) Violates hospitality and negotiations [I know it’s old-fashioned, but I hold those old customs in very high regard, minus the prevalence of motels]. The king was suspicious and somewhat reactionary, and Deus made the first attack command (after being told to leave or else, which came after a told to leave/doesn’t leave event.) As such, I regard Deus as the aggressor.
He was then ASTOUNDINGLY insenstive by making light of the king’s death in front of the new king. Then he brought said old king’s KILLER into the theater with him. (I’ll accept presenting the evidence then was necessary and call that itself a wash.) Bringing death ray lady (I don’t remember her name, but she wears that huge bandage mask) was either a further case of insensitivity compounded by offering the new king a deal while he was still grieving, or else a clear threat to him if he didn’t accept, despite not having oppressed the people. Possibly both.
Already mitigates this: offer would still have improved the lives of the people, even with the king in power.
Would mitigate this: If he intended to peacefully remove the king later if he’d accepted the deal, and/or pull a Schindler on people the king didn’t like.
Other issues: title text or something else Dave-added implied the video evidence was doctored. Given the ashtray scene, I’m at a loss for why. Also, significant lies to the media about what actually happened (if it’s a don’t speak ill of the dead thing, then … fine, but I wish we’d seen an agreement with the new king about that.) But, wicked flee, no man pursueth.
________
Galatyn + Interview (territorial expansion): He speak of cutting a path with a goal in mind, which means this is aggressive. Aggressive war, plus undermining the rules against Supers in war (which, given what we’ve seen of them thus far, I regard as comparable to nuclear warfare in potential devastation).
Would mitigate this if presented: he’s not the attacker; they’re attacking to take the infrastructure for themselves. That one would completely excuse the conquest part to me. Or, they were already at war (the king mentioned something like that, so I’ll accept the expansion itself as a wash). However, it could just as easily be a mix of some of them were at war, and some is him being aggressive. Still undermining the rules to enforce restraint in not using Supers and risking issues with others deploying them in retaliation.
________
Alari: I think this is where we saw the World Domination powerpoint file name. I’d like to re-iterate my belief that corporations and the people running them should not also run any governments for fear they’ll only represent the Corp and not the people. I accept there are individuals who can. Since Deus in this talk with Maxima said he invested his PERSONAL wealth, I’d even accept he can. But that’s too open to abuse. He’s also shown that he’ll use violence to get his means, and there are plenty of relatively peaceful places that very much don’t deserve being conquered.
Would mitigate this: if he only means taking over autocracies and the like (examples REDACTED in review), leaving any Just governments alone (except for selling to the people in said Just governments).
________
The Black Reliquary: Even leaving aside the territorial/international argument (which is predicated on the law not knowing undersea buildings like that are even possible, aka a hole based on an unforseen niche issue), he knew that was Council interests. He knew that was their interests, and that they had active control over the facility. My stance is that morally, regardless of legality, it was a pure theft. Also, he’s selling some of the artifacts he found, and all of them were there because of the danger of letting them out without proper control. I accept he has some knowledge of them, but all the contingencies that dictate safe or dangerous? No. Nor those he might sell them to.
Further, he then deflected as much as possible from his involvement there, when speaking with Maxima. Wicked flee, no man pursueth. Granted, he could just be afraid of the Council taking extrajudicial retaliation, and driving his bodyguard prices up, but if it was something perfectly fine for him to have done: why not just say, “Probably something from the Black Reliquary. I interrupted her ransacking the place, and distracted her. She probably left before getting everything she wanted. I fear the Twilight Council will react poorly, so please don’t tell them of my involvement. Just, most of the artifacts are safe and I won’t let them be used to destabilize the world.” Okay, maybe my judgment is a little extreme, but it’s still really shady at the BEST. As are his businesses, as Maxima noted to Anvil and Dabbler.
I accept that you view it as more likely international waters and have argued it was salvage. Leaving aside that debate, I disagree with the morals of salvage law when unrestrained (as exemplifed in Freefall when Florence and Sam go fishing: the waterlogged boat [there was a nasty hurricane] which they used was probably legally claimable as salvage, but they returned it anyway because it was right.)
________
Sciona: he volunteered to simply call if she returned. Instead, he pointed her at Wyrmil.
If a psycho who kills casually (but who, for whatever reason, I’m dead certain poses no threat to me), comes up and asks where you’ll be in a few hours, and I know where, what should I do? Deus chose to simply say where Wyrmil was. Unless you, in Wyrmil’s position, can say that I’m perfectly fine to say where you’ll be, then it was morally very wrong of him to do that.
Further, my faith holds that if you’re a watchman (which he volunteered/agreed to be when he said he’d let them know if Sciona returned/etc), then if you neglect that duty, whatever harm comes of neglecting it is on you, too. (I recall you complaining about my claim fault begins at 100%, and not ending there, so: I draw lines between the person who did it, the person who helped or enabled, the person who knew but did nothing, the bystander who knew nothing, and the victim. The victim and the bystander are 100% innocent, and the other three are all morally at fault, though the one who knew but did nothing might not be a full 100%. Sin of Omission. In this, I hold that Deus helped by pointing at Wyrmil, and neglected his admittedly partially-self-imposed duty.)
________
I accept that Villainous Hyenism is in-universe a condition. But it’s a fairly big red flag from a narrative perspective.
________
I accept that we have very different views on him. I’m prepared for him to be proven different from how I understand him. However, I regard him as a brutal liar
Brutal: the king and later letting Sciona attack Wyrmil and cause trouble because it was easier
Liar: the press, the meeting with the king, and not informing Archon like he promised. (And yes, if you say, “I’ll give you 10 dollars when I get 100,000,” I regard that as a lie, unless you absolutely [maybe 95%+] expect to get that 100,000, as would be using “if” instead of “when” if you don’t think there’s a reasonable chance. The lie is the premise – if someone honestly expected to win the lottery, then poor math and predictive skills notwithstanding, I’d regard “when I win, I’ll give you half” as honest. I remember numbers akin to that. But, Deus’s lie was his intent to let them know.)
For reference, these are my main driving morals, summarized as best I can:
1) Depending on circumstances, there can be exceptions within exceptions within…. These are all general case. And the order can change based on circumstances.
2) Minimize total harm. Exception for if increasing it will allow a far greater increase to happiness.
