Grrl Power #959 – Enchanting 101
Happy being slightly to moderately hung over from July 4th if you’re in America and happened to party last night, or if you’re not in America and just decided to get drunk for totally unrelated reasons.
Sometimes I need to google things about military culture, but this time, I’m was pretty sure calling your C.O. an ekwensu ọcha is not usually allowed. (Google it.) Max and Kenya obviously have a friendship that transcends such things.
If you’re over 30, you might have grown up with “flesh” colored crayons and band-aids. That was before those industries were like “Oh… right, other races.” Still, it’s easy to think of tannish-peachy-khaki as “flesh” colored, (especially if you’re white and living in a majority caucasian nation/area) and that’s only partially because we don’t really have another words with succinctly describes the caucasian skin tone. It doesn’t help that there’s quite a variety of hues possible under the caucasian umbrella* (and that’s before you get into makeup companies trying to convince women they have a “winter” complexion or whatever is going on there.) If you had to name the color of the old “flesh” colored crayons though, you’d probably say “peach.” I actually think that’s what Crayola did at any rate. Still, Leon telling Max she had peach colored hair was not his first instinct. He wasn’t trying to be un-woke about it, I mean, there are people with gold, brown, blue and purple skin standing right in front of him. (Cora is just off panel, trust me.) He really just meant “your hair and skin match and no one can pull that off.”
*The Caucasian Umbrella sounds like a fascist world view, the name of a band, and also something a serial killer might have.
July’s vote incentive is up!
You guys don’t know who this is yet. (Her name is Xerxa.) I will give you one single guess what she might be from. (And no, it’s not Dabbler’s mother.) It was a piece I had half finished from a little while ago and given my time constraints this month, I threw a little polish and some background on it and here you are. Unfortunately there aren’t nine separate versions because she’s not wearing a ton to begin with. Hopefully you can read about that soon. I hope you like it, personally I think it turned out pretty good.
As always, nude version are up at Patreon.
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.
When Leon said Flesh colored hair,what sort of look did Anvil give him…!?!?
(Note the look on Dabbler’s face and Krona’s).
Fairly sure she was pursing her lips and narrowing her eyes
And both Dabbles and Kronachrome are looking at Anvil, not Foot-in-mouth Boy :P
Fairly certain that look was ‘you care to repeat that, bigot?’
I don’t think that she views Leon as a bigot. In the past she’s actually been sort of protective of him, when Harem was teasing him with shoulderboob.
Personally she shouldn’t even have looked at him like that. Flesh colored isn’t automatically Caucasian. Flesh colored is any color that looks like flesh tone. Basically if you have a shirt that from far away is the same color of your skin than that is a flesh tone. If at times you turn around or are far away and think that you mistake a shirt for their skin then it’s flesh colored. In this regard purple and gold are now flesh colored in this universe. Her being picky is either a ball buster or Dave thinks this is a racial que. (No one in the history of ever has ever gotten pissed at a flesh colored shirt.
How old are you Darius? You don’t have to answer. I just asked because if you were of a certain age you would know there was a time in this country where “flesh colored” was only synonymous with one specific flesh color. As we are more enlightened now, we know this to be a fallacy since “flesh colors” come in many shades and hues. So to assume flesh-colored is one particular shade or hue is a bit… uninformed.
I think Darius’s point was that ‘flesh-colored’ can be judged on relative instead of absolute terms, i.e. as *your* flesh-color. And yes, there was a time in America where that was not the assumption.
Yes I know of that time and lived through the end of it. But why would leon who is probably in his mid twenties make a remark that could be mistrued for that time. Kenya is just busting his balls. Eaglejarl definitely understood my point.
Which country, WaterDragun? There are 200 countries and eight billion people. If you are interpreting his statement in-world for GrrlPower it would be reasonable to assume the context of the USA but you asked Darius’ age which is not in-world. 3% don’t get to decide, not even with a blue-water navy. And if they tried to impose their will, that would make them the Evil Empire.
Um. Wut? He called the color that Max was “flesh colored”. She has flesh and it is not that color. She has the right to look askance at her friendly co-worker who has committed a faux pas, and he was right to feel momentarily embarrassed. This is how friends handle situations like this. No one is hurt but order is restored and she acknowledges the validity of what he really meant (not what he said but what he meant) by agreeing that matching skin tone and hair color is disturbing.
Then Anvil’s other friend Max takes the joking to the next level. Hilarity ensues.
It wouldn’t matter if it was her flesh color. As long as it matched with the color of her then colored skin. They were talking about her hair. It’s not a faux pas.
The kind of look where what he really should’ve said is, “What I said is right and you know it.”
