Grrl Power #845 – Chantage sécurité
It seems Maxima’s love affair with Lorlara was short lived.
Panel 6: The implied text there is “Gary, I know this looks bad, but do you want to know what I see? An opportunity. For both of us.”
This is either a baller move, or a sign of overconfidence. Deus isn’t admitting to anything actionable here, but either way it almost seems like he’s bored with the opposition considering what he’s implying.
Make no mistake, he has an actual high end business that provides a legitimate service. Given the small number of supers in the world though, it tends to be more of a “quietly hunt down super powered blackmailers (that aren’t me) after the fact (and possibly offer them a job)” program than a vigilance/safeguard service. The way he finds new clients… might be occasionally… illegal-ish.
I’m not sure what fancy restaurant serves cake pops like a pile of bonbons, but Deus does own the place, so maybe he just likes having some down to earth stuff on the menu. Presumably these are also really good, fresh made cake pops, and not what they usually are, which is leftover cake crumbs mashed together with icing or chocolate. They’re basically the croutons of cake.
I’m also not sure what Maxima ordered there in panel 1 (or where it went in subsequent panels – oops) I think it’s either lime sherbert, or a key lime pie in a wine glass. Either way it’s got gold foil in the dessert and around the rim there. Because it’s a fancy restaurant so they have to embellish stuff like that.
I’ve finally updated the vote incentive. I’m trying something new this time. It’s a picture of Harem in the shower. All five of her. The vote incentive will take you to a SFW (PG-13) version of the pic, and there’s a NSFW over at Patreon for supporters. (Like a soft-R. Well, you can get away with some boobs in PG-13 these days, but you get the idea.)
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.
VOTE ,MAKE GRRL NO.1
Dat vote incentive is wonderful, but I have to wonder if Harem is really that into herself, or if she just knows people are watching. I mean, I suppose making out with yourself is a form of masturbation – which, don’t get me wrong, can be really fun – but does it really count as being bi?
she almost certainly knows she’s being watched, and sure, making out with herself is a form of masturbation, but when she was ‘experimenting’ she got to know how everything felt from both sides of every act, so she’s gotta be a fantastic bisexual.
Remember the “paralytic cunningulus” subcomic? That was a very heavy implication of her eating one or more of herself out, thus increasing the sexual pleasure being received from two or more bodies towards one mind.
What the hell are you talking about, your fantasies,. should stay fantasies.
That would be the subcomic on this page at the restaurant, where the phrase is used during a discussion on feminism.
PSST! Check out the vote incentive…
I’d assume 3.
No, but it could be considered narcissistic…
It’s not blackmail, I’m just selling you security so someone else doesn’t blackmail you.
Like I could right now if I wanted to.
But I won’t, you can trust me, especially if you buy my security.
if you buy my security it will be my job to make sure this sort of thing is never made public… you want me to make sure this is never made public, right?
Kinda like the old Capone Fire Insurance setup.
Nice reputation youse gots here… shame if sumpin’ happen to it…
Do you want a branch of the federal government providing you super-security, cramping your ‘extra-curricular activities’ and perhaps feeling the need to initiate legal actions?
Or would you prefer ‘Machina Security Solutions’, which can provide the same level of security, and doesn’t care what you do behind closed doors.. as long as you vote a certain way on certain issues.
Private enterprise almost always does a better job than the government version, and for less money, or at the very least, more efficiently while not going bankrupt in the process :)
Fed Ex/UPS/DHL v USPS – which side do you think invented postal tracking, same day service, overnight service, and lower prices for packages first?
Bryant Park in NYC (private) vs Central Park in NYC (public) – which do you think has a negligible crime rate, is regularly very clean, and makes a profit while being free to the public to use?
SpaceX vs NASA – which do you think can do a more efficient space launch for one-tenth the current costs? Which developed the ability to land a rocket the same place it launched, while keeping almost the entire rocket and not littering orbit with space debris?
There are hundreds or thousands more examples I could list. The same is not so in reverse.
As long as you can prevent monopolies and corporatism and the very few minor things that the Constitution (needing to have a public OPTION for services like postal service and military defense and the coining of currency), private business products and services are the better option almost every time. The reason is very simple, in that private enterprises are a lot more dependent on the public’s approval than government is. With government, it’s once each election. With private companies, it’s continual where the private enterprise’s profit motive dictates needing to provide better services and products if they want to make more money (again, except in cases of monopolies and illegal trusts between oligopolies, which was the whole reason for the Sherman Antitrust Act).
Not to mention a lot of services by the government are going to be, by law, available to public information requests.
So if Deus is offering private super-powered security services to prevent blackmail and whatnot, and the US Government is offering Arc-Light, a lot of people would choose the private option unless no private option exists.
All praise Deus.
At best that’s an argument for more governmental accountability, to which I’d agree. However, a lot of your argument sounds like ‘vote with your wallet’ which… I shouldn’t have to explain why that doesn’t work. Keep in mind that those public services aren’t just there to act as competition to private business, they’re there to serve the public. Of course private industries that focus on the most profitable niche are going to be more profitable. Profit is only one metric of value.
The problem with Deus reaching outside his country to make a profit is that he has no incentive to care about the costs/benefits to people outside his nation/company. Having a foreign power holding your elected officials over a barrel is much, MUCH worse than having those elected officials be accountable to their public. Deus seems to be almost intentionally demonstrating why internal security needs be mandatory.
“At best that’s an argument for more governmental accountability, to which I’d agree. However, a lot of your argument sounds like ‘vote with your wallet’ which… I shouldn’t have to explain why that doesn’t work.”
Actually you definitely SHOULD explain why it doesnt work, because absent government corruption and government tipping the scales, it most definitely does work.
Saying ‘well, I don’t have to explain why your argument is bad’ just tends to mean that you don’t have an argument that works to refute my own argument
It’s like as if I was a prosecutor, and the defense just laid out a perfectly reasonable defense, then I say ‘Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense just gave you a reason that the defendant is innocent, but I don’t have to even tell you why his argument doesnt work, so I won’t. Just convict him. Off with his head.’
That’s not an argument, unless you’re in the movie ‘Idiocracy.’
Judge: “Why you think he dunnit?”
Prosecutor: “K well, number one yer honor… just look at him? And we have like…. all this evidence. And I’m all like… I know man right? So the judge should be like… guilty. Peace out!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc
That’s not an argument.
“Keep in mind that those public services aren’t just there to act as competition to private business, they’re there to serve the public”
Actually, with the exception of VERY few government services mentioned specifically in the Constitution, the government tends to be rather incompetent at running anything vs private enterprise. Even WITH stuff in the Constitution, they tend to be massively inferior. The post office is an excellent example. Or the old joke, based on the truth, about the runaway spending of the mlitary industrial complex (ie, spending $600 for a hammer). Or the idea of wasting money on doing no work, because if you don’t spend the money this year, you don’t get the same amount next year. While with a private enterprise, if you do a job for less money….. that’s a GOOD thing.
‘Of course private industries that focus on the most profitable niche are going to be more profitable. Profit is only one metric of value.”
Private industry focuses on what’s the most profitable niche because it’s wanting to be the most efficient. Because that makes the most money AND the side effect is it provides the best service, most advancement for society, and best product or service for the consumer compared to the government version.
Case in point – Reagan’s ‘government cheese’ attempt. Feel free to google it. Or SpaceX’s efficiency vs NASA’s bloat. Or the Obamacare website – do you think Amazon would have spent $1.7 billion to set up…. a website? Large, bureaucratic organizations that has significant experience in core government policies is not adaptable to behaving like a “start-up” and successfully launching new technology. Or even older technology usually.
“Profit is only one metric of value.”
Profit is the core metric of value from which all other economic services spring. It’s why communism just… well it completely sucks and collapses economies. The brilliance of capitalism is it usually forces greedy people to provide a beneficial and superior service, compared to government, in order to make that profit. It basically uses greed as an engine for providing GOOD.
Yes, Gordon Gecko, I will keep using your wonderful quote from Wall Street, Greed most definitely is good.
“they’re there to serve the public’
I need to particularly focus on this part of what you said by the way.
Government services are there to serve the people. Are they now, really? What’s the incentive to bloated bureaucracy? Do you feel that the DMV is efficient in serving the people? Has the post office ever created anything innovative that was not created by a private enterprise competitor (and yet they’re still operating at a multi-billion dollar loss)?
The government creates pork barrel spending. Because the people who compose the government tend to be quite corrupt. Deus providing a private option which is superior to the public option, to the point where those corrupt politicians will actually spend the people’s money that they get through taxes on something OF VALUE AND GENUINE WORTH instead of on pork-barrel spending is a GOOD thing.
I would rather the $25 billion be spent on Deus X Machinae industry products which actually work and are going to make us competitive with alien technology, rather than spending it on a bridge that goes to nowhere or on an opera house in a particular Senator’s district that has nothing to do with the funding of a Senate Appropriations Bill.
“The problem with Deus reaching outside his country to make a profit is that he has no incentive to care about the costs/benefits to people outside his nation/company. ”
Actually he has EVERY incentive to care about the costs/benefits of the people outside his nation/company. Because those people are buying his products and services. And he wants them to KEEP BUYING HIS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
“Having a foreign power holding your elected officials over a barrel is much, MUCH worse than having those elected officials be accountable to their public.”
Well isnt it a great thing then that Deus is an American citizen then, with a company headquartered in the United States that happens to produce a lot of products in Galytin, that he’s offering to be an exclusive contract with the US, which would benefit both the US AND Galytin.
Also, Deus is not a foreign power. Dealing with Deus is a whole lot better than dealing with, say, China.
Also ‘over a barrel?’ – He’s stating that he can provide a service for people to NOT be blackmailed. By people who are not HIM. That’s why it’s a hypothetical. If the government officials were not already so corrupt, they probably would not worry about people being able to blackmail them.
And lets not forget the whole point of this – it’s to convince government officials to vote on bills that will actually buy a service, instead of spending the money on bills full of pork. My god, Deus is forcing government officials to actually spend taxpayer money on stuff that benefits the country instead of stuff that benefits the government officials alone! How awful. Not.
“Deus seems to be almost intentionally demonstrating why internal security needs be mandatory.”
And yet those government officials are not comfortable with internal security only, because they realize private security is usually going to be superior.
You are not supposed to deepthroat capitalism that hard dude
But it’s sooo good.
Yum. I loves me some capitalism.
Also, how are you so bad at subtext as to not realize that the implication is that the legislatures would agree with to pay Deus’ defense plans out of the perceived fear that he would otherwise release the blackmail material?
Because Pander is a lawyer, who also happens to be deep in SmugD’s pocket, so naturally feels all other lawyers will agree with her about how great and noble he is
I love you too Guesticus.
Although yes, anyone who understands the law should be impressed with how skillful Deus is written in handling his way with it.
Not to mention somehow also managing to be a moral positive about it, even while trying to throw up villain tropes in order to subvert them. What can I say? I’m a fan.
I’m not bad at subtext. I don’t read into stories things which do not exist in the story though. He’s been rather explicit to Maxima that he would not be involved in any blackmail at all. He’d let the politicians realize that they ARE vulnerable to blackmail, and he’d be the good guy to help protect them against those scurilous evil-doers.
Counterpoint: The USPS. I live in Minneapolis. My Post Office was literally burned to the ground over the weekend. I still got mail this morning.
One reason that the government agencies are not profitable and/or cost more is because they are maximizing a different metric, reliability. Hammers cost $900 because when they are sucked into a jet engine they don’t produce shrapnel.
If you want an example of true unfettered capitalism, look at drug cartels.
I honestly would be hesitant to use Minneapolis as an example of government doing things right compared to private enterprise, given what’s been happening.
You say ‘you got your mail even though the post office was burned to the ground.’
You’re sort of missing that… your post office was able to be burned to the ground.
“Hammers cost $900 because when they are sucked into a jet engine they don’t produce shrapnel.”
Pretty sure if a hammer is sucked into a jet engine, there’s going to be shrapnel. If not from the hammer, then from the jet engine. The hammer costs $900 not because of technological innovation, but because of bureaucratic bloat.
“If you want an example of true unfettered capitalism, look at drug cartels.”
1) I did not say unfettered. The one limitation that works for Capitalism is preventing monopolies and trust-based oligopolies. Which is why I like the Sherman Antitrust Act
2) Drug cartels are not unfettered capitalism. They are usually allowed to exist because of bribes to government officials. They also crush smaller up and coming cartels. They are usually the monopolies of the drug trade.
3) Actual capitalism does not rely on murder or violence. It relies on greed. Drug cartels do not rely on greed – they rely on fear, violence, and murder. Capitalism fluorishes in a libertarian society. Cartels fluorish in an authoritarian society.
Sorry, but your argument, and your analogy, are flawed.
Btw Arbarbonif, I hope my parting shot about your argument being flawed is not considered too aggressive. I’m not meaning it as a dig on you personally. I’m not saying YOU are flawed. I’m just meaning that the analogy you used of capitalism and drug cartels has a lot of flaws subject to counter-argument.