3) Maximize total happiness. Exception for if increasing it will increase harm significantly.
4) Be honest and straightforward when possible. Exceptions for baiting questions as a conversational tactic.
5) If there must be harm done to do more good, then just get it over with.
6) DO IT FOR OTHERS, NOT YOURSELF. (I accept profiting as a side effect of helping others as being good, but not helping others as a side effect of profiting. Doing both at once, is a wash).
7) Love. Actually a lot higher placed, but it’s fundamental enough that I didn’t think of it (does a fish think about water?) until when I was basically done with this post, and didn’t feel like editing the numbers.
Regarding 5, I understand that’s vague. Applied to Galatyn, I think there are a number of ways to have done that better, either by more diplomacy or by starting with brutal methods and moving in to stop the chaos. I don’t trust myself to properly enumerate all possibilities at this time.
One addendum on morality: regarding wicked flee, no man pursueth: he boasted about shorting the backs a lot of money in a different interview (maybe the first Galatyn one? I don’t remember the timing perfectly), and he’s arrogant enough that … why NOT boast about how clever he was? It’s absolutely in-character for him. And yes, this is completely circumstancial. But for narrative purposes, I see it as a big red flag.
________________________________________
As for my dislike of him as a character:
Pure villain: why the ashtray scene? Why the seeds of ambiguity (because he DOES help others, even if only to profit more, himself)
Villain who’ll be redeemed: He needs a bit more of the pet the dog stuff, like the ashtray scene. If his new assistant was for a similar reason, that would help, but I’d like to know
Late-stage villain: we’ve seen too much of him.
Anti-villain: Thinks he can rule better? Too comedic for his serious concept (which is also below).
Anti-hero: Sees the problems and thinks this is the best way to solve them, hiding behind a cynical facade: Still not enough of things like the ashtray scene.
Ambiguous: too many villain flags. Too few hero flags. Overlaps with redeemed, anti-villain, and anti-hero.
World conquest, politics, etc: a very serious concept, yet he has such goofball tendencies even while doing that. The two grate on each other in my mind.
Finally, his attitude towards women. Seriously, collecting them like unemotional conquests?
So, for dislike as a character: If he’s a pure villain, the ashtray scene is out of character (barring a very minor, “even evil can love.” If he’s NOT, then he needs more of them. And his goofball tendencies clash with his serious topics and his attitude towards women.)
Based on what I remember of the previous comic’s debate, I understand we see him in very different lights. But I dislike him as a character, based on my belief he’s been mis-handled, regardless of his villain or not status. Unless there’s further evidence, I regard him as a villain, but this is not an absolute.
___________________________
Again, I needed to get this clarification and correction to my fatigue-idiocy off my chest, so that it will stop distracting me. The comments section tends to flare my anger at times, so I try to avoid it. I’m washing my hands of this, and not commenting further for a good long time.
Pander, if you’re reading this:
Thank you for providing intelligent arguments. Some others didn’t on another topic, some many, many comics ago. Everything you’ve said, I don’t even need to bother with the laugh test – it’s good argument and debate. Despite disagreeing with many of your conclusions regarding Deus and hero/villain, I feel I’ve learned a thing or two from this.
And again, I’m sorry for the most recent posts I made in the previous comic’s discussion. I lost coherence and started rambling, due to fatigue. I should have realized better.
But, I will endeavor not to look at the comments further, for a long time. Looking at them bad for my health, overall.
I’m in a mood, so I read the entire thing. I almost completely agree with everything you write until you get to the point of disliking him as a character in the comic.
Certainly, we can all get together an hate on the Mary Sues. But that’s not the only trope that has been done to death. Deus has consistently been hard to pin down as to how he should be classified because THAT is the role of the character. To the extent that this comic is serious at all, I would argue that Deus is the central character. Almost every time we encounter him, he is engaged in morally questionable behavior. His actions demand judgement. How we judge him reveals more about us than about him. No other character even begins to approach this level of challenge for the reader.
Agreed. Deus is Amoral, not immoral. Deus is bigger than life. He is a villain, but he is not evil. He is neither chaotic nor lawful.
He is the most dangerous possible person: a smart, charming sociopath who links his personal objectives to the greatest possible good for others BECAUSE it is good for him.
It is good for him not only because of enlightened self interest, but also because he is up front about it and EVERYONE knows that when he is breaking the rules, he is doing so in a way that makes everyone’s lives better, or almost everyone’s.
Deus is a frustrating and exasperating mirror to Max, who is almost the opposite: she follows the rules, and achieves less good for the world because of it. And she can’t help but have her nose rubbed in it.
I’m mostly on board with you so I’m mostly just adding something I think you’ve overlooked. Deus has just destabilised a volatile part of the world, if Sydney was to head to the nation next to his and run for office on the grounds that Deus wouldn’t dare try that to a nation she was in charge of the people might go for it on only that statement (we know she can pull it off in combat so I used her as an example) now imagine if every nation that believes it might be attacked by Galytn handed power to the strongest super they could get, corruption would spread in an area that really doesn’t need any more instability.
Secondly it could be argued that a company has just declared war on a nation, this could easily be used to justify demanding that its employees be treated as military personnel and detained by any nation wishing to claim neutrality under internal law, and nation that fails to do so is then arguably allied with a nation that has broken internal law possibly affecting which parts of the Geneva Convention applies. Please note I’m not even an informed amateur on the subject of international law and wartime politics but the number of things someone could try and argue is extremely worrying and not everyone who would act on such a claim would be well informed anyway.
I’ll respond to your post tomorrow. Sorry I haven’t today. I’ve been doing some legal work for a charity for the past 3 days it’s been 14 hour work days followed by sleep. Monday’s Memorial Day though so not working (thank goodness) and I’ll have the time to respond. Also I like a well-reason argument as well :) Even from people who do not see Deus in the high regard that I do, all praise Deus amen. Thanks.
PART 1:
Sorry for not posting on Memorial Day. I honored our fallen soldiers by pretty much sleeping all day to catch up on my massive sleep deficit.
“It was when I caught myself responding to the wrong section of the conversation thread that I started to realize. I was losing coherence, attention, and lucidity. I should have left the conversation then. The thread was enough of a mess that I didn’t trust myself to properly go back and add an addendum saying: “I realize that in my fatigue, I lost the ability to accurately and coherently respond. Please ignore my above post.””