Hmmm
A Multiplexed Albedo (Reflectance) Fader
As Hair, Nails, Skin, Etc… need different values
;)
“Buffalo Bill”: Such a nice day, but so bright outside – I think I’ll use my Caucasian Parasol…
A point of note: WHITE is a blanket term for a human race… Caucasian is an ETHNICITY. To be Caucasian, one must be descended SPECIFICALLY from peoples of the Caucus Region. So… no… not all White folks are Caucasian, and not all Caucasian Peoples are White.
But yes, the term “flesh colored” is, while not offensive, inaccurate; as “flesh tone” or “flesh colored” means (literally) any skin tone or coloration. In point of fact, now the “flesh color/flesh tone” of this webcomic universe… it literally EVERY color… as not only humans have sentience and sapience. Thus ALL colors are now “flesh tone”.
Teeechnically, it never (literally speaking) meant HUMAN flesh colors either, in a literal sense. I know that humanity meant it that way for a very long time, but the literal meaning of the word means “the color of flesh”, and EVERY member of the Animal Kingdom has flesh.
Now in this webcomic’s universe, there may also be some plant based creatures, so “flesh” may be more broadly expanded even further to encompass them as well. Sentient and sapient robotic and construct species can also be included.
So while not necessarily an offensive term, unless you want to get offended at something that silly like a complete idiot, the term is simply inaccurate IRL, and even more broadly so in the grrlpowercomic universe. :-)
As flesh colored as a mecha-gnome rocking a pearlescent paintjob on the main chassis and thermochromatic paint on the limbs and extremities.
Chameleon. That is all.
It’s in no way a misnomer, any more than “rose” is a misnomer. Roses span the spectrum from pure white, yellow, blue, green, to a red so deep it’s almost black. However, the color “rose” is a light pink. That’s the color “rose”.
The color “flesh” is a pinky-beige, slightly in the direction of cream from peach or salmon, and it was originally established as the name of a crayon color, no more, no less. The word was never in broad circulation as a color name other than due to reference to that toy.
BTW, White is not a color, it’s an ingroup or outgroup ethnic cliche. There’s not really any such thing as the White race, White culture, or whatever. There’s also no such thing as Black race or Black culture. Juneteenth is a great example. 20 years ago, nobody who didn’t have Texas roots knew a thing about it, now it’s a big “Black culture” thing. (Celebration of slow mail at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, which didn’t free anyone.)
You are technically correct, across the entire world, there is no “white” or “black” culture, but in single countries? Across specific ethnic groups? Yes, there are cultures that are mostly one ethnicity.
England is a good example, the English ethnicity and English value set are a good example of a “white” culture, the difference is anyone can go there and assimilate and be part of that culture, it’s not actually limited by color.
Also, if you are a super racist (read: enjoy intersectional feminism and CRT and other Marxist theories) you might insist that white culture is just all bad things you don’t like, and something something colonialism.
But any ideology that defines good work ethic as bad is not a good idea in my books.
Note that there’s not really any such thing as a single ‘English’ culture, any more than there’s a single ‘Canadian’ culture or even just a single ‘Maryland’ culture. In each case it’s a mosaic of intermingled individual attitudes; if you blur it together with one set of arbitrary lines it looks like one thing, but with a different set of lines it can look very different.
Marxism is the theory that control of economic production determines social and political change. (multiple sources)
Intersectional feminism is “feminism, but you need to also listen to feminists who are different from you or whose stance is different from yours”. (the USA Today article)
CRT (Critical Race Theory), as best I can tell, is the theory that racism can be institutionalized and that one needs to look at the effects of laws and regulations to determine if the respective laws and regulations are racist. (Education Week, The Root, The Hill, several other sites)
External economic control, feminists listening to other feminists, and institutional racism are NOT the same thing. (I’ll misquote various game shows and quote several teachers: “Care to try again?”)
@WEAREGRID said:
> Also, if you are a super racist (read: enjoy intersectional feminism and CRT and other Marxist theories) you might insist that white culture is just all bad things you don’t like, and something something colonialism.
>
> But any ideology that defines good work ethic as bad is not a good idea in my books.
As a general rule, the people who use the phrase ‘white culture’ unironically also have swastikas somewhere nearby.
Marxism is a political theory that says individuals, not governments or corporations, should own the factories, tools, mines, etc. Intersectional feminism and Critical Race Theory are social theories that refer to how people are and should be treated. The latter have nothing to do with the former, although people who use the phrase ‘white culture’ unironically sure do love to conflate them.
Maybe I’m misreading, but it sure sounds like you’re associating ‘white culture’ with ‘good work ethic’ and people who believe in those other theories are claiming that ‘white culture’ instead means ‘bad worth ethic.’ That sounds a lot like something you would hear from a person who uses the phrase ‘white culture’ unironically.