I just wanted to make that clear because I argue against ideas more than I argue about people,and I respect you posting, even if i think that what you posted was not logically sound.
Pander is quite correct. If a hammer is sucked into a jet engine, the wooden handle may become spinters, but the
payloadhead wont even be dented. The same will not be true of the engineer who had the hammer any place close to that delicate machinery.I would hesitate to attribute the high cost of the hammer to “bureaucratic bloat”. On The Other Hand, an NGO I was volunteering in received a wonderful little HP Laserjet as a donation. The Very Large Company had just done its triennial IT update: everything that constituted IT hardware was summarily evicted and replaced. The evicted hardware was placed in dumpster bin ready for collection. The printer was (with comany permission) rerouted to our office, where it performed reliably for over ten years.
Imagine the cost of replacing 2 or 3 thousand bits of IT hardware on an ad hoc basis, that is, every replacement must go through 7 or 8 levels of administrative approval. Now estimate the dollars per hour per person for each level of approval, plus the time cost for utilising another station’s hardware while waiting for the approval.
Because that is what happened with the hammer. And it was the US Army — the incident was widely publicised in the weeks following — and the hammer was absolutely needed at the soonest, due to lack of spares on the base.
The Very Large Company was able to get volume discounts far below what you or I could hope for, simply by planning ahead and “wasting” all those “assets”. The US Army at that base was not in a good position at the time, so the approvals had to be costed in. The actual hammer was purchased at a tool store for US$75.00.
It takes time for the market to shift. That lag time can and often is too late for many industries such as healthcare. Insulin for example, unregulated price gouging will draw increased profits… up until the client base starts dying off from not being able to afford it anymore.
“It takes time for the market to shift”
It takes a lot more time for government to innovate. When they do at all. Which is exceedingly rare.
“That lag time can and often is too late for many industries such as healthcare”
You forget that government did not create insulin. Private enterprise did. We’re just fortunate that the inventor of insulin decided that it was too important an invention to sell, so he sold the patent for $1. But remember… Banting and Macleod did not work for the government. They were a private practice physicians.
MOREOVER…. insulin did not become widespread until it started being sold thanks to private enterprise, by Eli LIlly, who was able to figure a way to mass produce it, and by Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, who developed a variety of superior-working, slower-acting insulins. Because of profit.
And Eli Lilly again improved on insulin so it did not have to be extracted from pigs and cattle and dogs, by creating a biosynthetic version called Humilin.
In short, private enterprise makes things better. Government does not make things – they only tend to take things that private enterprise already made.
That isn’t Lime, it’s Pistachio ice cream!
Yummy!
I only just noticed that Lorlara has her Wings of Light out. You’d think Maxima would mention that as a skosh impolite, like eating your peas after dropping an entrenching tool on the table.
aaand I completely missed that she’s putting the cake pop in her mouth USING A DAGGER.
It looks awfully like she’s still on white truffle gruyère bacon wrapped shrimp…
It is. It is quite clear on the double res patreon page. Heh he-he-he-he-he heh he-he-he heh
I think Lorlara is becoming addicted here… I wonder what the withdrawal symptoms are :)
I don’t think she’s euphoric about the bacon – although i don’t really know how Alari metabolisms react to bacon, so maybe I’m off base – I think she’s laughing about Deus’ plans to ‘offer protection’ to US legislators. Not sure if ALL Alari have a tendency to supervillain theatrics, but Lorlara definitely does. In fact, I’m starting to think Sciona may be considered a bit reserved, amongst her own kind.
Sciona has had more time dealing with humans and so knows how to relate to them and how to show her power without needing to be so over-the-top. Besides, in Sciona’s mind, she is top bitch; Lorlara is definitely subservient to Deus, but is clearly trying to treat the humans around her the way she would treat Alari, if she was in a similar situation at home.
I wonder if the smoke is doing wacky things to her brain. One way to tell is to wait for her to calm down and then give her a few slices of German double-smoked bacon and watch her reaction. If she shows her usual over-the-top behaviour, then nothing to worry about.
You never know… She could REALLY like shrimp or truffles…
Yeah, it could go either way. She may either be a standout example of an Alari who is openly evilly scheming and Deus hired her for that reason, OR she may be ironically the least openly evilly scheming Alari and Deus hired her for THAT reason. I’m not sure which is better.
I’m worried that they may be an aphrodisiac to Alari…
That’s almost a direct challenge to the monopoly on violence that is one of the government’s purposes of existence.
I never understood that viewpoint. It’s not a purpose of government, but a power of government
One function of a good government is to protect citizens from attack or threats. If people threaten others (with weapons or physical force), then the government must curb their activities. The government must use violence if that is the only means.
If you refuse to accept that, you agree to be forced by any armed or physically strong person. Mom and Sis get raped, and you lose your home, your possessions and maybe your life. Your assault weapons won’t save you – they’ll kill you for them.
That protective function is abused by dictators and tyrants. A weak democracy like the USA fails to curb threatening people.
Such failures do not justify attacking good government. They require you to use your vote to support people who actually care about you. Not rich puppets, funded by far richer billionaires who are working hard to destroy democracy. And fooling you into voting for it.
In Oz we have “Compulsory Voting”. Ostensibly it’s to ensure everyone gets a say in the “Preferential Electoral System”, but in reality it’s a knee-jerk to class warfare.
The first parliament to use the system was Queensland in the 1915 elections, as to many (up to 60%) electors simply did not want to support a self-serving wealthy upper class. It was picked up nationally in 1924 following the 1921 Federal Election which saw an 18% abstension rate. Since then, every State has adopted compulsory voting.
I find it difficult to reconcile The Vote with Democracy if I have no choice in the person or quality of the candidates on offer. And the rhetoric of encouragement is a bit hollow when you understand that only about 15% of electors actually get to influence the government returned after any election, since only marginal seats are likely to change hands at any election. A “marginal” seat is pretty well any seat that requires a 4% or smaller swing to change colour. Australia is politically stable, so most seats are (if not “blue ribbon”) at least “safe”.
We should understand that almost every “Democratic Government” is in fact a Water Empire: it is impossible to change the system from within unless you are prepared for decades of instability following the coup. Water Empires can only be toppled from without. Class warfare is a strong indicator of (governmental corruption), thus until the mindset is sympathetically changed, there can be no real democratic aspirations.
At least the USA has voluntary voting, thus by definition it has a morer real democracy than Australia: it could be argued that Oz does not actually have a real democracy, since the Democracy Index states:
Appendix–The Model–III Political participation–27. Voter participation/turn-out for national elections.
(Average turnout in parliamentary elections since 2000. Turnout as proportion of population of voting age.)
1 if above 70%.
0.5 if 50%-70%.
0 if below 50%.
If voting is obligatory, score 0.
I wouldn’t consider Australia politically more or less stable. It depends on the election year. The previous Turnbull Govt won by one seat. Some years, the swing seats can be as much as 40%. Last election they were about 30%.
The current Morrison Govt shouldn’t have won, but the Shorten campaign shot itself in the foot. It can be compared to the Hewson campaign of ’92. If Shorten had just shut up and pulled a play out of Abbott’s book (release policies days just before the election, so there can be hardly any scrutiny) and attacked the Coalition’s policies for the majority of the campaign, he would have beaten Morrison easily. Poorly executed, on the fly policy killed his campaign. And now we are seeing similar kinds of policies and decisions from Morrison.
No system in use can really be considered more democratic than others. They all have their pros and cons. Aus uses the majority system, but that can be corrupted by preferential votes if there is no clear winner after the first round of counting. You could have more votes than your competitor, but they could have done deals with minor parties to take their votes on the second round count.
The USA is a first past the post system, but that doesn’t work properly either (and who the heck votes on a Tuesday?). You can win on popularity, having more votes than the other guy, but still lose. Trump lost on popularity by nearly 3 million votes, a 2% margin. The Electoral College, just like Aus’s preferential voting, throws a wrench into the works.
If we had a true democracy, where you could vote for whomever you choose, we’d have nothing but squabbling micro parties who achieve nothing.
we’d have nothing but squabbling micro parties who achieve nothing.
(You should see our Senate ballot sheet. We had one about 10 years ago that was about 15 inches deep and nigh on 36 inches long. That one had (I think) 27 parties, and if you voted “below the line” you had well over 100 little boxes to fill — with no mistakes allowed.)
I don’t want to name my own choice of representative, if for no other reason than that the person I want would be too smart to consent — “If nominated, I will not stand; if elected, I will not serve.” No, all I want is the right to — somehow — tell the Electoral Commission, and thus Parliament, that all the candidates in my home electorate fill me with grave apprehension regarding their desire and ability to properly put my feelings on certain matters to the Parliament Assembled. And for that reason I cannot vote for any of them. You Yanks have that right, I don’t.
Don’t get me wrong. Every parliament we’ve ever had does produce 1 or 2 worthwhile benefits along with the 5 or 6 that drag this nation back into the gutter. But a 1 to 3 ratio is pretty poor performance. And it does not reflect a democratic government.
And I have long held the opinion that California may well have the most democratic government in the world: any electorate which can force by ballot an incompetent representative to resign has real democracy.
One question: how do they enforce ‘compulsory voting’? Do they go around to each household, and force the adults, at gunpoint, to vote?
Oh dear dear dear. Nothing so expensive, I’m sorry.
On the Saturday — you see we’re quite cleverer than the Yanks at times! — we rock on up to the “Polling Place” (usually a school) and report to the Desk. The nice people there ask who you are and where do you live, and have you voted already (“Eh, only twice today” :) ), then they find you in the Electoral Roll and draw a nice straight line through your name and address. THEN, and ONLY then, do they outfit you with the Ballot Papers, and direct you to a Ballot Box. What you do there is your own business — but urination or defecation will be detected and dealt with. Many folks simply file a blank Ballot Paper: you can’t be pegged for this, as it’s supposed to be a secret ballot, and that is sacred.
The Electoral Rolls are then checked at leisure after The Count, and absentees wil be sent a “Please Explain” notice.
The point was, how is that different from America? Or any other country?
Over here, it’s not just on one day (that’s usually just the day the votes get counted and tallied), and we can usually vote up to a week (or more?) before hand, we can even do postal voting, that still doesn’t ensure that everyone votes, because some just can’t be arsed
Last election, they tried to do Online Voting, forgetting that not everyone has a computer or access to one (even less dumbphones), and even then, many still didn’t vote (and it was a complete fuckup all around)
The ‘compulsory’ bit isn’t in the way it’s handled on the day, but in what gorblimey describes as ‘please explain’ notices. If you didn’t turn out to vote, and you don’t have a good reason, then you’re liable for a fine. I’m not sure how much the fine is, or what sort of thing constitutes a ‘good reason’; for that, I refer you to the Australian.
Australia adds another wrinkle to compulsory voting, deriving from the way it handles its electoral system. They use a preferential system, which allows them to effectively simulate a series of runoff elections until a candidate is elected with an actual 50+% majority. So far, so good*. (Compare to the UK, USA, and NZ’s ‘electorate’ seats: in these the candidate with the largest block of vote share takes the seat – even if that share is only 20%, and everyone else hates their guts!)
The preference order is taken to indicate how you would vote if your favourite candidate weren’t available, thus allowing for the virtual runoffs as the candidates with least ‘current’ preferences are knocked out in turn. Most applications of preferential voting allow you to declare as many or as few preferences as you like; if they all get knocked out before a winner is declared, then it’s assumed you don’t mind which of the remaining candidates gets the seat.
But Australia insists that each voter rank the whole ballot paper in order. Or ‘vote above the line’ for one of the major Parties, effectively accepting whatever order they recommend. That does make a sort of sense within the context of voting being compulsory, as it’s theoretically possible for the virtual runoffs to continue until only two candidates remain. I’m not sure how common it is for that to happen, or rather how common it is for a voter not to have one of the major ‘last two’ Parties in a relatively high preference; I suspect very rare for both. Again, ask an actual Australian.
What Australia does not do, which many jurisdictions do, is include a “None of the Above” or “Re-Open Nominations” (RON) option on their ballot papers. This would allow voters to register their presence (thus avoiding the fine for not turning up) without endorsing any candidate (if none still standing have a higher preference than RON). In theory, if RON wins the seat then the election should be re-run, giving the Parties the opportunity to find candidates who voters actually want; in practice, it’s rare for it to be more than a protest vote, but it keeps the result more honest than forcing the ‘protesters’ to either dishonestly back a ‘live’ candidate or pretend that they couldn’t be bothered turning up at all.
*There are better voting systems out there, but that’s a whole new rabbit hole to get drawn into!
First I will give drirect arguments against your point after that I will talk about how both ideas are the result of differing axioms(unquestioned assumptions).
1. An assault weapon not only allows for defense, but it also escalates the situation, because the first one to kill is the only one to survive.