Yeah, long posts tend to get a little confusing to follow :).
“I am not going back to that thread. I have not seen any replies to my most recent posts. I’m sorry for wasting your time with my last posts. I should have realized beforehand that I wasn’t in a fit state of mind to properly respond, and I fear my fatigue-induced idiocy derailed them too much to save. I have rested since then, and should be more myself, now.”
Nah, time wasn’t wasted . Other people probably read it. No worries.
“Also, for the sake of closure, I’m going to explain my arguments, which are entirely on moral grounds. (I view abuse of the letter, or of situations that weren’t anticipated, in subversion of the basic spirit to be atrocious. I also acknowledge that our views on what the spirit is probably differ significantly.)”
Just so you realize, I’m an attorney so a lot of what I write about has to do with the law. I tend to consider morality and the law to be tied on a very basic principle, and while the letter of the law can be abused, so can the ‘letter of morality.’ Morality can be extremely subjective until you get to the extremes, to paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Hard cases make bad law. Which brings up the corrolary to that quote – the majority of less extreme moral situations can be determined by general application of law. Especially when talking about law like the US Constitution, which was developed primarily to protect the freedom of the individual and liberty over a wider range of safety and subjective, shifting notions of what different people might consider right or wrong.
“I regard Law and Good as not the same, though there’s definite overlap.”
I agree. They’re not the same, but there is definitely an overlap. Law is more objective, ‘good’ is more subjective – again, with the exception of extremes. There are always exceptions to the rule, but we do not make general rules based on the exceptions, because then they would not be ‘general’ rules.
“Plenty of laws are founded to codify good (no murder, no stealing, etc.)”
Funny thing btw, murder is different than just ‘killing.’ You can kill and still be good, like a soldier might kill an enemy on the battlefield, but he or she is not a murderer. You might kill someone in self defense, but again – that does not make you a murderer. Murder is literally defined, and has been defined for over 2000 years, as ‘an unlawful killing’ – so yeah…. good and law – linked again. Same thing with theft – theft requires taking something which does not belong to you, and belongs to someone else identifiable, from that person who it belongs to. For example, if you steal my brother’s guitar, and I break into your home and steal it back…. well I’m not guilty of theft or burglary, because what I did was not the definition of theft, and it wasn’t the definition of burglary (since burglary requires the unlawful entry into any structure with the intent to commit a crime inside – if I was not committing or intending to commit a crime, then it’s not burglary, although you could claim I broke the law by trespasssing instead… but would most people consider trespassing to be EVIL? Not generally, no).
“But I use Villain as a moral term, as do many others, and Criminal for the Law term.”
Make sure you don’t turn the heroes into villains with that terminology.
PART 2:
“Lawful, Villain: Ebenezer Scrooge before his three ghosts”
Ebenezer Scrooge was not a villain. He was mean. Being mean alone does not make you a villain. Everyone is mean at some point unless they are a paragon of virtue and a saint. Ebenezer Scrooge was just a miser, not generous, and expected his employees to work for their wage. He was not charitable, but not being charitable does not mean you are a villain, even if being charitable CAN mean you’re a hero.
“Criminal, Hero: Gandhi (for example, going to the sea and making salt in defiance of the law, to bring freedom to his people).”
I could actually argue that Gandhi was ‘evil’ if I base it on his views on women’s rights. He believed that menstruation was a manifestation of the distortion that all women’s souls had by their rampant sexuality. When Ghandhi briefly was a dissident in South Africa, he found that a male youth had been harassing two of his female followers. He responded to this, not by stopping the harassers, but by cutting the girl’s hair off so that, and I quote, ‘the sinner’s eye was sterilized.’ He even boasted about this in his writings, and did say, on multiple occasions, that women were entirely responsible for sexual attacks upon themselves. In modern parlance, victim shaming. He also stated that women who were raped lost their value as human beings, and that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honor. He also claimed that contraceptives were evil, and any Indian woman that used them was de facto a whore.
So… a lot of the above stuff I mentioned? That would be considered evil by a lot of people today, especially in nations that prize equal rights between men and women. But Gandhi would still be considered to not be a villain.
Just want to add, Deus seems more than happy to support the equal rights of women, and seems to be quite enamoured by surrounding himself with both strong men AND women. He seems to base his values almost entirely on merit, rather than mere identity. That seems to me to be a very non-villainous thing compared to Gandhi.
Yes. I just argued Deus is a better person than Gandhi. :)
“First, my Deus vs Democracy proper answer: Previously, I rambled about will of the people. I do hold that in high regard, although as something fallible. More importantly to my opinion is this: What I have is a distrust for large corporations, and a firm belief they should have nothing to do with government. Because I don’t trust corporations to have much in mind besides just the bottom line, as opposed to the welfare of the people.”
Actually I do agree with you about this. I’m actually a pretty strident Libertarian, but I’m no anarcho-capitalist. I tend to not trust unfettered (important word there btw) corporations OR government. That being said, governments tend to be a lot more unfettered than corporations, so I trust corporations a little more, since are USUALLY all about the money, and capitalism, if not bogged down by government granting certain corporations leeway over others, ironically tends to be more subservient to the people than government. There are of course exceptions – crony captialism and corporatism (Which is basically the private enterprise version of socialism and one of the reasons companies like Google or several other big Tech firms are… just awful). But still…. it’s better than government, because corporations do not have the legal right to use force upon you if you go too far outside their rules (without yourself breaking those same rules), while government does.
So I agree in principle, but not entirely in the particulars. I think that Gordon Gecko’s speech in Wall Street was both brilliant and an excellent example of the Invisible Hand of capitalism, and why capitalism is brilliant in that it takes a vice, greed, and turns it into a forced virtue if the greedy person hopes to be successful against other people who provide a better service or product.
To quote: ‘The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.’
“Individuals who lead them, can. I accept that in Galatyn, Deus is an exception to JUST the bottom line. But the system is too easy to abuse. That is why I don’t like Deus spying on a government. That’s for governments. (Corp-Corp is not relevant to this, IMO).”
I would think you should be FAR more concerned about a government spying on its citizens, rather than the citizen turning the tables ON that government that is spying upon them. We have the right to know what the government is up to, because the government is supposed to, at least in the US, be the people’s servants, not the other way around.
“By which I mean, I believe on a matter of principle that corporations should be subject to governments, not the other way around.”