Care to rephrase?
Look up “White Culture Poster African American Museum”
It’s not people with swastikas who are pulling this BS out of their asses.
This is the top link on Google for that: https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness Is it the one you’re talking about? If so, here’s the opening:
> At the National Museum of African American History and Culture, we believe that any productive conversation on race must start with honesty, respect for others, and an openness to ideas and information that provide new perspectives.
>
> Whiteness and white racialized identity refer to the way that white people, their customs, culture, and beliefs operate as the standard by which all other groups of are compared. Whiteness is also at the core of understanding race in America. Whiteness and the normalization of white racial identity throughout America’s history have created a culture where nonwhite persons are seen as inferior or abnormal.
>
> This white-dominant culture also operates as a social mechanism that grants advantages to white people, since they can navigate society both by feeling normal and being viewed as normal. Persons who identify as white rarely have to think about their racial identity because they live within a culture where whiteness has been normalized.
>
> Thinking about race is very different for nonwhite persons living in America. People of color must always consider their racial identity, whatever the situation, due to the systemic and interpersonal racism that still exists.
Do you disagree with that? It all seems pretty straightforward and honest to me, and I’m white. Yes, an individual American probably isn’t racist but our society was built in a time that was extremely racist and a lot of our institutions are holdovers from that time. Perhaps more importantly is the generational effect. Blacks tend to have far less wealth than whites, not because they are inherently lazy but because their grandparents were redlined into districts with bad job opportunities and prevented from getting the loans that would allow them to start businesses of their own. While black families were struggling to get by, white families were building wealth to pass on to their children who then multiplied that wealth and passed it on to *their* children. Are all white families rich and all black families poor? Of course not. Is it the norm? Absolutely.
It’s self-perpetuating, too. Those black neighborhoods still exist and still have worse job opportunities, and since poverty is linked to crime regardless of race there tends to be more crime in those neighborhoods, which means they are overpoliced, which means more black people going to prison, which means a bad reputation for blacks, which means worse job opportunities, which means…
English being a natural language, many of its words have multiple meanings, some of them screwy.
“Caucasian” is most often used to refer to the socially-constructed set of persons descended from humans living in Europe during the Classical era, and only secondarily to people descended from those living in the Caucasus. It may be inappropriate historically, but so is the formerly common use of “Mongoloid” to denote persons descended from the majority inhabitants of Asia in the Classical period – most of whom never came near Mongolia. Classification schemes are often found to be inappropriate (poor Pluto!) or even just plain wrong factually (OMG Brontosaurus!) but finding stuff like this out is part of improving. Stumbling steps toward improvement are a reliable source of misunderstanding and therefore humor, as Panel 5+6 demonstrates.
English is a backwards language. Well, backwards by every other language on the planet. Which is why sometimes its so easy to make mistakes on correct usage of words. Especially if English isn’t your native language.
As a note, if there ARE any other languages that are like English, I’d be curious to look them up. Far as I know, we’re the only one that goes Adjective Noun instead of Noun Adjective.
Well, its history appears to be extra complicated since William the Bastard forceably overlaid Romantic Old French onto a layer of Germanic Anglo-Saxon, in the process dropping gendering almost everything except personal pronouns (a big plus!) but making grammar somewhat optional. Whether that is backwards in the sense of disorganized and unsophisticated or forward in the sense of highly creative may be a matter of taste. It certainly could use some rationalization of the numbering system and irregular verbs.
Not to mention the various bits of Norse, Gaelic, Brythonic/Welsh… And the later ‘borrowings’ from just about anywhere else that had a more useful word for any given concept than we did already…
We can thank the Swedish Viking raiders and the later Danish invasions for the Norse elemnts in many western English dialects :)
English follows other languages into dark alleys and then mugs them for their vocabulary.
Quoted from Pratchett!
Not Pratchet — James Nicol.
English is a vocabulary katamari.
English, is an Indio-Germanic language.
@rewinn is on the right track. English as we know it starts around the 17th Century — we can understand a lot of 16th Century English, but speaking it would be difficult.
Prior to the Norman Conquest “English” should be better described as maybe “Anglesk”, a Germanic tongue bred from Old Saxon and Old Angelsk.
Old English and Modern English are NOT Romance languages, and therfore prefer the Adjective Noun construction.
Modern English syntax derives from the great diarists of the 18th Century, for example Samuel Johnson. Many of these were lexicographers, writing what in German would be termed “Wörterbuchen”. Unfortunately, these lexicons did not presribe correct grammar, syntax and pronounciation, but were more concerned with spelling.