2. If everyone who’s not the government has no easy official way to acquire said weapons it also complicates training and so competence. The best example of this is a one of the more recent spanish terrorist attacks: 10 deaths of which 8 terrorists, because they blew their own appartment up with selfmade explosives and after that some tried shooting, but were untrained so couldn’t really hit anything.
3. there also ways to avoid being killed by most assault weapons without murdering everyone who carries one too. Example: bullet resistant vests
Now the part of the different views coming from different axioms:
First axiom: my neighbors are more trustworthy than the government
Second axiom: my government is more trustworthy than my neighbors
If you think A is true having armed police is only threatening, since the police is organized and trained and so could use that power to crush you and your neighbors.
If you think B is true having armed citizens is only threatening, since there has to be only one lone wolf to shoot up to 10 people and if it is forbidden you can get him before he starts violencing or acquires all parts, because it becomes harder to stay in the background until the violencing starts.
With this point of view I can defend both the Texanian gun freedom and the dutch gun control.
New Mexico gun freedom: not so densely populated, uneven divided population, recently forcefully occupied by their current government, constant reminder of governmental failure and wildlife that does actually hurt you and high view of they who obtain power through wealth(guns have to be bought).
More than enough reason to want your own weapon to defend you.
Dutch gun control: even divided population, pretty dense population, but not too dense, government as result of popular uprising, all reminders of governmental failure worked away in apartment complexes, most dangerous animals to humans are literally rabbits, high view of governmental intervention for equallity.
For your last point: there’s not always the option to vote for someone who isn’t a “rich puppet for even richer billionaires”.
Rabbits? Really. How boring. :-)
I sometimes think that even Americans forget just how wild parts of the country is.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area where there are poisonous rattlesnakes, bobcats, coyotes, and likely a few mountain lions and black bears hiding somewhere. Plus tons of raccoons, skunks, and deer. Don’t get wrong me wrong in that there are areas here where it is a concrete desert but the fringes and the hills, not so much.
But this does explain the differences over guns with the United States and countries like the United Kingdom. If I ever do some serious backwoods camping like in the Sierras, I would want at least a large handgun just in case some bear got hungry. Although even very hungry bears usually don’t bother with the humans.
The British wildlife is a lot more dangerous than the dutch(for starters they have apex predators for longer than a decade), but it still isn’t a lot and over the entirety of Europe counts the more dangerous the wildlife the more guns.
Example: it’s forbidden to be out of the city in Svalbard without a top class gun and somebody with official training with said gun, because polar bears.
Also I have been corrected. The most dangerous animals to humans in the Netherlands are Muskrats, because they’re the ones who make significant holes in dikes increasing the risk of flooding.
In assault weapon language this still means there is no need for anything more than a pocket knife, which we’re allowed to carry coverd in public.
I just realised Deus is throwing one of the deserts into his mouth in the 8th panel, I thought it was a background decoration at first
I’m still trying to figure out how he keeps his sixpack while eating like that.
Personally, I don’t really think he’s entirely human… Possibly a super who is REALLY low key…
Somewhere there is a post-“Endgame” Youtube where Chris and Chris reveal the endless struggle to keep their “unsustainable” abs. Like putting 16 cooked chicken breasts into a blender and simply drinking the unpleasant liquid… Several times a day to keep the protein uptake in train.
The real strong-men — and women, believe it or not — usually professional weight-lifters — actually have paunches…
An entire desert!?! I don’t see any cacti.
It’s inside the cake balls..
They’re in the cake balls… His chef has a very good TARDIS cake ball recipe…
Well, I mean, he’s not wrong…
Lol that last panel, too much going on.
I find it interesting how Maxima’s skin just drowns out all the gold trimming that would usually stand out on the uniform, which makes the silver star on her shoulder actually stand out more
That “silver star” is actually a silver oak leaf, the rank insignia of a Lieutenant Colonel. A silver star would indicate that she is a brigadier general, which is Faulk’s rank.
That reminds me when Maxima is pointing out her rank insignia to Sydney (who is calling Maxima a hippie while hiding under an ambulance), it is still the silver eagle of a full colonel (a full-bird). I hope DaveB gets around to updating some of his out of date art some day.
Do you get the feeling that more than one individual in Panel 5 is one Deus’ payroll?
“on Deus’ payroll” – my typing! Honestly :/
Are you saying Deus may have hired someone to get friendly with someone of importance AS WELL as the person recording recording the whole event to show said person of importance how their private moments could be recorded? Would Deus do that?
Yeah, we all know he would…
I’d rather triple down on this. He hired someone to seduce the politician, someone to film and blackmail, and someone to catch the blackmailer.
Though that’s just ratcheting everything too the most extreme level. Politicians will get into their scandals on their own and by now we’re at the point nobody can pretend to care with a straight face. Unless there is hard evidence of rape they’ll easily shrug it off.
Of course that would be blackmail and entrapment.
Now I am sure that Deus would not be above that, but it goes against the point he is making. He can of course be pretending to make that point, but doing so to Maxima is a bit needlessly dangerous.
He can just as easily provide the target politician with a demonstration of what a super can do and how his Galtyn based security company can foil those blackmail attempts… if only the country was not in danger of being invaded by jealous neighbours and couldn’t they do some mutually beneficial defense contracting to rectify all these problems at the same time?
Deus has already mentioned to Maxima, on more than one occasion, that politicians can be bought. And not by bribery. Lobbyists are a thing.
Remember when he wanted her to endorse footwear and whatnot and was offering her this huge amount of money to do so, and the reasoning he gave about why she should accept, even though she has money, is because that amount of money can buy influence from some of your less expensive Senators, in order to further her charitable goals with women’s shelters and other such organizations.
How do you think lobbyists get their way? By bribing the senators (or congress-people or who-have-you)
Did you not even read what you yourself just typed?
“…because that amount of money can BUY influence from some of your less expensive Senators…”
No, not by bribery. Bribery would be illegal. You look at how the law is written, and then you do what is NOT written as being illegal. Therefore, it’s not bribery. Lobbyists influence others to help the senators get re-elected. They don’t shovel money into the senators’ pockets. Because then they would go to jail.
Ie, they lobby. Lobby literally means ‘to seek to influence.’ It does not mean bribe.
Also ‘Buying’ influence is a term of art. You’re not actually paying the politicians anything except getting the time to give them a convincing argument. You’re not giving the money TO the senators. You’re helping them by starting a PAC. Or by raising their public relations. It’s not something as Captain Planet-level cartoonish as a suitcase of money in a DC bathroom. THAT would be bribery.
There’s a reason that celebrities and CEOs get the ear of politicians, the media, and the public, and people like you and me don’t. It’s because they have money. It’s not because they’re paying the politicians, the media, and the public. It’s why you’ll see a comedian on a news show roundtable. It’s why you’ll see a movie star making a political commercial about voting for Proposition whatever. Money opens doors. The more money you have, the more doors open. The more people you can pay to promote your views, which means the more politicians will pay attention to your views.
Bribery doesn’t have to involve money, neither does ‘buying influence’ as you pointed out
Why would Maxi need the extra billions SmugD was offering her to help ‘buy influence’ if money wasn’t part of the equation?
Guesticus, this has actually been tried in the courts as to what does and does not constitute bribery and ot her gratuity offenses. This is also literally spelled out in 18 USC 201.
Quid Pro Quo is not bribery, it’s only one ELEMENT of bribery. Quid Pro Quo is also an element of every legal contractual deal you will ever make, unless it’s purely charitable and altruistic.
Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift. Because the relationship does not occur directly enough, campaign donations from corporations or individuals to political candidates do not constitute bribery. Another element of proving bribery includes proving intent to influence the discharging of another’s official duties. Some statutes also require proof that both parties understand and agree to the arrangement. Attempts to bribe exist at common law and under the Model Penal Code, and often, the punishment for attempted bribery and completed bribery are identical. Solicitation of a bribe also constitutes a crime and is completed regardless of whether the solicitation results in the receipt of a valuable gift.
i didnt say blackmail …. but yes thats what im doing
“Give me what I want and there won’t have to be any blackmail.”
“I like to call it purchasing a vow of silence”
Eh, what’s a little blackmail between friends?
Turning friends into enemies, is what it is…
Eh… I’ll just wait for the uncensored vote incentive to end up on DeviantArt
So much yes!
Swapping out the ceramic-covered brick partition with clear glass would be nice.
Well, clearer glass, you can clearly see Bodie’s Butt pressed against it
Honestly I cant stand Deus. The comics pacing always grinds to a halt whenever hes in focus, and its always the same thing. Characters acting grudgingly impressed at his super powerful bank account and sexiness.l
Seriously waiting for another character to come along, someone with just as much moxy as SmugD, except, they will take him out to the middle of a desert, and cover it with his skin, and no one will be able to prove it because they are just as smug as SmugD, and the entire universe (minus one lawyer) will cheer!
+ 1 its good to know other people feel this way
Money is the best superpower.
The Revenant in PS238.
Batman in DC Comics
Tony Stark in Marvel Comics.
David Xanatos in Gargoyles.
And I don’t think the comic grinds to a half with him. The only time this comic has really ground to a halt was with Vehemence and the one-year-long fight. Even there it sometimes moved forward. Part of the great thing I love about this comic is that it does NOT always just focus big fights. It focuses a lot on the behind the scenes stuff and the trope subversions.
(half=halt)
Personally I think Deus is the most compelling ‘antagonistic’ character in this story so far, but that’s just me
I agree. And he’s awesome in how he subverts all the tropes so expertly.
How the fuck can he keep getting away with blatant bullshit
And before you start Pander, just don’t, you know as well as everyone else: he’s as dirty as the bottom level of a shit-stack
Because everything he says and does in public is still technically legal.
All the illegal stuff he keeps locked down with enough obfuscation to keep him in the clear if anything leaks out.
Anyone who knows anything knows he always has ulterior motives else they are just idiots.
Ah dang there I go showing the flaw in the system since the system is full of idiots.
As for being ethical – not a whit.
Unfortunately, by current American political standards, this isn’t even considered corruption. These days, anything short of being caught on tape saying “Here’s some money, Senator, now vote my way” is considered perfectly legal lobbying efforts by an honest, hard-working American corporation.
He also does good work. His products are great quality. The country he takes over is prosperous (removing the cruel warlord who used to be in control). He even sells to Archon. He admits he’s doing it all for his own benefit, even admits to being a greedy megalomaniac who would love to own everything. I doubt he’d cheat someone in a deal. If you can pay, he will deliver. Most corrupt businessmen and military contractors phone it in.
Thank you NN1. Your post is both brilliant and accurate, and I could not have said it better myself.
Although I probably will also say it myself because I love pointing out how Deus is correct and doing everything legally and as a benefit to everyone. :)
Well, he hasn’t actually started any of it yet for one.
This is all still purely hypothetical.
How dare Deus….. do something completely legal like offering a protection service against villains.
Wait no, that’s actually a good thing. :) He’s not dirty, he’s clean as the driven snow here :)
Literally EVERYTHING he’s said has been explicitly legal, and providing a private enterprise version of something the government is providing is not illegal. Have you never used Fed Ex? ;)
In fact he didnt even say, as one of the others here wrote: “Here’s some money, vote my way” – he said “You know I can provide protection against supers who could be trying to blackmail you… nah I’ll do it for a very fair price. What? You’re looking over my Galytin proposal? Thank you. I think you’ll see that we provide genuine services and products that are, on its own, enough for you to bid on it without doing some unethical pork-barrel spending.
Yes. Deus is actually convincing politicians to do something ETHICAL. Getting a politician to spend taxpayer money on something that provides an actual service or product, rather than spending 25 billion on a bridge to nowhere or some other pork barrel spending is not a bad thing. It’s the opposite, Guesticus :)
A protection service against villains, that he employs!!!
Something ethical, that just happens to benefit him directly
You are a lawyer, and don’t know how budgets work: if a city (for example) has money left in their coffers at the end of the financial year, they won’t be getting more the following year and have to work with what they have, so yes, spending 25 billion on a ‘bridge to nowhere’ may seem like a waste or a ‘bad thing’, it’s the only way they can ensure they get the 30 billion next year to pay for the schools and hospitals
Institutional budgeting rules are broken, yes, but the theory is to cut down continued spending on completed initiatives, by not just setting the budget as “same as last year” for every category. Sadly, it does indeed result in pork projects because “we will need the budget for this other great thing next year.”
I think it would make way more sense to required a stakeholder audit to justify every new large project, and require ongoing project justification and performance reviews every few years. That much oversight also bloats the costs though and would probably kill a lot of worthy initiatives, so I don’t really know how that could be done effectively.
My main point is, since Deus is a capitalist and a genius, he’s able to convince the politicians to pass an appropriations bill with LESS pork, which is impressive, and give the taxpayer more bang for their buck :)
My Local Council — we are a City, and have a Mayor and all! — seems to do a good job on keeping budget increases down.