Your belief on a matter of principle is unfortunately wrong-sighted though. Corporations should be only MINIMALLY subject to governments, and only insofar as the corporations do not abuse the people. Corporations should NEVER be subject to the whim of government rule itself, though. Governments are far more corrupt than corporations tend to be, because the government does not need to follow a profit motive, so the government does not need to create value that the consumer will purchase. The government can just force the citizen instead, as with paying taxes. You cannot opt out of it, but you can opt out of a corporation’s product or service.
And no, a government – especially the US government, has no right to engage in warrantless spying attempts on its citizens. ESPECIALLY not a military branch of the government.
“He’s in violation of that, both with Galatyn and in small part for spying on Archon/US.”
He’s in violation of nothing for the reasons I’ve stated above. If anything, the US, and ARCHON specifically, are the ones in violation.
PART 3:
“Second: I accept that you see Deus as heroic. I accept that THUS FAR, he’d done more good than harm.”
Yes, he’s definitely heroic if you use a utilitarian concept, but I think he’s heroic just in general as well, even if he takes some underhanded methods in achieving his heroic goals. I did not say he was a paragon and I did not even say he was heroic 100% of the time. I just say he’s not a villain, and tends to also do a lot of things which are QUITE heroic. Anyone who sees him as a villain based on anything that’s happened in the comic thus far only can say that because they do not like his personality. And sorry, but I don’t like Batman’s personality in the comics very often, but he’s a hero too. I don’t like Wonder Woman’s personality because she’s incredibly haughty and prideful, but she’s a heroine. I don’t like Wolverine’s personality because’s pretty much a psychopath, but he’s a hero.
I like Spider-Man’s personality, that guy’s all right in my book, even if he’s always guilt tripping HIMSELF.
“If that’s your criteria for heroic, then it’s just that our definitions differ greatly.”
Nope. My criteria do not JUST exist on utilitarian means. See above. I’m not into the notion that good and evil are purely utilitarian like in the TV show ‘The Good Place.’ It’s a very flawed model for deciding. But I’d err on the side of someone being good for doing good things than assuming they’re evil because they have a penchant for the dramatic and are trope savvy WHILE doing good.
“I do not see him as a hero for doing more good than harm. I see his deeds as entirely for himself, which disqualifies him in my book from the term, “hero.””
Your term for hero, as I described above with Gandhi, is flawed though. Not to mention Deus cares about the Galytin people, according to WORD OF GOD from DaveB, for genuinely altruistic reasons. The fact that he’s smart enough to make a fortune over it in the process is a side benefit. A great side benefit, but still… making a profit is not evil. There’s no ‘utilitarian measurement’ there in balancing making a profit and helping people, because in this case, both of those things are good already.
“Someone could do everything Jesus, Gandhi, and the entire Underground Railroad did, combined. But, if they did it for themself, and not for others, they would still not be a hero in my book. It’s the “for others” bit.”
Again, DaveB literally said Deus cares genuinely foe the Galytin people. He’s done this for them AND for himself. Why do you think that being good means you MUST sacrifice. I think it means you just need to do good.
It’s basically the Tony Stark vs Captain America argument of a heroic act in the Avengers movie. Which Tony was completely winning.
Steve Rogers : Big man in a suit of armor. Take that off, what are you?
Tony Stark : Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist.
Steve Rogers : I know guys with none of that worth ten of you. I’ve seen the footage. The only thing you really fight for is yourself. You’re not the guy to make the sacrifice play, to lay down on a wire and let the other guy crawl over you.
Tony Stark : I think I would just cut the wire.
Steve Rogers : Always a way out… You know, you may not be a threat, but you better stop pretending to be a hero.
Tony Stark : A hero? Like you? You’re a lab rat, Rogers. Everything special about you came out of a bottle!
Steve Rogers : Put on the suit. Let’s go a few rounds.
Notice a few things in that back and forth? Tony believes there can be a third option. Steve is limited to two. Tony realizes he has flaws, but can still be a hero. Steve does not realize he has flaws and has to have them pointed out to him. And when Steve has his flaws pointed out to him, he resorts to wanting to fight physically. When you do that, you’ve lost the argument. Tony wins the argument on what makes a person a hero. It’s not laying down on the wire… unless theres no other choice. A smarter choice is to cut the wire. Then everyone can pass through, including yourself. (PS, Tony does eventually make a sacrifice act at the end of that movie, because he genuinely did not see another route – but that’s the thing. Steve does the sacrifice act first – that’s not heroic… it’s stupid. He will crash the plane into the icy water even though he could have crashed it and first JUMPED OUT OF THE PLANE to avoid being a Capsicle for 50 years. Tony does the sacrifice act once he sees there are no smarter ways.
Deus is Tony. And in that respect, Deus is a hero.
“I would accept that they’ve done heroic THINGS, but I regard deeds, intentions, and methods as co-mandatory. Depending on the circumstances, methods may be optional. Given the ashtray scene, I accept that he could be hiding a real “for others” reason behind cynicism and bluster. I do not believe he is, but I accept he could be.
By which I mean, I regard his pure greed, even though it benefits others, as disqualifying the good he does, leaving only the bad (below). That leaves a villain.”
You mention the ashtray, and even accept that it means there’s possible reasons beyond bluster, but then you dismiss it for no good reason. There is no ‘greed’ involved in keeping the ashtray with his other prized possessions. He even says so much to Maxima. That even though anything can be bought with enough money, sometimes buying a thing diminishes its value.
What value is he talking about? He’s not talking about monetary value. He’s talking about moral value. He’s talking about virtue. He’s not a villain – he’s being virtuous.
“If someone did heroic things for both themselves AND others, then I don’t know. I’d probably lean towards hero if their methods were good.”
Then by my arguments, and by your agreement, Deus leans towards hero. NOT villain.
“I (sometimes strongly) disagree with his methods, though pending further information in-comic, I could agree to accept them as necessary. My disagreement is a big part of him is a villain, rather than a neutral who brings others up as a side effect of bringing himself up.”