English is not the sole purloiner of words. French is a notable offender, preferring the term “biftek” (from the English “beef steak”) to their natural “langue de boeuf”. My Cassells French-Eglish dictionary is the 1961 Fortieth Edition based on the “New and Revised 33rd Edition of 1954 — I understand that L’Academie Française was considered very progessive in permitting the general usage of “le biftek” in written French!
Oh yes. Irregular verbs. The bane of students in almost all languages. OTOH, there are a few fundamental verbs common to all known tongues: to be; to have; to do (make). And these are grossly irregular in all of them.
Though, amusingly, the “beef” part of “beef steak” comes from the French “boeuf”, so we have French -> English, then English -> French to get “biftek”.
:)
I’m a feminist, since 1970.
No language is a “natural entity. It, is a construct.
“Natural Language” is a term of art denoting languages that were developed by humans unintentionally, as distinguished from “Artificial Languages” which were deliberately crafted.
It does not refer to a non-existent language coded into human DNA.
Other than klungon and esperanto can you give me some other examples of artificial languages? Just want to know for my own curiosity.
There are rather a lot of constructed languages, with varying degrees of ‘seriousness’, so I’ll point you to a list rather than copy it myself. At one end are earnest attempts to produce a ‘common second language’ for use in international politics and business. At the other end are languages created purely as part of the context for fictional worlds. And I don’t speak any of them, besides a few words here and there among the fictionals!
Y’know, you sound like the guy who argues “She’s 14, so it’s not pedophilia. It would be ephebephilia.”
It’s not a good characterization.
Caucasians ORIGINS are from the caucas mountains, but the word has evolved to be a synonym for white. Just like ‘black people’ are not actually black, but also not all black people are from Africa.
It’s just another of the funny little things about the modern English language being a mishmash of different word origins, actually a lot moreso than most other modern languages. It’s one of the reasons many non-native English speakers have an easier time picking up English in a generalized sense, even if they might take longer to pick up the intricacies. I think that might be one of the reasons why English is the standardized language for air traffic controllers and several other international occupations.
This is just a guess though.
Main thing I’m saying is caucasians do not have to be from the caucas mountains. It’s just a naming scheme now.
Thank you for pointing out that about ‘caucasian’, and sorry you got jumped over it (as expected)
And Pander, try telling a black person in the US that they are not Afro-American, or that a Boer is more African than they are
Well, if you want people to understand the life of an African-American, it would be technically accurate to give Elon Musk as an example. Dude was born in Africa after all. I would say though that he’s an atypical example, and not at all what people mean when they use the term.
Because, while technically an African who has immigrated to the United States, he is not of the racial group they are talking about when they use the term African-American.
Which, IMO, is a prima facie demonstration that the term refers specifically to race, and not to place of origin. We do not go on calling people whose grandparents immigrated from France Franco-American three or four or five generations later. That’s not a term that codes for race. But people who are recognizably descended from Africa go on being Afro-American forever, and that’s hardly fair. After five generations, they ought to just be American like everybody else, but people won’t allow it.
And then we get into that whole bullflangle about how not every African is black
It’s racial hypocrisy at its worst
If Futurama has taught me anything, it’s that technically correct is the best kind of correct. :)
The latest theory about race, is that it does not exist, it is only used to separate, them from us!
Just a warning I’m going off on a tangent in this post:
Just a side note …. my cousin is married to a Dominican woman who is black, and she and her son do not call themselves African American, since… well… they’re not. They’re black but not ‘African American.’ English isnt their first language, so my nephew (technically ‘first cousin once removed’, but he calls me aunt so that’s that) was actually confused about that. Some terms are just socially acceptable or even socially expected because they’re in common use by the majority of people who speak the language.
But I wouldnt go around telling black people in the US that most of them that ‘African American’ is an illogical term for the same reason I wouldnt go around telling white people that they arent caucasian because they arent from the caucas mountains. Because it’s just a commonly accepted english naming scheme. White and caucasian is synonymous in commonly accepted English definitions. It’s a little more nuanced with black and african though since the latter is usually hyphenated (african/afro-american, afro-cuban, etc). So it’s not like you can call a black person who is from Britain ‘African-American’ – because even if you use ‘African-‘ as an example of their most-probably ancestry, they’re not ‘american.’ So it makes no real sense. If the term was ‘Caucasian-American’ it would also not make sense, but no one says that. English frequently mixes ‘places’ and ethnicities together in making descriptors, for reasons I don’t entirely understand.
Plus as a social nicety, it’s probably considered a little rude to just say that out of the blue if not talking in a clinical or debate setting. Again, that’s more of a social argument than a technical one.