Natch, the Council supervisors always try to fit “make work” projects into May and June, but somehow they haven’t cottoned onto the fact that most of the budget has been at least articulated by the end of April… And for some reason the “make work” doesn’t seem to produce quite the expected funds on July 1 :( However, sometimes the Budget is (for a few minutes) a very pleasant surprise… Until the supervisors start paying attention.
Oversight only bloats costs when it’s not performed on a proper forensic level. Large projects are not normally introduced out of the blue, there is always about 3 or 4 years notice that “Something” is being thought about and discussed at the monthly Council meetings. Most bloat happens when the State Department of Local Government decides to investigate those rumors… And they are only rumors until proven otherwise. But facts will have been presented.
Guesticus, you know that I know how budgets work :)
I’m pointing it out, in fact, that city budgets are inherently corrupt and flawed because it PROMOTES inefficiency, like what you just described, while a private enterprise dedicated to profit promotes EFFICIENCY.
Yes, wasting 30 billion is a bad thing. Because that 30 billion is your money. And my money. And every other citizen’s money. And when we give it over from our sales or our income or our owning property or whatever, we are not wanting it wasted. We want it spent on something that actually benefits the people.
The bridge to nowhere? Doesn’t. Deus’s proposals? Do.
Think of it as a question or morality, since people keep wanting to cast poor Deus as the villain, so VERY unfairly (it’s okay Deus baby, Pander still loves you)
Which is more moral? To take money from people to waste it? Or to take money from people to help people and get value from the money? I’d go with the latter every single time.
Looks to me more that Maxi is glaring at SmugD, wishing that one of her powers was literal flame-daggers from her eyes
If Maxima were capable of shooting fire from her eyes (and I’m not saying she isn’t, she can shoot it from her hands with no problem), it wouldn’t be fire, it would be superheated plasma. And it wouldn’t be dagger-shaped. It would be mushroom-cloud-shaped.
Honestly, though, I’d be more concerned about the table right now. If Max squeezes any tighter, there’s gonna be property damage.
I gotta wonder if blackmail would even work these days. American politics has become so “tribal” it seems it doesn’t matter what they do wrong they’ll still have enough supporters to keep them in power.
Yes. It works all the time. How do you think it got so tribal?
You’re right that too many voters (a working majority?) will vote for their brand without even considering what policies it’s endorsing or who its local representative is. But that doesn’t mean there’s no competition for who gets to benefit from being the face of the brand. There may be relatively few voters who care about the candidate’s blackmailable behaviour, but as long as that number isn’t zero they’re still a factor.
(Of course, whether voters should be judging a candidate on their personal tastes ahead of their policies is another matter…)
i do wonder how many “blackmailers” are atm because it seems some politicans don’t give a care about it ” yeah yeah post that and i’ll yap yap yap” argh.. seems that some do not even hav the decentcy to step down now adays because of such. feels such like a move plot then RL.
LOVE the Harem harem vote incentive!
High-end, artisanal cake pops – sorry, ‘confectionery petits fours a la glace’, as these don’t have sticks – each custom-designed by our patisserie chefs, and each filled with a unique confection. The one Deus is eating? Red velvet.
I know he’s only speaking hypothetically, but even discussing the possibility of committing several federal crimes in order to line his own pockets with a federal agent whose integrity appears to be untouchable puts a target on his back. Either he’s got a wildly inflated sense of his own charisma, or he’s so cynical that he’s come all the way around back to naive.
But what did Deus really ‘admit’ to? Even hypothetically speaking?
He said that he could warn politicians how they could be exposed to being blackmailed by supers. That is no different than what every private security firm does when talking to a potential client.
We may /assume/ that he actively creates the threat of blackmail, because of what is being drawn, but at no point does Deus either say or even imply this. Maxima may suspect whatever she wants but as a law enforcement officer she must have proof, and that proof must be obtained in a legally admissable way, before she can act on it.
Even with just this she could gather up enough reasonable suspicion to get her organization to nigh-always be breathing down his neck.
He might not go to jail or anything but it makes his life needlessly difficult.
He didn’t admit to anything. He just insinuated that he would be blackmailing congressmen. So if something suspicious happens, she will already have reason to open an investigation into him. Like I said, he’s putting a target on his back.
He may have used very guarded language, but he most definitely implied that he would use a honey trap to get what he wants.
It’s worse than that. He represents a foreign state. This could be considered an act of war. Since this meeting is undoubtedly being recorded, he may have imperiled his new nation.
Except officially he doesn’t – he has no position in the Galatyn government, he just happens to call a lot of the shots due to his economic influence. He’s here as a businessman only so far as any contract proposals go.
We found out this morning, he’s the Chancellor of Galtyn.
A foreign agent acting to interfere with American governance is espionage, not war.
Espionage is an act of war.
Dues, how long before Max turns your new playmate into a pretzel for annoying her?
Pay your Deus!
Panel 5 is a bit… weird. I thought that was two people literally merging into each other at first.
Might want to adjust the shading on that person’s… hair? Helmet? Hoodie? I dunno what that is.
It’s two people screwing, with a third recording it (and contemplating suicide)
Well, Gromnir shouldn’t feel bad, because I’m having the devil’s own time working it out myself. It’s definitely a person… on his/her back…. with their legs spread… and the sheets pulled up over- maybe someone else between their legs? It doesn’t seem bulky enough to suggest that the person is on top of them, so maybe just a head between the legs, under the sheets??
And an invisible person with a camera, standing in front of the painting, which really messed me up for a couple of minutes. At first i thought it was some kind of super who had shapeshifted *into the form of* the painting (Wonder Twin powers activate! Form of- a painting!!) and had the thought balloon coming out of them… then I saw the whole person outline.
It is a confusing panel.
No, it’s a guy on top of another person (presumably a female ‘companion’ wearing stockings), they are wearing a blue-grey top and black pants
….. yeah, I can see it now. But a really skinny guy maybe? And only halfway on top. Something about the angle of the whole thing makes it look weird to me and I just can’t put it together.
Lorlara is still eating shrimp wrapped in bacon…!? I wonder why Maxima is giving her such a cold stare.
‘Cos every one the Alari eats is one less for Maxi.
Panel 4 SmugD is at his most supervillain-y. “Oh, I shouldn’t smugly gloat and tell the hero all about my eeEEEEVil plans… but I’ll do it anyway mwuhehehahahah!” Yeah, he has a complex.
I should correct that, though. Deus has clearly hired an assistant to outsource all of his evil laughter.
So it’s a protection racket, just fancified up for super hero times.
“That’s a nice reputation you have there Mr. Senator. Be a real shame if someone pulled all the skeletons out of your closet at once.”
Can’t run a protection racket if people don’t have anything to hide.
Deus is just offering to help them keep their secrets secret. Because friends help each other.
I don’t think you understand what a protection racket is – the protectee is paying to ensure there are no problems created in the future, regardless of whether there is any kind of issue in the past or not.
Excuse me for being confused, but why should Max care one iota abot anything he’s saying? He’s using supers to commit blatant violations of international law: I’m pretty sure that falls under Archon’s jurisdiction no matter what, and that makes anything else he’s said completely meaningless.
^ this
It may not be direct blackmail but it is quid pro quo/bribery with an implication of blackmail if the offer for private protection in exchange for their vote isn’t taken.
He still, you know, outright and explicitly admitted that he intends to engage in bribery and corruption, and maybe implied extortion.
So yes, he just told Max he intends to compromise sitting members of the US legislative branch.
Yes, this is disappointing writing here, Dues explicitly is offering them a service (“protection”) with the expectation that they will vote to send pork to his country. This is quid pro quo. Even without the cutaway panels, his statements directly to Maxima are sufficient evidence of this. The obvious lie that he is protecting them from “hypothetical compromises” and the blackmail implications of that are irrelevant. Maxima is not stupid enough to fall for this, she should be asking for a written or recorded statement of exactly what he just said and then slapping him in handcuffs.
What’s with the tiddy icecream?
… What?
On top of the petit fours? That’s gourmet meringue. Deus is playing “sticks” with the petit fours…
ahh… vote incentive… harem playing with herself. i approve.
hmmm….. Even if we assume that Deuce is being precisely and literally true here, and that he never ACTUALLY obtains any ACTUAL evidence of naughtiness by any given Congressmen….
I still can’t decide whether or not his business plan would be technically illegal ANYWAY.
The two legal tracks to take on that would be:
1. Did he attempt to extort, bribe, threaten, blackmail, etc a congressmen….
and
2. Even if he didn’t, did the Congressmen violate a law by implicitly or explicitly using their vote on defense spending to reward, pay, incentivize, or otherwise procure private services for their own personal gain?
The second one might be the better argument, but I really have no idea if it would stand up in court…
There was a politician from someplace in the far east I think. Might have been Thailand?
Anyway, the Soviets (this was a while ago as I recall) set him up with a real hot date and then filmed his sexual liaison with her.
Then they threatened to release it, if he didn’t do as they said.
His response was along the lines of: ‘Can I get extra copies to show my friends? No one believes me when I tell them about the hot girl I got in bed! Please! Show it to everyone!’
It would be funny to see Deuce hoisted on this one at some point.
Hah hah, that would be pretty amazing.
Offering extortion protection is extortion?
If you’re offering it in exchange for “considerations” it is explicitly bribery and corruption. And Deus’ plan is at best to get congress critters to vote to spend money with his company by linking their vote to an offer to provide this service to them, personally. Even if they still have to pay money for it. And he just smugly outlined all of it to Max. (and at less-than-best it may take the form of mob-style “protection”, but that’s only implied)
Between this and “Our super soldiers aren’t leaving our country because when they invade our neighbors the lands they enter automagically count as ours lol – totes enough of a legal fiction to delay response for a good long time instead of being instantly thrown out as the farce it obviously is” it feels like DavidB thinks he is far more clever than he really is.
To be fair, writing a character that is smarter than you and doing it well can be incredibly difficult, but this is just painful.
Oh I don’t think I’m particularly clever. I have some moments, but they’re usually accidental. Writing smart characters that are actually smart is difficult for obvious reasons.
To be clear, Dues 100% knows he’s flaunting the spirit of international laws by invading neighboring countries with supers. But he also knows that getting the UN to rally and come to the aid of those nations, especially when they’re not economic superpowers, is a tall order, exacerbated by first draft laws that can be bogged down in legalese. He is also legitimately improving the lives of the people under his rule by bringing much needed infrastructure and stability to them. He has a number of reasons for doing so, but one of them is the “vigilante” factor. He’s breaking the laws but doing good as far as anyone can tell, so really, only the invaded nations and their direct allies are the only ones making noise at this point.
And yeah, on this page he’s implying either directly blackmailing senators or “protecting” them, and presumably they’ll be so grateful for it that they’ll throw a bunch of defense money at him, and admittedly, this is more him patting himself on the back than being clandestine and circumspect about it, and it’s probably more than a little foolish.
Max doesn’t have anything actionable to work with here, though she’s definitely going to go tattle to Arc-LIGHT when she gets back to base. Also it’s not like she’s going to arrest him for invading other countries. If he was invading the US, then yeah, this dinner would be considerably less civil, but another country doing stuff to yet another country isn’t her purview.
She absolutely has something actionable here. Deus, acting as a representative of a foreign government is stating that he is offering services to members of the federal government so that they will send money and contracts to that foreign country. This direct quid pro quo would be illegal bribery without the foreign part, but with the foreign part it is unquestionably unconstitutional.
Maybe if he only did these things without the statement here, he could get away with a “these are uncorrelated things” defense (which would be a difficult to disprove lie), but the statements he makes in this comic directly admit to the relationship.
Whether he could get caught on blackmail charges as well is irrelevant, he has admitted to unquestionably illegal activities without that detail.
No, she does not. Offering protection AGAINST extortion that you yourself is not causing is NOT an actionable offense at all.
There are many things you’ve said that are incorrect.
1) In addition to being a representative of a foreign government, Deus is also an American citizen.
2) Quid pro quo on its own is not a legal charge. It literally means there is a contract with mutual consideration between two parties, which makes the agreement LEGAL, valid, and binding. You’ve heard a lot about quid pro quo because of the impeachment attempts, by people who are clueless about what it means, when they really wanted to say bribery but could not because the elements of bribery had not been met.
3) Direct quid pro quo is not bribery. It’s offering a service for another service or payment, and is legal. It would be like a senator having a private security detail is also quid pro quo. And is legal.
4) EVen with the foreign part, if you ignored that Deus is an American citizen, operating a corporation which is headquartered IN THE UNITED STATES, it is not ‘unquestionably unconstitutional.’ It’s not unconstitutional at all, in fact. There are many corporations that do business in other nations as well, yet do business dealings with the US government and individual members of the government. Including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Boeing, Ford, Hilton, Purdue, McDonalds, Coca Cola, and I can name a few hundred others off the top of my head if you’d like.
5) Deus is representing Galytin in respect to the factories are there as an extension of Machinae Industries – the things he is manufacturing are part of his company, not a part of Galytin itself. He does not run the government – that’s what the prince is there for. Deus runs the economic elements as the main employer in that nation. That’s not a government position, that’s a private industry position.