I’ve still yet to see any examples of him being a villain. Even the more ruthless things he’s done have been for a heroic end, even if he also benefits as a result. That makes him Tony Stark – being able to profit WHILE doing good, rather than Captain America, who only is able to equate doing good for others with costing yourself stuff. Tony believes in an ‘everyone can win’ result, while Captain America ironically believes, for the most part, in an all or nothing result. Tony believes if you create something, you can get paid for it then both sides get something they value more. In a way, this is understandable that Steve would be so limited in his thinking. Deep down at his core, he’s still a grunt soldier. He’ll stand on the line and against the enemy who wants him to move, and he’ll say ‘no, you move.’ Tony, on the other hand, will stand on the line against the enemy who wants him to move, and he’ll make sure everyone behind him gets to safety while he’s coordinated three other attacks from other sides to take out the enemy as he explains why he will move…. after the trap has already been sprung. Or explain that even if the enemy makes him move, it will be a pyrrhic victory and it’s not worth the enemy’s time to try to make him move, even if the enemy succeeds.
Tony to Loki in Avengers: “You’re missing the point! There’s no throne, there is no version of this where you come out on top. Maybe your army comes and maybe it’s too much for us but it’s all on you. Because if we can’t protect the Earth, you can be damned well sure we’ll avenge it!”
“1) he offered to help such a vile person improve his position. He later said he intended to remove that king, anyway, so”
He intended to remove him only because he knew the king would eventually try to kill him or just use the money to enrich himself at the expense of the people, THEN Try to kill Deus. The fact that the king did this a lot sooner than Deus had hoped meant he had to move up the timetable because the king was being evil a lot sooner than expected.
Had the king NOT been evil and ordering him thrown off the roof, the king would not have died. Case in point? The prince is alive and fabulously wealthy now, and also in charge of the kingdom, even if not in charge of the economic parts – because that’s called delegation.
“2) he wasn’t dealing in good faith [and would have helped maintain said power until the betrayal, keeping problem 1].”
He said ‘us’ rather quickly afterwards. And he was dealing in good faith. He was dealing in the good faith of knowing the king would try to kill him for telling him how it was and what he thought of the king’s tyrannical practices of stealing from his own people.
“3) Violates hospitality and negotiations [I know it’s old-fashioned, but I hold those old customs in very high regard, minus the prevalence of motels].”
I’d say that hospitality is the duty of the host, not the guest. And trying to order your guards to throw someone off the roof is a strange concept of hospitality, in anyone’s book.
“The king was suspicious and somewhat reactionary, and Deus made the first attack command (after being told to leave or else, which came after a told to leave/doesn’t leave event.) As such, I regard Deus as the aggressor.”
Nope. The king was the first one to actually order violence. He just did not get the chance to follow through with the sentence to it’s end before suffering that heart attack from Cthhilla (or however her name is spelled)
PART 4:
“He was then ASTOUNDINGLY insenstive by making light of the king’s death in front of the new king.”
I’d be insensitive about making light of Hitler’s death. Doesnt make me evil. Even if I was saying it to his son. Plus the son seems to have gotten over it very quickly after seeing what a monster his father is. Deus even points out that he knows that the son had no knowledge of this, and doesnt see him as being like his father. ie, the son’s not evil.
“Then he brought said old king’s KILLER into the theater with him. (I’ll accept presenting the evidence then was necessary and call that itself a wash.) Bringing death ray lady (I don’t remember her name, but she wears that huge bandage mask) was either a further case of insensitivity compounded by offering the new king a deal while he was still grieving, or else a clear threat to him if he didn’t accept, despite not having oppressed the people. Possibly both.”
Insensitivity and wanting to make sure the son doesn’t try to knife Deus by keeping his bodyguard nearby in the movie theater is not evil. And it was not a threat. You are making an assumption. If the son said ‘I understand that my father was a monster from what I’m seeing, but I am not. But I still do not want to do business with you. Please leave.’ I do not think Deus would have said ‘Okay kill him too’ Because Deus is not evil.
In fact, the son seemed rather EAGER to become the wealthiest man in Africa. Not remotely scared about Cthhilla eating popcorn in the back.
“Other issues: title text or something else Dave-added implied the video evidence was doctored.”
The tape was not doctored, and I don’t see anywhere that DaveB said it was. He said it was really easy to get the footage … because the king was not very subtle in how monstrous he was, except in front of his son, who was ignorant of the atrocities that the king regularly commited against innocent men, women, and children.
“Given the ashtray scene, I’m at a loss for why.”
If anything, the ashtray scene proves that the movie was NOT doctored. That girl was not an actor. She was one of the many Galytin citizens who had suffered under the tyrant’s evil rule. And now they don’t, and she is happy about that, and sees Deus as their hero because of it. Justifiably so.
“Also, significant lies to the media about what actually happened (if it’s a don’t speak ill of the dead thing, then … fine, but I wish we’d seen an agreement with the new king about that.) But, wicked flee, no man pursueth.”
Being savvy about media public relations is not evil. And frankly the media tends to be rather evil on its own with agendas. They will as often as not side with a despot over a good person if it suits their own purposes.
“Galatyn + Interview (territorial expansion): He speak of cutting a path with a goal in mind, which means this is aggressive.”
Agression is not evil. Maxima is aggressive. It’s all about who you are cutting a path through. And according to Deus, the cities he’s cutting a path into are actually secretly ASKING him to incorporate their cities into Galytin. Freeing other people from vicious warlords that are, for all we know, as evil or more evil than the murderous king…. that’s a far cry from being a villain still.
“plus undermining the rules against Supers in war (which, given what we’ve seen of them thus far, I regard as comparable to nuclear warfare in potential devastation).”
The rules have huge loopholes. That’s not evil. In fact, when they close those loopholes, he will stop using them. He stated that explicitly. Also, just because the UN makes rules does not mean the UN is correct. Most UN peacekeeper missions have been plagued with the ‘peacekeepers’ engaging in sex trades and even slavery and murder of innocent civilians so…. they’re not exactly the most virtuous group themselves. Deus has made sure not to do anything against the G-8 group because he knows the places he’s liberating are pretty bad places as well and it’s hard for a G-8 country to say ‘we didn’t say anything when you killed hitler, but how dare you free people from Mussolini as well’ – it … would look bad.
“Would mitigate this if presented: he’s not the attacker; they’re attacking to take the infrastructure for themselves. That one would completely excuse the conquest part to me.'”
That’s literally my second point that I was going to make. The king, before dying, did say that they were under siege around ALL SIDES and surrounding kingdoms/countries. That makes it no longer a war of aggression. it’s a war of defense by the old adage that ‘a good offense is the best defense.’