—
Funny story btw. Yesterday on the 4th of July I went outside my house and walked down the street to watch some fireworks going off. I have a sort of distinct look because of my ethnicity and some guy asked where I was from, because he was talking about his italian-american background. Honestly first thing I said was ‘Oh I’m American.’ The guy was very ‘USA’ and liked that answer because it was inadvertently very patriotic I guess, considering it was July 4. Elaborated a little later saying ‘Hawaii’ and mentioned mixed race and went into some detail on that because, again, my ethnicity is sort of distinct-looking and it’s sometimes hard to place. Alcohol was involved, because I usually don’t bother getting all into my ancestry. If I’m at a fireworks display, I’m probably not signing up for 23andMe or Ancestry.com :)
I probably could have just generalized and said ‘Pacific Islander,’ but that’s hindsight. Plus it is about as vague as saying American and you can have all sorts of semantic discussions about that too.
TL;DR – It’s a lot easier to just say ‘American’ than go into a whole detailed family tree of my ethnicity.
Commonly accepted… does not mean Correct.
It was once “commonly accepted” that Women who were suffering from depression, a simple period, menopause, or any host of things psychologically from the simple and mundane to the acutely critical health concerns… were considered to be insane and should be lobotomized “for their own good.”
It was once “commonly accepted” that black people were all psychopathic rapists, but only of White Women and only in groups.
It was once “commonly accepted” that people with mental disorders were all just “stupid”, “idiots”, or “retarded”. It was so “commonly accepted” in fact… that those were official MEDICAL Terms for the mentally handicapped.
It was once “commonly accepted” in Greece that children born with birth defects… should be thrown off of a cliff to their deaths.
It was once “commonly accepted” by the nazis that The Jews were a threat to Germany and should be eradicated.
Just because something is “commonly accepted” by even the MAJORITY of humanity and even globally, does NOT make it correct, nor does it make it RIGHT. TRUTH is the only thing that is right and correct.
A Human is fine.
Humans are stupid.
Humanity is stupidity itself.
“Commonly accepted… does not mean Correct.”
In language it… sometimes does actually. That’s how language works. Once something becomes culturally accepted in the general zeitgheist, it can get incorporated into the language. But it has to be accepted naturally, not forced into acceptance. That’s why the process tends to be slow and gradual, with a lot of tiny steps.
“It was once “commonly accepted” that Women who were suffering from depression, a simple period, menopause, or any host of things psychologically from the simple and mundane to the acutely critical health concerns… were considered to be insane and should be lobotomized “for their own good.””
1) That is not the same as language
2) That was never ‘commonly accepted.’ By ‘commonly accepted,’ I mean the society as a whole accepts it, not that a few people believe it and try to push it on others who don’t accept it. But that’s a moot point since that’s not the same as language anyway.
“It was once “commonly accepted” that black people were all psychopathic rapists, but only of White Women and only in groups.”
1) That is not the same as language
2) That was never ‘commonly accepted.’ Not even remotely By ‘commonly accepted,’ I mean the society as a whole accepts it, not that a few people who are racist trying to make hateful stereotypes. But that’s a moot point since that’s not the same as language anyway.
“It was once “commonly accepted” that people with mental disorders were all just “stupid”, “idiots”, or “retarded”. It was so “commonly accepted” in fact… that those were official MEDICAL Terms for the mentally handicapped.”
Actually you have that backwards. And partially incorrect as well. Idiot was ORIGINALLY created as a word meaning an IQ of between 0 and 25. Retarded just meant ‘mentally retarded’ as in their learning processes are slower than the average person because of some genetic problem. Those words didnt become insults until much later. And ‘stupid’ was never used in a clinical sense at all
In fact, this argument of yours actually supports what I mean about language.
Idiot was a clinical term, until people started using is as an insult instead, then it became commonly accepted as an insult INSTEAD of a clinical term, along with the other clinical terms of ‘imbecile’ (IQ of 51 to 75) ‘moron’ (IQ of 26 to 50).
So you have it backwards. It wasnt an insult that became a clinical term. It was a clinical term that became an insult, because of mass acceptance. Which was my initial point about how language works.
“It was once “commonly accepted” in Greece that children born with birth defects… should be thrown off of a cliff to their deaths.”
1) That has nothing to do with language.
2) You’re thinking of Sparta, not Greece.
“It was once “commonly accepted” by the nazis that The Jews were a threat to Germany and should be eradicated.”
1) That has nothing to do with language
2) That became accepted because of state-enforced propaganda by a bigoted few, and a culture that was used to accepting the commands of the state, not because of a gradual shift in language.
“Just because something is “commonly accepted” by even the MAJORITY of humanity and even globally, does NOT make it correct, nor does it make it RIGHT.”
It does when it comes to language.