Long story short, people need to stop making claims that things are unconstitutional or illegal when they’re just ‘things that you do not like but are quite legal.’
DaveB is actually QUITE correct. It’s not blackmail – it’s offering a service to prevent OTHER people from blackmailing you through the implication that those people exist, and are most definitely NOT you (Because THAT would be extortion, and Deus is too smart to be that blatant).
He doesnt need to do anything illegal. He just needs the other person to realize there are people out there who WOULD do illegal things, and would be more than happy to blackmail him, but Deus, being the straight up patriot and good businessman that he is, has the foresight to develop a business model to protect against those ne’er-do-wells.
For a price, or a favor in return.
Because this is how capitalism works in the hands of someone intelligent.
Pander you need help, I don’t know if you are just so into Deus or if you truly don’t understand how the world works but your views don’t really lineup with reality very well.
It’s worse. Pander’s a lawyer.
What can I say? Legal knowledge and consistent, logical arguments are my superpowers.
You mean lying with a straight face when the evidence that you are lying is in plain English right in front of you. See my post below.
Not sure how I’ve lied at all. Do explain?
As I already said, see my post below (it is a reply to a higher level post of yours in this chain appearing below here due to how replies are displayed.)
You made multiple statements that directly claimed that I said things that I did not. All so that you can ignore the fact that the issue here is not the probable blackmail, but the directly admitted to bribery etc.
Seriously AGuest. Explain how I’ve lied about anything. Any claims I’ve made in reference to anything you’ve said have come from the direct logical inference of what you said.
Deus has not admitted even remotely to bribery. He’s admitted to the idea that he could provide a helpful service to people who might get blackmailed by other people, who are definitely not him, because there are bad people in the world of supers, and that if he helps them, they’d probably trust him more and look at his proposals. And his proposals are completely legal and above board and maybe the politicians would actually do their job instead of engaging in pork barrel spending for someone who protects them from being blackmailed by other people.
Explain the lie there? There is none.
I explained repeatedly, again, you claimed that I was asserting solid evidence of blackmail when I explicitly stated that I wasn’t the fact that you did not repeat that or your other lies in this message does not change the fact that your previously stated them.
As to the admission to bribery here is a summary of the above conversation:
Max: How are you going to convince congresspeople to vote for this?
Deus: *deflection*
Max: I am now suspecting you of a crime, answer the question, how are you planning to convince them?
Deus: I will be providing them with a valuable service.
Providing congresspeople a valuable service is not illegal. Answering “providing something valuable” to the question of “how will you convince them to vote how you want?” is unequivocally* illegal, because it explicitly states that there is a quid pro quo, giving something of value in exchange for votes. (Again note how I use quid pro quo as a required piece of evidence, not the only evidence. The fact that it is explicitly in exchange for votes is important.)
*Ignoring the campaign funding loopholes intentionally written in to the law, but this is a direct and ongoing service directly to the congresspeople.
Arguments about how good are bad the proposed votes would be are irrelevant to the existence of bribery.
“I explained repeatedly, again, you claimed that I was asserting solid evidence of blackmail when I explicitly stated that I wasn’t the fact that you did not repeat that or your other lies in this message does not change the fact that your previously stated them.”
…. you’re still not showing where I lied. You’re just repeating you saying I lied. It’s a very circular argument. Plus saying ‘my other lies.’ AGuest you haven’t even shown my making ONE lie, let alone ‘other’ lies.
“As to the admission to bribery here is a summary of the above conversation:
Max: How are you going to convince congresspeople to vote for this?
Deus: *deflection*”
Um…. no, that wasn’t deflection. It was an actual, direct answer to Maxima’s question.
“Max: I am now suspecting you of a crime, answer the question, how are you planning to convince them?
Deus: I will be providing them with a valuable service.”
Again, not a lie at all. That’s exactly what he would be doing. Providing them with a valuable service. A service that they will want to keep getting, and in order to keep getting it, they would actually…. NOT engage in pork barrel spending. How’s that bribery? It’s bribery to do a legal business deal, with the side benefit that the politician will want to be honest and not pocket money for the people who got him elected? That seems…. the exact opposite of bribery, actually.
“Providing congresspeople a valuable service is not illegal.”
Correct. It’s not illegal.
“Answering “providing something valuable” to the question of “how will you convince them to vote how you want?” is unequivocally* illegal,”
Nope. Not if what is being provided is legal, and he’s not actually asking for them to vote on something illegal in return. He’s not even asking them to vote on anything in exchange for his help, because presumably he will be charging them money for the help in the first place.
Sorry, not bribery. Not unequivocally. Not even on the fringe.
“because it explicitly states that there is a quid pro quo, giving something of value in exchange for votes.”
He most definitely did not say what you just claimed he said.
“Arguments about how good are bad the proposed votes would be are irrelevant to the existence of bribery.”
Again, incorrect. Read what actually is stated above, not your strawman argument of what was stated above, which is different than the actual thing stated.
‘In a world with super powers, the chances of a politically powerful person getting away with something naughty is hugely reduced’ – THIS IS A STATEMENT OF FACT AND TRUE, NOT ILLEGAL.
‘Hoever, if someone could illuminate purely hypothetical ways certain legislators could be potentially compromised and offer solutions’ – THIS IS A BUSINESS PROPOSAL – THERE ARE BAD PEOPLE, DEUS WILL PROVIDE A SERVICE FOR PAYMENT, TO PROTECT AGAINST THOSE BAD PEOPLE. DEUS WILL PROVIDE A LOCK TO PREVENT THE BURGLAR FROM BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE
‘well, I’m sure those individuals would be more than grateful’ – NOT ILLEGAL. If someone provides a valuable services, people are going to look at them as being more reliable and worthy of doing business with than someone who provides nothing. If Jeff Bezos asks a bank for a loan, the bank will not ask for collateral because they know Jeff Bezos is good for it. If a penniless hobo asks for a loan, the bank will require collateral, or refuse the loan. Same deal here. But with Congress.
Not. Bribery. There is no tit for tat. There is no direct, or even indirect line between providing the service and getting a vote in your favor, except that there is general goodwill and a realization that you can follow through on your offers in an unrelated business arrangement. The politician will say ‘hrm, this guy has shown he is capable of protecting against supers… he probably is being truthful about all the stuff in this wish list proposal that he claims Galytin can provide for the US as well – probably not a good time for me to play pork barrel politics).
One of your lies is repeating the claim that I have not pointed out your lies when I have done so repeatedly. To provide some original quotes though:
“No, she does not. Offering protection AGAINST extortion that you yourself is not causing is NOT an actionable offense at all.”
You are claiming here that the crime I am claiming has to do with the service that Deus is offering, when I quite clearly stated that it does not matter what the service is or whether it is illegal blackmail or not. What he admitted to is bribery.
“There are many things you’ve said that are incorrect.
…
2) Quid pro quo on its own is not a legal charge. ”
I never said that quid pro quo is its own legal charge. I never said anything even close to that. And no matter how many times I clarify this, you still act like I am making that claim.
Now to the actual relevant subject at hand (skipping some of your nonsense that seems to just be there as a distraction, and is not worth correcting.)
““Max: I am now suspecting you of a crime, answer the question, how are you planning to convince them?
Deus: I will be providing them with a valuable service.”
Again, not a lie at all. That’s exactly what he would be doing.”
You aren’t making sense here. What do you mean by “not a lie?” I never said there was any lying going on, the fact this statement is true is the entire point. It sounds like you are agreeing that this is an accurate summary and paraphrase. He is stating that he is offering the service in direct answer to how he will get them to pass laws sending money where he wants it. This is him admitting to the connection between the votes and the service. If he still refused to answer the question, changed the subject, and then mentioned “On an unrelated note, some people in Congress are interested in a service I am offering to protect them from blackmail” then she would have nothing even if she guessed that there was a tie in.
“”Answering “providing something valuable” to the question of “how will you convince them to vote how you want?” is unequivocally* illegal,”
Nope. Not if what is being provided is legal, and he’s not actually asking for them to vote on something illegal in return. He’s not even asking them to vote on anything in exchange for his help, because presumably he will be charging them money for the help in the first place.”
It is literally impossible for members of Congress to vote for something illegal. What they vote for becomes the law. They can vote for something unconstitutional, which is one thing the courts are for, but the specifics of what they vote for whether for the “greater good” or not, whether constitutional or not has no bearing on whether bribery has occurred. Also exchanging some money would be an effective cover story if he didn’t make the direct answer that he does on this page.
A bunch of your post is a deep dive on the detailed phrases Deus used later, which have simply no relevance to my point since you seemed to agree with the part “Max: I am now suspecting you of a crime, answer the question, how are you planning to convince them?
Deus: I will be providing them with a valuable service.” Discussing the long winded version and how he dodges the implication of blackmail is therefore irrelevant.
And you seem really insistent on trying to discuss the moral good of Deus’s actions claiming things like sending money overseas is somehow better than sending it to U.S. based companies, throwing in a bunch of other assumptions to make your point: Your moral compass appears to be so horribly broken that I have no interest in engaging in that discussion with you. The legality or illegality of an action (for example bribery) has no relation to whether some greater good comes out of it. To take an example from in this comic, vigilantes will not be tolerated, it doesn’t matter if they were doing a good job of it and saving lives, they either get a badge, uniform and training first, or they get jail time. (And now I fully expect to make some kind of tangential argument about the people from the super brawl on work release. Please don’t bother.)
““No, she does not. Offering protection AGAINST extortion that you yourself is not causing is NOT an actionable offense at all.”
You are claiming here that the crime I am claiming has to do with the service that Deus is offering,
I don’t see where I said anything you were claiming there. You seem to be reading into posts, which seems to be a regular problem with you.
“when I quite clearly stated that it does not matter what the service is or whether it is illegal blackmail or not. What he admitted to is bribery.”
No, he did not admit to bribery. THAT is a lie. And repeating a lie multiple times does not make it true.
“I never said that quid pro quo is its own legal charge. I never said anything even close to that. And no matter how many times I clarify this, you still act like I am making that claim.”
You said quid pro quo is a legal definition. It is not.
“You aren’t making sense here. What do you mean by “not a lie?””
I mean that he is not saying something which is false.
The ‘valuable service’ has nothing to do with wanting a vote in exchange. In fact, Deus will probably charge him money for the service, so that you can’t even possibly argue that the favor was given in exchange for a vote.
“He is stating that he is offering the service in direct answer to how he will get them to pass laws sending money where he wants it.”
He is stating how basic human psychology works. In fact, when asked if he was planning on bribing anyone, he specifically said he was NOT. When you learn to human correctly, you will realize that when you do something that provides a benefit, people will see you as more trustworthy. So then they may be more favorable in ALL future interactions, because you want to pay the skilled surgeon to be your personal physician more than youd want to pay a school nurse to be your personal physician.
If you show you’re good at providing, people will assume you will be able to provide in the future.
“And you seem really insistent on trying to discuss the moral good of Deus’s actions claiming things like sending money overseas is somehow better than sending it to U.S. based companies”
Deus owns a multinational corporation. And if the US wants inexpensive electronics, and does not want to have to deal with someone they do not trust, why not instead deal with someone who you do trust…. like Deus! If benefits the US -and- it benefits Galytin.
“Your moral compass appears to be so horribly broken that I have no interest in engaging in that discussion with you.”
In other words, you are unable to debate me so you don’t wanna talk to me. But you do want to get the last word in :).
“The legality or illegality of an action (for example bribery) has no relation to whether some greater good comes out of it.”
Except there is no example of bribery in the above comic. At all.
“To take an example from in this comic, vigilantes will not be tolerated, it doesn’t matter if they were doing a good job of it and saving lives, they either get a badge, uniform and training first, or they get jail time.”
Because vigilanteism is illegal. Making business deals that are definitely NOT blackmail or bribery is legal.
Btw, if a super was to do a citizens arrest (ie, capture a bad guy and WAIT there with the bad guy until the police arrive to do a proper arrest) that is not vigilanteism. What Batman does is vigilanteism. Also … little knowledge – if a citizen arrest winds up being someone who was not committing a crime, the arresting citizen can be sued by the arrested victim.
“it doesn’t matter if they were doing a good job of it and saving lives, they either get a badge, uniform and training first, or they get jail time.”
Or they do a perfectly legal citizen’s arrest, making sure to follow the laws of that state. Then it’s not illegal, because then it would not be vigilanteism.
“(And now I fully expect to make some kind of tangential argument about the people from the super brawl on work release.”
I wasn’t planning on doing that. Your post had too much other stuff to correct anyway. Although….. the only actual person on work release seems to be Jabberwocky, who had open priors already, and ARGUABLY Opal and Vektor, who were released to Deus’s employ (although that’s not actually a work release as much as a house arrest in Galytin).
“Please don’t bother.)””
Then you shouldnt bother bringing it up.