Again. Not evil.
“Alari: I think this is where we saw the World Domination powerpoint file name.”
Having a sense of humor in using tropes is not evil.
“I’d like to re-iterate my belief that corporations and the people running them should not also run any governments for fear they’ll only represent the Corp and not the people. I accept there are individuals who can. Since Deus in this talk with Maxima said he invested his PERSONAL wealth, I’d even accept he can. But that’s too open to abuse.”
I’m confused by this particular argument of yours. Aside from the fact that you seem to trust governments a lot more than corporations, for reasons that COMPLETELY escape me from a logical standpoint, you also admit that Deus is using his personal wealth…. as an individual. Not just as a corporation. Then you say ‘but it’s open for abuse.’ Well so are governments open to abuse. A LOT MORESO than individuals for that matter, because it’s an accepted fact that governments can use legal force for its citizens not going along with their rules (admittedly hampered a bit n the US and to a lesser degree in other countries that have a written Constitution, but especially hampered in the US). But I don’t see any reason at all to trust a government more than an individual when he’s done virtuous things regarding Galytin.
“He’s also shown that he’ll use violence to get his means,”
Except he only uses violence as a last resort. When his life is being threatened only, it seems. In every other example, he’s tended to use words or money. Like in the vault. Sciona uses violence. Deus admonishes her for it, because he treats HIS employees with respect and using workarounds that do not involve shoving your hand through a person’s chest while slamming their head into a death field, when knocking the item off the pedestal with a potted plant achieves the same goals. He then gives the sword to one of his employees (Heavenly Sword). Gives. There is a distinct lack of plunging of fists through body cavities at all on his part. He did things in the absolute least violent way possible. He almost always does in the comic. A lot moreso than, say, Maxima, who is a designated hero in the story.
“The Black Reliquary: Even leaving aside the territorial/international argument (which is predicated on the law not knowing undersea buildings like that are even possible, aka a hole based on an unforseen niche issue), he knew that was Council interests.”
Why are you assuming the Council is composed of good people? Quite a few of them seem to be working with Sciona, in fact. Maybe Deus does not trust a bunch of monster who only group together because of the tendency for their kind to try to mass kill humans and conquer them if left unchecked. Probably not the people I’d want having objects of unspeakable power, which they seem to have taken from other monsters and mages and aliens and whatnot who they violently slaughtered.
“He knew that was their interests, and that they had active control over the facility. My stance is that morally, regardless of legality, it was a pure theft.”
Without regards to legality, there is no such thing as theft. If you’re going to separate yourself from something as intrinsic as LEGALITY when dealing with a term like theft, then you can just as easily argue that possession is ownership, or you can argue the Romany version of it called Bujo, which essentially says that if a mark is dumb enough to fall for a con, they deserve to be conned, and as a corrolary, if a person lets his stuff be taken, then they didnt want to keep it bad enough.
Obviously Im not making that argument though. Because I’m arguing based instead on the law. I just showed, however, than if you try to define theft without using law to define it, you can easily show that what he did was not theft anyway.
“Also, he’s selling some of the artifacts he found, and all of them were there because of the danger of letting them out without proper control.”
How do you know he doesnt vet his customers quite well?
“I accept he has some knowledge of them, but all the contingencies that dictate safe or dangerous? No. Nor those he might sell them to.”
You’re again making an assumption not based on anything that’s happened in the comic thus far.
“Further, he then deflected as much as possible from his involvement there, when speaking with Maxima.”
He literally told nothing but the truth the ENTIRE time…. plus Harem was able to corroborate that he was telling the absolute truth.
“Granted, he could just be afraid of the Council taking extrajudicial retaliation, and driving his bodyguard prices up, but if it was something perfectly fine for him to have done: why not just say, “Probably something from the Black Reliquary. I interrupted her ransacking the place, and distracted her.”
Is it Deus’s job to do Maxima’s job for her and volunteer information? Information has value. Everything he said was the truth. If you put him on a lie detector, he would have come up aces.
“As are his businesses, as Maxima noted to Anvil and Dabbler.”
I’d say his business practices are a lot less shady than the government’s. And a lot less shady than even Archon’s.
“I accept that you view it as more likely international waters and have argued it was salvage.”
Correct.
“Leaving aside that debate, I disagree with the morals of salvage law when unrestrained (as exemplifed in Freefall when Florence and Sam go fishing: the waterlogged boat [there was a nasty hurricane] which they used was probably legally claimable as salvage, but they returned it anyway because it was right.)”
Being generous and doing something which you are not obligated to do is a good thing. HOWEVER, not being generous and keeping something you are allowed to keep is NOT a bad thing. Again, it’s not black or white. Be Tony Stark, don’t be Steve Rogers. Cut the wire, don’t lie on top of it unless you have no other choice.
Or to quote Scrooge McDuck, another who is like Deus in many ways…. Be tougher than the toughies, and be SMARTER THAN THE SMARTIES.
Yes, I just used Duck Tales to try winning my argument. And I’d say successfully :)
“Sciona: he volunteered to simply call if she returned. Instead, he pointed her at Wyrmil.”
Whom she was unable to kill anyway. Deus already knew the guy is virtually unkillable if he survived having a fist shoved through him and his face smashed into a literal MAGIC DEATH FIELD. And who himself had a dangerous artifact, and was a danger to humanity as well. Plus he has no way of knowing about poor Coot, who’s probably the most innocent one in all of this.
“Further, my faith holds that if you’re a watchman (which he volunteered/agreed to be when he said he’d let them know if Sciona returned/etc),”
He’s not a watchman.
“then if you neglect that duty,”
He neglected no duty.
“whatever harm comes of neglecting it is on you, too.”
This is getting into civil tort law now btw. Negligence.
Negligence is not a crime btw, and does not imply intent. In fact, there’s a distinct lack of intent in a negligence action. That’s why it’s a negligent tort and not an intentional tort. You can’t be evil without intent.
“Sin of Omission.”
Omission is not a sin.
“In this, I hold that Deus helped by pointing at Wyrmil, and neglected his admittedly partially-self-imposed duty.”
He had no self-imposed duty to protect Wyrmil, who is perfectly capable of protecting himself. Or at least from not dying.
“I accept that Villainous Hyenism is in-universe a condition. But it’s a fairly big red flag from a narrative perspective.”