“TRUTH is the only thing that is right and correct.”
That’s very nebulous when it comes to language. Language is about being able to have people communicate with each other and transfer ideas verbally. They do this by agreeing on what different words mean. They agree on what diffrent words mean based on what becomes socially accepted about the definition of those words.
“A Human is fine.
Humans are stupid.”
Nice paraphrase of Men in Black. Also doesnt really have anything to do with the broader topic here, when it comes to language.
“Humanity is stupidity itself.”
This part isnt true though. Humanity is pretty awesome and intelligent on the technical end. They just are prone to panic and making poor leaps of logic because of emotional manipulation of a persuasive few among them. If anything, it’s astounding that people manage to be ABLE to communicate with each other – it’s why we’re so much more advanced than other species. Well, that and opposable thumbs. But mainly our communication skills.
Act… tually, in many societies, all those things were commonly accepted, and it was only through the act of outsiders pointing out how they are wrong that they got changed
You want language examples?
It was ‘commonly accepted’ to call people ‘retarded’ or ‘mongoloid’
It was ‘commonly accepted’ to call someone ‘bipolar’ when they had drastic mood swings (the new common is to call them ‘manic depressive’… or is it the other way around?)
It was ‘commonly accepted’ to call someone with a physical limitation a ‘cripple’
Need any more?
“Act… tually, in many societies, all those things were commonly accepted, and it was only through the act of outsiders pointing out how they are wrong that they got changed”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about in relation to my post. Explain please?
“It was ‘commonly accepted’ to call people ‘retarded’ or ‘mongoloid’”
Okay, I’m not sure how that changes my argument.
“It was ‘commonly accepted’ to call someone ‘bipolar’ when they had drastic mood swings (the new common is to call them ‘manic depressive’… or is it the other way around?)”
Okay I’m still not sure how that changes my argument.
“It was ‘commonly accepted’ to call someone with a physical limitation a ‘cripple’”
Okay, I’m still not sure how that changes my argument.
You were saying how ‘commonly accepted’ uses of language makes them ‘correct’
And, you were saying how ‘society as a whole’ has to accept it, and for a long time, society as a whole did accept those things
So, what you are saying is, as long ‘society as a whole’ accepts something, then it is ‘correct’, even if it is wrong?
“You were saying how ‘commonly accepted’ uses of language makes them ‘correct’
And, you were saying how ‘society as a whole’ has to accept it, and for a long time, society as a whole did accept those things”
If society as a whole accepts it, then it’s commonly accepted as a new change to the language. Not sure what you think is inconsistent there.
“So, what you are saying is, as long ‘society as a whole’ accepts something, then it is ‘correct’, even if it is wrong?”
Actually… yeah. Language is about collective agreement about what different words mean and how it’s socially acceptable. Once enough people use it, it becomes part of the cultural zeitgheist and people will start using that word or term as the new meaning. Just like how idiot went from being a clinical definition to a slur, etc. That’s just basic word etymology – there isnt a single group that standardizes language – it just keeps evolving as cultures evolve based on a collective agreement of a significant portion of people.
That being said, don’t try to take how language works societally and apply it to most other stuff. This is specific to language and a few other cultural norms. Language is inherently subjective to the culture, and when the culture changes, whether large-scale or small-scale, the language tends to change as well.
Think about it. There’s a reason Webster keeps adding words to the dictionary. It’s not Webster deciding on the words – they just find that when certain words become widespread enough, it basically becomes common parlance.
Have to agree with Pander on this one – the linguistically correct/common usage of a phrase isn’t the same thing as the underlying concept being socially/morally/scientifically correct. Examples of historical terms for outdated social beliefs / practices are irrelevant, because the context around the term and the conversation using it have both changed.
Specifically to the original point, rewinn already covered it pretty well. Yes, fine, an etymologist might agree that ‘Caucasian’ originally meant only persons whose ancestry came from the Caucas mountain area. But outside that very specific conversation, it just means “white-skinned” or “of white European descent” for the vast majority of people and situations, and is therefore correct usage.
Twisting context to insist everyone else involved is misusing language isn’t about communicating accurately, it’s just an annoying way to feel smug.
That’s… exactly the point: what was once ‘generally accepted as being correct’ can, and does, change
And if it truly was ‘societally correct’, it would not change because it is not wrong
“That’s… exactly the point: what was once ‘generally accepted as being correct’ can, and does, change”
I literally do not know if you’re disagreeing with me or in total agreement now.
“And if it truly was ‘societally correct’, it would not change because it is not wrong”
No. Societies and cultures change over time. They are not static, unchanging structures. Which means something that at one point is wrong can become right after the society mass-accepts the new linguistic rules.