“““No, she does not. Offering protection AGAINST extortion that you yourself is not causing is NOT an actionable offense at all.”
You are claiming here that the crime I am claiming has to do with the service that Deus is offering,”
I don’t see where I said anything you were claiming there. You seem to be reading into posts, which seems to be a regular problem with you.”
You are directly replying to what I said, claiming that it is wrong, and basing the statement that I was wrong by contradicting something that I explicitly did not claim. This is basic reading comprehension, and is you directly misrepresenting what I said, the only explanations are you lying, or extreme illiteracy.
““when I quite clearly stated that it does not matter what the service is or whether it is illegal blackmail or not. What he admitted to is bribery.”
No, he did not admit to bribery. THAT is a lie. And repeating a lie multiple times does not make it true.”
What do you call it then when person A gives person B something valuable so that person B will will vote for something according to what Person A wants?
Because you continue agreeing with my paraphrase of the above comic where that is exactly what Deus said:
“Max: I am now suspecting you of a crime, answer the question, how are you planning to convince them?
Deus: I will be providing them with a valuable service.”
And you not only agreed with this, calling it “not a lie” but when I questioned your statement just now you reconfirmed it.
“The ‘valuable service’ has nothing to do with wanting a vote in exchange.”
It is literally the answer to the question “How do you plan to convince them to vote your way?” Since you agree the statement was a true, that means that the sentence “I will provide them a valuable service so that they will vote for what I want.” It is beyond absurd to claim that they are unconnected. It is literally impossible to be more directly connected.
“In fact, Deus will probably charge him money for the service, so that you can’t even possibly argue that the favor was given in exchange for a vote.”
Because you are somehow incapable of acknowledging that more than 1 form a valuable can be exchanged that a deal “I will give you my stuffed animal for $2 and a keychain” can’t exist.
““Your moral compass appears to be so horribly broken that I have no interest in engaging in that discussion with you.”
In other words, you are unable to debate me so you don’t wanna talk to me. But you do want to get the last word in :).”
No, I have quite thoroughly demonstrated my ability to debate you (and then some) You keep changing the topic though, performing variations on a gish gallop with a bunch of statements that whether right or wrong (but largely wrong) don’t actually address my points in any way. So far you have refused to acknowledge simple facts, so trying to discuss something that actually has subjectivity involved like morals with you would be uninteresting (and most commenters here seem to recognize the flaws with your take on morals when it comes to Deus anyway.) So I am going to continue to refuse to reply directly to most of your attempts to change the basis of the discussion away from the couple simple facts I originally pointed out.
And it looks like I was wrong about what tangent you would go on from the in comic example I mentioned, you talked about citizen arrests rather than the work release. You still missed the point. (I can at least admit to being wrong when I am.)
Re: quid pro quo, see the other message
I think that perhaps you think continuing this days after we’re past this page will make me stop responding. Or that repeating the same thing over and over again after I’ve refuted it will make you win the argument. :) It really doesn’t.
“You are directly replying to what I said, claiming that it is wrong,”
Wow. So when anyone claims you’re wrong, they’re lying? No. I’m claiming you’re wrong because you’re wrong. You can be wrong without lying. It could just be ignorance. Or you might just be stubborn. Who knows. But you’re wrong.
“and basing the statement that I was wrong by contradicting something that I explicitly did not claim.”
No. If you are wrong about point A, and you are basing point A on something which would automatically create point B, then my pointing out B is simple logical inference.
“This is basic reading comprehension, and is you directly misrepresenting what I said, the only explanations are you lying, or extreme illiteracy.”
Again with the insults. :) I’m not misrepresenting anything you said. You said something completely wrong. I showed you the result of what you said that was wrong, and you seem to not like the idea that you could be wrong.
“What do you call it then when person A gives person B something valuable so that person B will will vote for something according to what Person A wants?”
Reputation. If there is not a direct line between the two things, it’s not bribery. It’s showing that he has a reputation for getting things done. IF a person wants to hire someone to manage a website, and Jeff Bezos offers to do it, who are you going to choose – the 15 year old down the street or the guy who made a trillion dollar company with one of the most stable websites on the planet?
“It is literally the answer to the question “How do you plan to convince them to vote your way?” Since you agree the statement was a true, that means that the sentence “I will provide them a valuable service so that they will vote for what I want.” It is beyond absurd to claim that they are unconnected. It is literally impossible to be more directly connected.”
He literally starts the sentence with ‘I’m not going to compromise them, I’m going to do EXACTLY the opposite.’ Then explains exactly how he will influence them by being helpful, rather than resorting to blackmail or bribery, which would be examples of compromising them.
“No, I have quite thoroughly demonstrated my ability to debate you (and then some)”
You haven’t. You really, really haven’t. Your logic is horribly broken and you tend to either rely on insults or ignoring what the other person said, or accusing the other person of accusing you of lying when what they are actually doing is saying you are wrong. As if your beliefs are some sort of objective universal truth :) :) :).
“You keep changing the topic though, performing variations on a gish gallop with a bunch of statements that whether right or wrong (but largely wrong) don’t actually address my points in any way.”
Nope. I’ve kept on the same topic the entire time.
“So far you have refused to acknowledge simple facts,”
What you are saying is an opinion, not a fact. And an opinion not supported even by what’s being said in the above comic itself. Plus also not supported by what DaveB said even.
” So I am going to continue to refuse to reply directly to most of your attempts to change the basis of the discussion away from the couple simple facts I originally pointed out.”
So you’re going to not reply directly to my refutations. See… that’s not winning an argument. That’s ignoring when your argument has been thoroughly debunked and refuted.
“And it looks like I was wrong about what tangent you would go on from the in comic example I mentioned, you talked about citizen arrests rather than the work release.”
The citizens arres argument was in a response to what you said about vigilanteism being illegal. Again – direct response to something you said.
And I also did respond to the work release statement you made as well – read again. It’s something YOU brought up, so I responded to it. That’s not me going on a tangent. That’s me responding to your own tangential arguments.
“I think that perhaps you think continuing this days after we’re past this page will make me stop responding. Or that repeating the same thing over and over again after I’ve refuted it will make you win the argument. :) It really doesn’t.”
I have found that certain people on the internet (whether trolls, idiots, mentally ill or something else) are really great at projecting their own thought patterns onto other people, and accuse the other person of doing what they are.
And no, you have not refuted what I have said, because you have repeatedly argued against things I never said. This will continue until you stop claiming that I said things that I never did. I am repeating myself for the simple reason that you still claim that I am saying something completely contrary to what I actually am.
“I think that perhaps you think continuing this days after we’re past this page will make me stop responding. Or that repeating the same thing over and over again after I’ve refuted it will make you win the argument. :) It really doesn’t.”
That quote from me there ends in a comma not a period. The rest of the sentence: ” and basing the statement that I was wrong by contradicting something that I explicitly did not claim.” is a necessary qualification. It is this part where I clarify how you are claiming something that I did not, which is a lie. Deliberately misquoting someone by cutting off a key part of a sentence to change its meaning is also a form of lying. You are good at doing this, but really, really bad at hiding it.
““What do you call it then when person A gives person B something valuable so that person B will will vote for something according to what Person A wants?”
Reputation. If there is not a direct line between the two things, it’s not bribery.”
The sentence explicitly states that there is a line between them. This is the literal definition of bribery:
“Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. ”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery
The rest of your message is mostly going on tangents, some ironically arguing that you aren’t going on tangents. I keep skipping replying to parts of your posts, because they are simply a distraction from the original points, yet you still keep going on lengthy responses to parts of my post (such as this paragraph) mentioning that I read them, may not agree, but they are tangential to the point. (This paragraph does not merit a reply other than maybe a 1 sentence acknowledgment, but I should take bets on the length of your response.)
The second quote I made was supposed to be:
““You are directly replying to what I said, claiming that it is wrong,”
Wow. So when anyone claims you’re wrong, they’re lying?”
Rather than a repeat of the first quote. This type of comment thread is not designed for this type of back and forth.
That second quote in my post is supposed to be the following rather than a repeat of the first quote.
““You are directly replying to what I said, claiming that it is wrong,”
Wow. So when anyone claims you’re wrong, they’re lying?”
I actually know how the world works quite well. Everything Deus has said is accurate and not remotely illegal. He’s been rather explicit about what he was offering. Please explain how what he said was remotely illegal? Not what you wish he said. What he actually said.
let me guess mob lawyer right?
but honestly pander i don’t know what field you studied but it obviously its not international law or constitutional law/government ethics so your legal knowledge is less a super power and more a set of blinders here.
the point is DB my be a great artist but he doesn’t understand international relations or economics and it shows every time Desu opens his mouth. none of his plans are in any way novel or complex, i mean his view on what is and is not his territory would have made everyone at the UN laugh their asses off. and the best you could describe he’s “master plan” on this page as a street level protection racket in drag. ( how knocking off that warlord likely cut off the supply of some rare earth element and ticked off some larger nation enough that they would have economically crushed them for it. Africa isn’t over looked its exploited by the rest of the world.)
it would take the stupidest people alive to fall for what he’s talking about and it would be the easiest thing in the world to prove the corruption and his scam would be shut down quick. saying he used “fancy language” isn’t going to fool anyone. its not like he could hide the evidence Desu is as subtle as a daisy cutter bomb he leaves his finger printers everywhere.
the only reason Desu is anything in this comic is because the DB makes everyone else hold the idiot ball to make him seem smart. when the truth is Desu is a badly written villain sue and it hurts to read any pages he’s featured on.
“let me guess mob lawyer right?”
Oh no name calling now. It’s beneath you.
Intellectual Property attorney. Mainly copyrights, trademarks and patents (I had majored in biology in a pre-med sequence in college but I do not have the stomach to be a doctor so I went into law that requires a lot of scientific knowledge instead), but I did used to work BRIEFLY in an ADA’s office, and I’ve also done a lot of work with contracts, mergers and acquisitions. I also taught economics for one year but hated it because people tend to have to hear a statement so many times before they understand how certain things, like economics, actually work. That isnt a slight against you – it’s a slight against many college students circa 7 years ago though.
“but honestly pander i don’t know what field you studied but it obviously its not international law or constitutional law/government ethics”
Actually if you knew about law school, you have to take constitutional law and Professional Responsibility (ie, ethics) in order to both graduate from law school and to pass the state bar and multistate bar. I’ve passed the bars in three states, and I was federally sponsored so… yeah i do know constitutional law and ethics quite well. I also know about zealous advocacy, which is an important part of legal ethics as well.
“so your legal knowledge is less a super power and more a set of blinders here.”
Nope. Definitely a superpower. :) I should wear a cape to court, when I bother going to court. At the very least I should wear a cape to depositions. Or to the travers hearings. Most of the USPTO stuff can be done from a computer so a cape would be useless.
“the point is DB my be a great artist but he doesn’t understand international relations or economics”
No, I think DB’s a great artist PLUS great at the dialog. And does a good enough job on economics and international relationships that someone like me, who has actually studied both, and I like to think I’m pretty good at arguing it (or teaching it, even if I have no patience for teaching in front of a classroom).
“none of his plans are in any way novel or complex”
His plans, as far as you know so far, are simple. But they’re complex in the long term. Because he apparently has a lot of knowledge that he does not just give away willy nilly. Sort of like David Xanatos from Gargoyles, another great fictional character.
Besides the best plans are, at their essence, simple. The more complex a plan is, the more chance there is for failure. Well…. unless you’re a genius. Which Deus is. So he’s probably able to make a complex plan better than either of us could.
” i mean his view on what is and is not his territory would have made everyone at the UN laugh their asses off. ”
His argument on territory is based on loopholes and knowing psychology of UN lackeys, not on pure law. And in the UN, it’s usually more about psychology than the law anyway. Mainly because the UN is incredibly corrupt to begin with.
“and the best you could describe he’s “master plan” on this page as a street level protection racket in drag.”
You literally have no idea of his master plan. This is most likely a minor piece of his master plan. And he’s been handling it quite brilliantly in-story, regardless of whether you like him or not. :)
“how knocking off that warlord likely cut off the supply of some rare earth element and ticked off some larger nation enough that they would have economically crushed them for it.”
Clearly it did not cut off the supply of any rare earth element though. You’re reading into the story things that did not happen, because you do not like the character. But you have to still base your arguments on what’s in-world canon, not on a strawman argument that doesnt actually exist.
Also most rare earth metals are located in southeast asia, which is probably why Deus did not liberate a country there instead. Plus because he probably didnt feel like dealing with China, which would make things more complicated and more points of failure.
Not to mention he has better than rare earth metals. He probably has rare outside-of-earth metals :):):)
“it would take the stupidest people alive to fall for what he’s talking about”
Well I’ll give you that. No politician would ever fall for it. Politicians are well known for their brilliance and virtuous forethought.
Sorry… I almost said that without laughing :). So close.
” its not like he could hide the evidence Desu is as subtle as a daisy cutter bomb he leaves his finger printers everywhere.”