We have seen, time and time again, that Deus is VERY Trope savvy. Which means he’s savvy of how narratives go, and he likes toying with them intentionally, in order to subvert those tropes and poke fun at them.
That’s. Not. Evil. Or villainous, which since you’re wanting to take law out of it, is what we’re left with.
“I accept that we have very different views on him. I’m prepared for him to be proven different from how I understand him. However, I regard him as a brutal liar”
It’s not a lie to not volunteer information. It never has been. If I was to ask you for your address, and only would accept ‘give me your address or you’re a liar.’ and you refuse to give me your address, the result is NOT that you’re a liar. It’s that you don’t want to give your personal address to an anonymous person on the internet. That’s smart. It’s omitting a truth though. Which is NOT villainous or a lie by any stretch of the imagination.
Hate to bring law into this again, but there’s a moral-based reason why the Founding Fathers placed such a high regard in the freedom against self-incrimination. They didn’t just pick those rights out of a hat. They had moral compunctions for those inalienable rights.
(and before anyone says the inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness only, wrong. The exact wording in the Declaration of independence is:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that AMONG these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
Among. Not the sum totality. And I use the declaration of independence instead of wording from the Constitution because the Declaration was more about the moral reasons for WHY they were forming their own government, while the Constitution planted the basis of law for that government.
“(And yes, if you say, “I’ll give you 10 dollars when I get 100,000,” I regard that as a lie, unless you absolutely [maybe 95%+] expect to get that 100,000”
Since neither of us are clairvoyant, it’s odd to call not having yet done a future event a lie. I’m not even sure how you would be able to handle that in a real world situation with any coherence.
“For reference, these are my main driving morals, summarized as best I can:
1) Depending on circumstances, there can be exceptions within exceptions within…. These are all general case. And the order can change based on circumstances.”
This is what Deus does.
“2) Minimize total harm. Exception for if increasing it will allow a far greater increase to happiness.”
Again, this is what Deus does. He minimizes total harm, and the few times he did have any harm whatsoever, resulted in a huge amount of happiness as a result. Even then, he mitigated the harm done.
“3) Maximize total happiness. Exception for if increasing it will increase harm significantly.”
Again, Deus has done that.
“4) Be honest and straightforward when possible. Exceptions for baiting questions as a conversational tactic.”
He’s been nothing but honest and straightforward. Not volunteering information is not remotel the same as not being honest. The Avengers didnt call Thanos up on the space phone to tell them their plans of trying to destroy the Mind STone so he would not be able to finish his plans. Dr. Strange didnt explain how the one possible victory in 14 million timelines would work. He omitted and even refused to explain it. In fact, he’s a hero because of his omission, because his omission made the result of beating Thanos possible.
“5) If there must be harm done to do more good, then just get it over with.”
Again, this is what Deus does.
“6) DO IT FOR OTHERS, NOT YOURSELF. (I accept profiting as a side effect of helping others as being good, but not helping others as a side effect of profiting. Doing both at once, is a wash).”
Deus DOES do it for others. He ALSO does it for himself. Even if he both at once is a wash…. that’s still not your own definition of not being heroic.
“7) Love. Actually a lot higher placed, but it’s fundamental enough that I didn’t think of it (does a fish think about water?) until when I was basically done with this post, and didn’t feel like editing the numbers.”
Deus has already explained that Love is just an aspect of greed. :) Quite well. Plus he does seem to have love for the Galytin people, or at least genuinely cares for them, evidenced from keeping that ashtray among his most prized possessions.
“As for my dislike of him as a character:”
Your dislike of him doesnt really seem to jive with what he’s actually done though. You don’t like his personality because he’s smug. Because he knows he’s brilliant and he knows it.
“Pure villain: why the ashtray scene? Why the seeds of ambiguity (because he DOES help others, even if only to profit more, himself)”
Obviously he is not a pure villain – you just proved this because of the ashtray scene. Although there are a lot of other scenes that also prove it.
‘Villain who’ll be redeemed: He needs a bit more of the pet the dog stuff, like the ashtray scene. If his new assistant was for a similar reason, that would help, but I’d like to know”
There’s literally nothing he needs to be redeemed FROM. He hasnt done anything blatantly evil to need redeeming. If anything, he’s done a whole lot more ‘redemptive’ acts than people in Archon have.
“Late-stage villain: we’ve seen too much of him.”
Also hes not a villain.
“Anti-villain: Thinks he can rule better? Too comedic for his serious concept (which is also below).”
You’ll have to explain what you mean by anti-villain. Are you meaning like a Dr. Doom or Black Adam or Lady Shiva? Because those people at least do actual criminal acts, AND do engage in violence, and not as a last resort like Deus.
“Anti-hero: Sees the problems and thinks this is the best way to solve them, hiding behind a cynical facade: Still not enough of things like the ashtray scene.”
I’d be willing to accept this possibly, but I find Maxima to be a lot more of an anti-hero than Deus is so far, and since between the two of them, Maxima has more of a temper and is more prone to using violence to solve her problems first, instead of non-violent solutions, like Deus does.
“Ambiguous: too many villain flags. Too few hero flags. Overlaps with redeemed, anti-villain, and anti-hero.”
No offense but this description is sort of meaningless.
“World conquest, politics, etc: a very serious concept, yet he has such goofball tendencies even while doing that. The two grate on each other in my mind.”
And that’s the main problem with your view on Deus. It’s not coming from anything he’s actually done. It’s coming from that he’s so genre savvy and able to subvert those tropes that it’s impossible to actually CALL him a villain, even though you want to because he’s a rich capitalist with a scar on his face, which all screams ‘villain’ if written by a very two dimensional hack writer style, which DaveB most definitely is not a hack writer. It’s incredibly polished, if anything. The next best antagonist I’ve ever seen in fiction was David Xanatos in season 2-3 of Disney Gargoyles, or Amanda Waller in Season 4 of Justice League Unlimited, when she basically told Batman off that the JUSTICE LEAGUE were the ones being a threat, and Batman literally had no way to respond to that because he realized it was true.
“Finally, his attitude towards women. Seriously, collecting them like unemotional conquests?”
It’s all consensual. As for his attitude towards women, he seems particularly attracted to STRONG women who are NOT pushovers. So not a conquest…. more of a cherished experience.