You are confusing “correct” in the sense of “morally right” with “correct” in the sense of “functional”.
The sentence “All Zoroastrians are evil and deserve to die” is not morally correct, but it is correct English.
(My apologies to Zoroastrians. You folk are cool.)
The emphasis on the ‘American’ in African American is not coincidental, accidental, or an oversight.
The term came into popular use during the civil rights movement, thanks to the Rev Jesse Jackson, at a time when it was very popular to imply or outright state that african people were not ‘true’ americans, to treat them like foreigners as one part of a racist culture aimed at denying them their rights, at a time when they had no representation and were not allowed to vote.
If you’re trying to convince a government ran by whites that you deserve a voice, words like ‘black’ or ‘african’ or less savory terms that have since become socially unacceptable, are not good for your case, because that identifies you as an ‘other’, an out-group separate from the general American population, who are then less likely to vote in favor of you because they view you as an outsider. More likely to keep you segregated instead of integrated.
By tacking on the word ‘American’ it made a definitive statement. ‘We are you, you are us. This is not an issue of foreign states or borders, it is our union being divided from itself’, it made it easier for an apathetic population to connect with the issue because now instead of thinking of it as something they’re doing to those *people over there* they would think of it as something they’re doing to us, that they are doing these things to your fellow Americans and you need to do something about it. It also gave the african american community a way to differentiate it’s culture from the african communities of other nations who experienced different struggles.
And they didn’t go with a specific african nation because A) Many of the ex-slaves had no clue which nation they originally came from due to the separation of families, and B) They did not want to divide a community that was already a minority in the country, and instead wanted to promote unity so that together they could work towards their mutual goal of achieving civil rights.
That was the idea at least, how well it worked is up for debate.
But anyway, the idea that it’s a bad label because it excludes foreign black people is missing that that was the entire point. It’s a label designed to elicit national pride and patriotism for the cause of civil rights in their fellow countrymen, and to unify their specific community, not a label that is meant to be applied to anyone with a high melanin count. To be an African American you first have to be an American, that’s the point. We cannot be a nation of freedom while denying citizens their rights, and this label prevented white people from hiding that fact under a euphemism that allowed them to pretend that wasn’t what they were doing. The word ‘Caucasian American’ would never be used, because their citizenship was never in doubt.
But of course, things that were progressive 60 years ago are status quo or even regressive now, and the things that are progressive now will be the status quo of the future. And since the Civil Rights movement ultimately was successful (albeit ongoing) many Americans in the modern day can feel uncomfortable dropping the ‘American’ for fear of being associated with the groups the label was initially designed to target. Thus they tend to overcompensate and end up adhering to it in situations where it isn’t really appropriate, demonstrating their own lack of comfort around the topic of race, which implicates them further, causing their white anxiety to increase in a negative feedback loop.
In my experience the best solution to crossing this racial divide is lighting up a blunt with them and the person they’re feeling awkward around. Usually helps to smooth things over. Shame it’s still not legal in a lot of the country, that was a civil rights thing too. Nixon was such a bastard.
“White” is a socio-political classification with connotations of privilege and being the standard against which otherness is judged. It’s a moving target with no basis outside of ideology. At various times, Irish, Catholic, Greek, Italian, Polish, German, Austrian, Masonic, and various other groupings of people have been moved in or out of “whiteness” by other, presumably “purer”, groups of people. It’s not a term for a “human race,” because “human race” is a term void of useful meaning.
There are human subspecies, but as far as is known, the only surviving one is the Cro-Magnon, because that group either subsumed (Neanderthals, Denisovans) or outlived the other subspecies. There is one human species. There are no human races, except as artifacts of gross political misuses of pseudo-biology.
Not arguing against this, just adding:
The distinction based on ‘race’ has no biological meaning, however in sociology it doesn’t equate to ancestry, but to the experience of being perceived a certain way. The experience of being black differs from the experience of being white. And as long as that’s the case, it is useful to know and talk about it, because problems don’t go away in silence.
The experience of any colour depends on where they at, not just their colour
There are parts of L.A. that someone not ‘coloured’ dare not go uninvited, and if they do, they are ‘fair game’
Same with Phoenix, AZ. If you were a “white boy”, you went through these neighborhoods only one way. In a car, and fast as the speed limit allows. Pray your car don’t break down. Yet, less than 10 miles away, you’ll see said “white boy” and Mexicans sitting down and enjoying a meal. There are Bad Nasty groups in EVERY culture. There are also Good Honest groups in every culture. Sadly, the Bad groups get the most attention.
I’ve read that about 2% of the population has some Neanderthal DNA in their genetic makeup. Supports the whole subsumed theory.