Have… have you not been reading the comic until this point? Deus has managed to hide a LOT.
“the only reason Desu is anything in this comic is because the DB makes everyone else hold the idiot ball”
No, he’s actually been very good at using the law in his favor consistently, and using psychology where the law does not help him.
” when the truth is Desu is a badly written villain sue”
Except that he’s not a villain, and people in the comic do not universally love him, so he’s not a sue, and his take on greed is like the very well written movie ‘Wall Street’ so he’s not badly written. So… the only parts of that description that were accurate were Deus is a.
Actually, check that – you spelled Deus wrong. So the only accurate part of your sentence was ‘is a’
“it hurts to read any pages he’s featured on.”
Seems like you’ve skipped a lot of what he’s been on or you’d know how good he is at playing 4D underwater hungry hungry hippos chess.
Are you just illiterate? I repeatedly said that the issue is not with the service being provided, but the fact that it is being in exchange for votes. This is bribery, corruption, and foreign emoluments. Repeating that there is no proof or admission to blackmail here is irrelevant, since I never claimed there was.
I never stated that quid pro quo is a charge, it is a standard under which the threshold is met for the mentioned charges. You are simply ignoring the fact that he is asking for votes in exchange for his services. Your argument is equivalent to saying that hiring someone to murder for you is perfectly legal as long as you set up a fair exchange.
Lying about what I said and arguing against those lies instead of what I actually said is the behavior of someone who is wrong, but refuses to admit it.
And it is irrelevant if Deus is an American citizen, when he is directly representing a foreign government. In this entire conversation, he is explicitly representing a foreign government. Situations like this are quite common, and laws are clear on it. The American citizen part could possibly have a relationship with other things like some of his rights during a trial, but nothing to do with guilt of the stated charges. The stuff about multinational corporations is simply ignorant, it is explicitly stated that the foreign country would be producing these right on this page. There is more than one way that this could be structured, but the only part that matters in the end is that this money in the proposed contract would be sent to a foreign country, as has been repeatedly explicitly stated.
Time some people learned some Basic English.
Quid pro quo. Latin. Translate:
This for that. English.
“Quid pro quo” is not (now or ever) a technical term in any discipline except trading. When trading, one expects to pay this (much) for that (item).
Simples, yes?
Good job proving your ignorance, it is commonly used in the legal world as a basic criteria for crimes that involve illgeal exchanges such as exchanging money, a good, or service for votes, as Deus admits to doing here.
Hardly ignorance. Research has shown my statement above as substantially correct: in every case mentioned as “quid pro quo”, a transaction has occurred in which a benefit was purchased in exchange for a value. Noting that in British English “Quid” is slang for “One Pound (currency)”, the value is almost always some negotiable currency, not necessarily legal tender. Of course, the benefit need not be either benficial nor legal…
In some fields, the term may be treated as a noun, however this does not detract from the meaning that “something was purchased in exchange for a payment”. The legality of either is not relevant to the meaning of the phrase.
Hello? I am pointing out that a valuable service is being exchanged for the valuable consideration of votes being made in a certain way. This is exactly the definition of quid pro quo that you just provided, and my point is this specific type of exchange is wildly illegal, because it is not only bribery, but is is also being done while Deus is acting on behalf of a foreign entity. For any of these charges to stick, the basic thing you need is for the exchange to have happened or be planned if it is caught midway. In other words, as I originally said, you to to prove that there was a quid pro quo.
Unless you are trying to find the most argumentative sounding way of agreeing with me, you aren’t making sense.
Of course I can’t make sense to you. You seem to have the opinion that “quid pro quo” is solely a term for illegal transactions.
The problem is, it is a term for any proposed transaction.
Of course, in particular jurisdictions, it may well be as you say. It’s just that I and many, many other people don’t respect those jurisdictions.
You are the one who claimed that it only has meaning in trading, ignoring the well defined (and equivalent) legal definition. I literally never asserted that it only applied to illegal transactions in any way shape or form. I explicitly said that it was not a crime, but a threshold that had to be met, if there is no exchange involved, it obviously can’t actually be bribery. The transaction of a service for votes is obviously illegal, and all of my statements have been in the context to Deus admitting to exactly that.
To repeat, I have not said anything remotely similar to all quid pro quos being illegal. I have only stated that in the context where the contents of the exchange are obviously corrupt, then showing the existence of the trade is enough.
AGuest, why are you constantly insulting people? Gorblimey said something which is entirely correct. You do not seem to understand what quid pro quo means. Or what bribery means.
To summarize.
All bribery involves quid pro quo.
Most quid pro quo does NOT involve bribery.
In fact, without quid pro quo, there would be no such thing as economics or trade.
So instead of insulting Gorblimey by calling him or her ignorant (most definitely is not, since Gorblimey has gone on back and forths with me as well and does quite a good job), maybe accept that you might not understand the terms being used.
And especially remember that when your primary argument is a personal insult, you’ve usually already lost the debate if the other person remains calm and logically consistent (which Gorblimey has done)
He insisted in his initial post that quid pro quo does not have legal meaning, which is wrong and he fixed that statement in later posts, but still misrepresented my statements claiming that I made assumptions and assertions that I did not.
And “luckily” for me, pointing out ignorance is not insulting. Ignorance is a base state, everyone starts from and learns from there. It is only when that ignorance is willful that there is anything wrong with it at all. Lying about what someone said and ignoring them when they repeat it, however, is behavior I find insulting, and it is what you have done. (Again, no insults here just factual information about your behavior, if you don’t like the implications, change your behavior.) Among other things, you falsely claimed that I was saying there was solid evidence of blackmail, and now that I repeated that the crime is a form of bribery, you continue ignoring the evidence of it, talking about how not all quid pro quo is bribery, plainly ignoring that the quid pro quo described on this page is a service being provided in exchange for votes.
“He insisted in his initial post that quid pro quo does not have legal meaning,”
Because it doesn’t. There is no legal charge of quid pro quo, regardless of what certain politicians may have wished in a recent political impeachment. When you go to a store to buy a pack of gum, you are engaging in quid pro quo (unless you’re stealing the gum).
“which is wrong and he fixed that statement in later posts, but still misrepresented my statements claiming that I made assumptions and assertions that I did not.”
It’s literally not wrong. There is no legal meaning of quid pro quo. It’s a common, non-legal definition. There is a legal meaning of bribery. Which is something Deus has not done, and has not even said he would be doing.
“but still misrepresented my statements claiming that I made assumptions and assertions that I did not.”
He did not misrepresent your statements. They’re right there. He made a logical response to your statements.
“And “luckily” for me, pointing out ignorance is not insulting”
Except he was not being ignorant – he was entirely correct. If we’re going to play the game that pointing out ignorance is not insulting, then I’d have to say that you were the one showing ignorance of a common definition and not understanding that quid pro quo is not a legal charge by any means. It just means ‘you give something to get something.’ This for that. That’s the literal translation. You will NEVER find a person getting arrested for ‘quid pro quo.’
“Lying about what someone said and ignoring them when they repeat it, however, is behavior I find insulting”
Then you really should be insulted by how you’ve been acting yourself in this thread. You’re doing what you accuse others of doing.
“you continue ignoring the evidence of it, talking about how not all quid pro quo is bribery, plainly ignoring that the quid pro quo described on this page is a service being provided in exchange for votes.”
It literally was not providing a service in exchange for votes. Not once was there any sort of line between the two things mentioned. You are reading into it things that were not said. In other words, you are showing your ignorance. Again, if we’re playing by those rules, then what I said is not insulting, it’s just pointing out a fact. A rather easy to prove fact even, since the evidence is plainly written out in panels 5 and 6. Show me where he actually said he’d bribe anyone. In fact, even from DaveB’s blurb below, he was showing that Deus was not the one CREATING the blackmail – he was the one telling the guy he would help him PREVENT being blackmailed. And ‘I’m sure they’d be grateful’ does not imply quid pro quo either. If I do you a favor, you’re going to be grateful that I did you a favor.
Lets do a hypothetical example.
You’re in a car crash, for which you are blamed and you are sued. I represent you, and successfully defend you in the trial. You pay me for my services, because I’m an attorney and I’m not doing that work for free.
Now…. 3 months later, you want to start a business and want to hire an attorney full time to work for the attorney with an extremely generous salary. You think back to the attractive, intelligent, and very witty attorney who saved you from losing your shirt in that car accident trial three months ago and call me up and say ‘How would you like a job working for me full time?’
There was no quid pro pro between the two events. They were separate business events, and I got the second one because you were grateful that I did something worthwhile for you in the first event.
That’s what’s happening with Deus, essentially. That’s what he’s described.
quid pro quo, not quid pro pro. :)
Most of this last post is you just repeating the same thing over and over as if that makes it true. There are words with legal defined meanings that are not the formal name of a crime.
And yes, quid pro quo is a term that has legally defined meaning. In multiple contexts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo#Legal_meanings
Your hypothetical example only serves to prove my point. If there is not a quid pro quo there is not bribery.
On this page the existence of this exchange is clearly present, which I will explain for you again in the above section of this quote tree. (And I can’t help but note that even in your hypothetical example, you find ways to inflate your self-importance.)
“Most of this last post is you just repeating the same thing over and over as if that makes it true.”
No, what makes it true is that it’s actually true.
“And yes, quid pro quo is a term that has legally defined meaning. In multiple contexts.”
Quid pro quo has a legal meaning in the same way that ‘punch’ has a legal meaning. It’s a word that has nothing to do with law. there is no legal charge associated with it. If you try to use ‘quid pro quo’ to prove a crime in court, the judge will look at you like you’re an idiot and, if you’re very unlucky, he will tell you so.
ALL that quid pro quo means, as goblimey has been trying to explain to you but you’ve been too stubborn to accept, is ‘this for that’ – it means that an exchange has been made. It has nothing to do with the law. It’s not even as legal a term as terms like ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’ and ‘consideration.’
“Your hypothetical example only serves to prove my point. If there is not a quid pro quo there is not bribery.”
No, it doesn’t. quid pro quo also happens when you buy something in the store. Quid pro quo also happens when you give someone a hug to make them feel better because it gives you the warm fuzzies. Quid pro quo literally just means giving ANYTHING in exchange for receiving ANYTHING.
It’s like saying the word ‘punch’ is a legal term, just because if you punch a person without consent to the action and causes them harm, you’ve committed a battery. It does not vest the word ‘punch’ with legal meaning.
“On this page the existence of this exchange is clearly present,”
The hypothetical exchange is of a purely legitimate business proposal. There’s nothing that makes it even remotely being used as a legal term. Read the quote yourself.
“(And I can’t help but note that even in your hypothetical example, you find ways to inflate your self-importance)”
I cant help to note you have no sense of humor.
Let’s cut the junk and shorten this down to a single point to see whether you are capable of actually acknowledging what I said or if you are just illiterate and/or a liar.
““Your hypothetical example only serves to prove my point. If there is not a quid pro quo there is not bribery.”
No, it doesn’t. quid pro quo also happens when you buy something in the store.”
Read the specific sequence of my sentence again. I state that if there is not a quid pro quo, there cannot be bribery. I did not say (and have never said) “If there is a quid pro quo, then there is always bribery,” or “If there is not bribery, then there is not a quid pro quo.” Your reply about situations with quid pro quo but without bribery is a counterargument to the last 2. It says absolutely nothing about what I actually said.
After showing your comprehension of simple if/then statements, we can address some of the other issues with what you have said.
“Read the specific sequence of my sentence again. I state that if there is not a quid pro quo, there cannot be bribery.”
That does not make ‘quid pro quo’ legal language, any more than saying a ‘touch’ is legal language if it’s used to show an assault. Just because it’s latin does not make it legal language. It just means ‘an exchange of value.’
You’re treating quid pro quo as if it’s something that can actually be a charge. You probably engage in quid pro quo at least 10 times a day. And not once is it anything remotely criminal-based.
You really should consider auditing a class in either criminal law or tort law. It might expand your konwledge base a bit and you wouldnt be so stuck on what you keep repeating because you heard the words so many times during the interviews on news networks leading up to the US impeachment trial.
““Read the specific sequence of my sentence again. I state that if there is not a quid pro quo, there cannot be bribery.”
That does not make ‘quid pro quo’ legal language, any more than saying a ‘touch’ is legal language if it’s used to show an assault. Just because it’s latin does not make it legal language. It just means ‘an exchange of value.’”
Complete non-sequiter. The sentence you quoted is explaining a simple fact that bribery cannot happen if there is not a quid pro quo. It has nothing to do with whether quid pro quo has legal meaning (which I addressed, with references in a previous post) I tried to narrow this down to a simple straightforward sentence, yet you still change the subject rather than addressing the substance of what I wrote.
“You’re treating quid pro quo as if it’s something that can actually be a charge.”
I am not. I never have said anything like that. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly stated the exact opposite. You are simply putting words in my mouth to avoid addressing the fact that you are wrong. From the very first reply to me you have lied about what I said.