Also if you recall, if anyone was acting like sex was a conquest, it was Sciona. She basically said afterwards that she would make him her personal sex slave after conquering Earth because of how stunningly, knee-wobblingly good he is at the horizontal mambo. He took it rather well.
“As for dislike as a character: If he’s a pure villain, the ashtray scene is out of character”
Actually it’s entirely IN character for Deus. It’s out of character only for your flawed perception of Deus, since everything actually shown in the story shows that Deus actually would cherish the ash-tray, because he does care about Galytin’s people for more than just money, and there are far easier, less dangerous ways, more exploitable ways to make a quick buck.
“Based on what I remember of the previous comic’s debate, I understand we see him in very different lights. But I dislike him as a character, based on my belief he’s been mis-handled, regardless of his villain or not status. Unless there’s further evidence, I regard him as a villain, but this is not an absolute.”
You’re free to have an incorrect view of Deus (it’s a free country and you make your arguments without slinging insults and personal attacks, because you’re an emotionally mature adult) but importantly, I think you’ve mentioned enough mitigating factors that you’ll eventually come around to realizing he’s a good character :)
“Again, I needed to get this clarification and correction to my fatigue-idiocy off my chest, so that it will stop distracting me. The comments section tends to flare my anger at times, so I try to avoid it. I’m washing my hands of this, and not commenting further for a good long time.”
Thanks back. I enjoyed this.
“Pander, if you’re reading this:”
I am.
“Thank you for providing intelligent arguments.”
No problem. Thank you for responding without any insults and engaging in an intelligent debate as well.
“Some others didn’t on another topic, some many, many comics ago.”
I think most people on this forum tend to actually be rather polite in their arguments, don’t let a few bad apples or even a few bad experiences spoil it.
“Everything you’ve said, I don’t even need to bother with the laugh test – it’s good argument and debate. Despite disagreeing with many of your conclusions regarding Deus and hero/villain, I feel I’ve learned a thing or two from this.”
i appreciate this. You’re good peoples.
“And again, I’m sorry for the most recent posts I made in the previous comic’s discussion. I lost coherence and started rambling, due to fatigue. I should have realized better.”
It’s all cool.
“But, I will endeavor not to look at the comments further, for a long time. Looking at them bad for my health, overall.”
I hope you read this though. I wrote it for almost an hour during my entire break from working. :) Had to break it up into five parts because one part kept crashing.
Isn’t it about time for a….
“Meanwhile, back at ArcSwat Headquarters…” ?
Just going to leave this here:
Wouldn’t it still have an Alexander in there too?
That’s not part of his given name, but there’s nothing stopping him from popping it onto the front.
Hey, DaveB, question! Are all Alari as powerful as Sciona (flight speed, strength, killer wings)? If so, does it mean that Deus now has a whole ship of Sciona-level supers at his disposal?
No. Sciona is like a crazy necromancing blood mage. Most Alari are basically human level of power and survivability, but the number of wings they have indicate rank, age and/or power.
Wait – wing count / size isn’t strictly genetic then, and can change with rank and power? I wonder if that’s inherent, conscious, socially enforced, etc – opens a lot of questions about how their wings really work and if they’re biological or technological. Or both.
So, you’re telling me I need to seek out a mature Alari in a position of authority – they will have the wingspan I so desire!
fyi Alexander’s name is a boast of how connected he is to Islam and the Prophet, so it’s a matter of face/honor from his culture. no different from a Royalty’s listing but this is way more common… and blatant.
Just going to leave this here:
https://youtu.be/nGM375qYhN0
Wait wut…. was that real?
For a moment there, I thought Muppet Maxima had made a return in the final panel.
Yeah, Max is showing a bit of Muppetosis there.
I’d guess the US Space Force would have a major say if anyone was even allowed to land…
Only if they wanted to land in the good ole US of A, unless it plans to usurp the rights of other nations.
Which it might, depending on which administration is in charge.
Honestly, this whole scene is giving me a real “Romance of Three Kingdoms” vibe. By which I’m referring to how the story had three warring factions… who were all portrayed as heroic in their own way. It wasn’t “one good side versus two evil sides,” it was “three good sides who opposed each other.”
Deus… look at everything he’s actually done. Forget his words. Forget his appearance. Focus on his ACTUAL DEEDS. Then imagine those same deeds being performed by… any of the members of ARCSWAT.
Can you see Maxima putting her fist through the skull of a genocidal warlord, then encouraging the man’s son to redeem the family by overseeing the rebuilding of their country? I can.
Can you see Arianna pouring money into a wartorn economy and providing jobs and security to the people, so that none of them need worry about starvation and privation anymore? I can.
Can you see Matthias or Dabbler having sex with a villainess in exchange for giving her the artifact she needs to… go home? I can.
Can you see Halo recruiting supers with criminal records to serve as superheroes in her employ? Hell yeah – in fact, ArcSWAT HAS recruited supers who were arrested during the big fight with Vehemence.
So… curious to see where this goes. I’m reminded of how, in the “Bronze Age,” Marvel comics would have a lot of interactions between American superheroes and foreign superheroes (including Soviet heroes). Often they would clash – but other times they would interact peacefully, or even team up (Like Colossus and Sunfire joining the X-Men. Or the Hulk joining Ursa Major and Vanguard in taking down a Russian villain).
The real question is his endgame. As long as we DON’T know that, we don’t have the ability to say definitively whether or not the ends justify the means in his case.
All we know is that he DOES have an intricately planned endgame that he calls ‘world domination’… but the actual content of the plan is still nebulous.
He’s no different to any major business entity there: all of them have at least a plan to “dominate the world”. Some of them get there. And some stay there for longer than others.
“Can you see Matthias or Dabbler having sex with a villainess in exchange for giving her the artifact she needs to… go home? I can.”
. . . and also allow her people to start an invasion. So no. They might open a space hole to her home and shove her through, but neither of them is stupid, evil or hard up enough to give an established mass murderer charge of a potential tool for mass murder.
He’s at least supporting an maybe fueling the illegal use of supers in combat, running a war, giving an established mass murder and national fugitive a personally stolen superweapon.
Ariana would scream if even heard the suggestion of breaking said treaty, there’s nobody in Argon with the political power to even start a war and Dabbler even witholds personal tech from people, so they don’t end up in the hands of mass murders.
I really can’t see any of those people braking international law nor blatantly stealing dangerous magical artefacts seemingly for the sake of it.