“You really should consider auditing a class …”
How about you take a class in elementary school level English about how if/then statements work. let’s try another phrasing: All bribery involves quid pro quo, but not all quid pro quo is bribery.
Let’s try this again, please address the simple statement above and the fact that I have never said that quid pro quo is a crime in and of itself.
I dunno DaveB. I think you’re very clever. Someone cannot come up with a character like Deus and his dialogue without being all types of clever.
DB your art is off the charts, some really excellent stuff going on here, this is one of the few comics I revisit days later just look at the art again, it’s a treat for the eyeballs.
Thanks! I agonize over it quite a bit. :)
Those desserts looks so darn delicious. I hate being on a diet.
Maxima looks a little cross-eyed in that first panel. Might want to fix her right eye (the one on the left of the panel).
Deus is really out here trying to sell blackmail-with-extra-steps.
Whelp, after that laugh Lorlara will forever have this adorrifying voice in my head.
Deus is being a little too supervillain hammy, he’s usually smarter than this.
An easy way to get back to his normal manipulative self would be something like “ after they give me the money, the businesses in Galtyn will be joint US-Galtyn ventures giving the US access to the advanced technology while providing an incentive not to invade or spy” or “ I plan to open 50 galtyn embassies across the US and locate some manufacturing there, they will operate under galtyn laws while employing US citizens, there is even precedent by the US for doing this” and conveniently not mention all the embassy land will triple the size of galtyn.
Again, not sure how this is supervillainy at ALL. He’s literally doing the opposite of being a supervillain. He’s being heroic by offering to protect our government against blackmail by supervillains who are most definitely not him.
No, they are not him, they are just employed by him
If you spin this any more, you will look like a panda in a blender
Sorry but where did you get that he’s hiring people to do the blackmailing? I don’t see where he said that at all.
Again Guesticus, my favorite sparring partner here on this forum, read what he actually says:
“In a world with super powers, the chances of a politically powerful person getting away with something naughty is hugely reduced. If someone could illuminate PURELY HYPOTHETICAL WAYS certain legislators could POTENTIALLY be compromised and offer solutions…”
Where in those sentences was there even the implication that he was hiring anyone to do blackmailing. He’s stating that BAD PEOPLE EXIST. And he can provide a service AGAINST those bad people. And because he can provide a service against those bad people, the people who will purchase his service would be grateful and not go about their normal corrupt politician ways when dealing with HIM in particular on Senate spending bills. They’d actually use taxpayer money for something that’s a benefit to the taxpayers, instead of their own corrupt practices.
So no. ‘They’ are not him. and ‘they’ are not employed by him either.
It’s like when you watch a SimpliSafe or ADT advertisement on TV selling a security system. Are you assuming that SimpliSafe or ADT are also hiring burglars to break into your home so that you will purchase their security systems?
No.
Bad people exist.
Fortunately, in the Grrlpower Universe, they have people like Deus to provide protection against those people, so that he can convince otherwise corrupt senators to do the right thing for their country and people….
And in the process also help push forward a formerly starving nation into the First World. and if Deus makes money from it, hey… that’s just a win-win-win situation.
Just like how he didn’t kill that warlord? Or get unsanctioned tech from a place he has no legal business being at, using tech he had no right to having?
No, am done with this, find someone else to spar with, we both know what he is talking about
But until Archon (or others) can prove misconduct in those instances with hard evidence, Deus is navigating the technicalities of the legal channels quite well. Don’t confuse legality with morality.
“Just like how he didn’t kill that warlord?”
Even if I did not argue that self defense is entirely fine, and even if I did not argue that killing a mass-murdering dictator who kills innocent men, women, and children and tortures them before doing so to the point that his own son is horrified when he sees it, is entirely fine, and even if I did not argue that it was Deus’s bodyguards that did the deed and Deus made sure there was an absolute minimum of death that day, I’m not sure what your point is. Not sure how that has anything to do with him not even remotely saying he was blackmailing anyone.
“Or get unsanctioned tech”
Unsanctioned by who? Anyone who actually has authority over him? Any rules to which Earth has AGREED ON as part of a treaty or other signatory? Nope.
“from a place he has no legal business being at”
Woah woah, since when does Deus have no legal business being at the Fracture? Cora already said there are humans already living in space, including HER. Plus Sydney was on the Fracture. Is Sydney a criminal too?
“using tech he had no right to having?”
Nope. The other dude had no right selling it. Deus had every right having it. Because Deus paid for it with something that the seller found to be of value.
Capitalism baby! i love it.
“No, am done with this, find someone else to spar with,”
No, I like sparring with you as long as you don’t get into personal insults, which you usually don’t. Which is why I defend you when other people directly insult you.
Cmon, you know you like our back and forths too. *wink wink*
“we both know what he is talking about”
Clearly we don’t both know what he’s talkingabout, because I’ve explained what he’s talking about – he’s offering a valuable service against other people who are definitely NOT him, who might try to blackmail people, and Deus will NOT STAND FOR THAT…. if he can make a profit and get some goodwill while doing so from a powerful senator.
This is exactly what talking about, you are deliberately closing your eyes to wait is shown so you can say “I didn’t hear any of that!” It’s the opposite of someone sticking their thumbs in their ears and going “Lalalala, I can’t hear you!”
Don’t give a shit about what can or can not be proven, look at panels five and six and open your damn eyes to what SmugD is planning on doing
You can respect him as a fellow snake all you like, just don’t deny his stripes and forked tongue
“This is exactly what talking about, you are deliberately closing your eyes to wait is shown so you can say “I didn’t hear any of that!””
No, I’m reading exactly what’s being written and not filling in the gaps with assumptions, which is what you are doing.
I’ll again use the example I used with AGuest.
Hypothetical situation:
Guesticus is in a car crash, for which he/she is blamed and sued. I represent Guesticus, and successfully defend Guesticus in the trial. Guesticus pays me for my services, because I’m an attorney and I’m not doing that work for free. This ain’t no charity after all, and I save my pro bono work for indigent clients.
Now…. 3 months later, you want to start a business and want to hire an attorney full time to work for the attorney with an extremely generous salary. You think back to the attractive, intelligent, funny, constantly correct and very witty attorney who saved you from losing your shirt in that car accident trial three months ago and call me up and say ‘How would you like a job working for me full time?’
There was no quid pro pro between the two events. There was no bribery involved. They were separate, completely legal business event opportunities, of which I had no part in creating the problem you were in, and I got the second opportunity because you were grateful that I did something worthwhile for you in the first event.
That’s what’s happening with Deus, essentially. That’s what he’s described.
Politicians that he helps will see his proposal and say ‘hey, isnt that the guy who showed he can deliver what he promises? Yes, it is. I know it is because he’s helped me out as well! That means he’s probably able to deliver on this promise as well! I should vote for this!’
No bribery. No direct line.
“Don’t give a shit about what can or can not be proven,”
I sort of do very much care about what can and cannot be proven. You should too. That’s how you figure out what’s real and what’s not.
“look at panels five and six and open your damn eyes to what SmugD is planning on doing”
I do see what he’s doing. He’s offering a valuable service to powerful people that will protect them against evil people, and hopes that they will remember how he is a man of his word, and will think about that the next time they are wanting to approve a spending bill which involves something which he is saying he can provide, because they will know that Deus X Machina is a man of his word and can provide what he claims he can provide.
“You can respect him as a fellow snake all you like,”
He’s not a snake though. He’s a man. To quote Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy, it’s like if a pirate had a baby with an angel.
“just don’t deny his stripes and forked tongue”
The only stripes are the pinstripes of his $3000 suit.
And he hasn’t lied so not sure how you get the forked tongue reference.
Issue is I think most people being so critical of D are drawing conclusions based on their out-of-comic knowledge: Deus has been playing a certain role in the narrative so far, and we have an audience-eye-view of what he’s been up to. So he gets slotted into a “smug snake” role because we’ve all browsed here for good superhero action and are primed to expect intrigues.
Problem is the *characters* don’t have the same perspective. I believe as far as most of them are aware, Deus is simply a somewhat-megalomaniacal defense industry magnate doing sketchy things with his influence in the Third World; a little screwy but nothing too far out of the ordinary for that kind of person.
“Issue is I think most people being so critical of D are drawing conclusions based on their out-of-comic knowledge:”
It’s not even their out-of-comic knowledge. Even based on the out-of-comic knowledge, technically… Deus still hasn’t done anything wrong. They’re basing it on the need for an antagonist to be evil, and the fact that Deus is rather smug and arrogant (Because damn, he’s ALWAYS right… and that’s sometimes infuriating to people who are flawed)… it creates a need to take him down and make him the bad guy :)
Maybe he’ll do something evil in the future? But right now… he hasn’t. In fact, Archon has done a lot more things that I’d say are morally questionable, but they are considered heroes because… they’re the superheroes and are being presented as such.
” Deus has been playing a certain role in the narrative so far, and we have an audience-eye-view of what he’s been up to.”
I appreciate your take on the argument, and it’s a lot better than what some other people have been arguing, but even from our perspective, he actually hasn’t done anything villainous yet. And you can’t assume he will just because he’s arrogant. As I said in an argument with another forum person in a really fun debate, Deus has definitely been a net provider of good in the world, not evil. Ask any of the people of Galytin, except a certain murderous warlord who is now deceased. Heck, ask the murderous warlord’s son even. If they were not all fictional I mean.
“Problem is the *characters* don’t have the same perspective.”
Yes, if anything the characters have FAR less of a reason to even remotely think anything negative of Deus. Except for the fact that he’s incredibly arrogant and loves playing into the villain tropes in order to subvert them. But he has yet to do a single thing that can be described as ‘villainous’ on more than a thematic surface level of window dressing as a joke, like the laughter and thunder/lightning machine.
“Deus is simply a somewhat-megalomaniacal defense industry magnate ”
Pretty much just described Tony Stark, aka Iron Man. Who saved the universe in Avengers :)
“doing sketchy things with his influence in the Third World”
Only if sketchy means ‘giving the impoverished a way to have a brighter future for themselves and their children and not live in fear of a murderous warlord :)
“a little screwy but nothing too far out of the ordinary for that kind of person.”
I’ll give you that too. I just think a lot of the people hating on Deus are conflating his ‘I’m awesome’ attitude with being evil and ignore what he actually has done.
Good talk :)
“Just like how he didn’t kill that warlord?”
Some people seem to be having trouble with this concept. Does anybody know how many non-German attempts were made on Adolf Hitler’s life? We don’t need the sordid details, we just want a number. Here’s a hint: it is greater than 5. And no, most of them were not state sponsored.
Unfortunately, I have no information regarding attempts on Josip Stalin’s life, mostly because Russian security was considerably better than Germany’s (at the time). I’m sure there were some, but they certainly got well buried in deepest Siberia before news could leak out.
The simple fact is that being a corrupt warlord is a high-risk venture. If you piss off too many people, somebody might decide you resemble Saddam Hussein too much, or Osama bin Laden.
We, the people, technically have no right to take another’s life for any reason. Having said that, no proper government has that right either. So — obviously — the only right thing to do is either continue to let his people suffer (as the world did when Haile Selassie was restored to the throne of Ethiopia) or let the people suffer from “regime change” as in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. How civilised.
Not saying the warlord didn’t deserve it, he clearly did, talking about people trying to say he had nothing to do with it
He went in there, with the intent to take control one way or another, and he pushed the warlord (verbally) into attacking, thus giving his hired-help the excuse needed to cause a fatal heart attack
The moron should have kept his mouth shut, shouldn’t he? Some self-discipline never goes astray, does it?
Yeah, I’m victim-blaming. Sue me.
Because some white arsehole in a suit came along and basically said he was going to take the land whether the warlord liked it or not
Imperialist colonisation? Oh my! King Leopold of Belgium would have been impressed!
Except he did not. The warlord should not have tried to murder Deus and try to have him thrown off the roof. His bodyguards do not appreciate that. Too bad the warlord was not going to be as respectful and non-murdery to someone who has invisible bodyguards as he might have been to someone who had very visible bodyguards.
Deus was fully willing to do business with the warlord without him being killed, but Deus is no fool. He realized this guy was INCREDIBLY corrupt and tyrannical to his own people, and most likely the warlord would eventually try to murder Deus – not to mention not actually help his own people – and Deus always takes precautions against people murdering him.
Deus does not like being murdered. It does not sit well with him. The warlord’s son did not try to murder him after he was shown what a monster his father was with torturing and killing innocent men, women, and children, and as a result, they are in business, the son is the legitimate ruler of the country, and Deus manages all the jobs to make sure the country is wealthy and prosperous beyond his wildest dreams. Plus the son is now rich with NON-blood money and the nation of Galytin is no longer besieged by war on all sides (apparently the murderous warlord did not get along well with the other surrounding murderous warlords), thanks to not wanting to murder Deus like his tinpot dictator dad wanted to do.
That was by far the most punchable grin I have ever seen in that last image…
I was pleased with how her face turned out in that panel.