Technically only bird, fish, and reptiles have a flesh tone that is white.
The proper flesh tone of every human race is the same, as is every other mammal. Going by volume, the color of our flesh is always blood red.
What people think of as flesh tone is really just melanin tone, and that doesn’t touch most of the flesh since it only exists in a thin layer on the basal epidermis. And while Melanin appears to take on a gradient of colors this is merely a macroscopic illusion, the same as when a tv made of Red Green and Blue lights produces the appearance of every other color. In truth Melanin can only come in four exact colors, specifically the subgroups Eumelanin (black and brown) and Pheomelanin (red and yellow) are the four colors possible for human beings. (technically there’s also Neuromelanin, but that’s in your brain so nobody see’s it except Superman and Sylar)
‘White’ skin results from low melanin levels in general, and what melanin they do have tends to come in the form of red Pheomelanin, which is why ‘white’ people will often have a pink hue in truth. – Red Phoemelanin is also responsible for the coloration of natural red hair, which is why those traits tend to correlate. So really they should be Red People but whatever.
Anyway, if you made something those four exact hues you could label it Skin Tone’s #1-4 and be completely accurate. Though artists would need to mix them together to form anything you’d be likely to see on a normal human being since complete saturation of any one form of melanin is fairly uncommon. (because the creation of Melanin is complex and difficult, which is why evolution didn’t preserve it in environments where solar radiation exposure was not a selection pressure).
Panel 3’s siglet looks like a prism – quite appropriate for hue manipulation
The two siglets visible in Panel 1 are harder to figure out.
Are we going to get the whole thing shown somewhere, so we can geek out? Please.
When reading “flesh colored”, I immediately assumed it’s like how it’s looks below the skin (i.e. red). This didn’t really match the image.
The association likely came from the German “Fleisch” (= meat).
The same word, but 50-60 years ago, Crayola crayons had a color labeled “flesh” which was a pink or pale peach. About twenty years ago, there was a big hoo-hah about the fact that it was the color of white people’s skin, and not the color of anyone else’s. (Except that I know literally zero white people with that color skin, either. It’s not the color of anyone’s skin, really.) They also had plenty of other colors that could be used as skin colors, such as tan, mocha, beige, brown, and so on, but only a couple of those were in the basic, smallish sets or 12? or 16? colors. I’m not sure “flesh” was in the 8 set or not.
I think they might have started using the word ‘flesh’ as a color because band-aids were also using the word ‘flesh’ in their marketing as a description of the color. Despite band-aids actually being the color tan. Because marketing people are stupid.
Are you familiar with the term “flesh-tones”? https://www.wikihow.com/Create-Realistic-Flesh-Tones
Flesh/meat turns this colour when all traces of blood are removed, so it’s actually pretty accurate in a bodyhorrorish way
If you google ekwensu ọcha. this comic page is the 4th result.
White devil basically if I’m remembering that movie correctly
Wachootoo Chief: Eqinsu Ocha!
Ace: What does Eqinsu Ocha mean?
Ouda: White devil.
Ace: Well, tell them I’m not.
Ouda: I only met you. How do I know?
Wachootoo Chief: [to tribe] Eqinsu Ocha! Eqinsu Ocha!
Ouda: He said…
Ace: Let me guess. White devil, white devil?
Ouda: Yes. You speak Wachootoo?
Although “ekwensu ọcha” is from the language of the Igbo people of Nigeria. Which does (amongst other things) translate as “white devil”.
Heh. Google Translate thinks it means ‘The devil is pure.’
technically, yes. in any parlance. there is the possibility that lucifer still retains the purity of having been an angel, and the possibility that purity does not necessarily need to be good.
I do believe THIS is the scene in question. I’m guessing that is how it’s said, I’m still learning about Humans…
https://youtu.be/oYvWQm8UD0c
Ekwensu is also the trickster god of the Igbo people.
I don’t wanna see Cora back on panel until she faces some damn consequences for MURDERING THAT GUY.
It’s good to want things. You can practice wanting things, or not wanting things, all you “want” to.
My sentiment stands. It’s outrageous how everyone just brushed it off.
She was defending someone else.
So she wouldn’t get a murder or even a manslaughter charge.
She still should get reprimanded and fined heavily for use of excessive force though.
I’d say that’s normal for the genre, or even for fiction in general: characters, even the heroes, can kill an awful lot of people, but as long as they’re not “important”, nobody seems to care. Within the context of the story, or without.
That said, Grrlpower tends to subvert or deconstruct genre expectations, so I wouldn’t be surprised for it to be addressed within the comic. I suspect it’s just a matter of whether or not the author can think of an interesting way to do so, or if he think it would just be a boring distraction that would eat up pages and people would complain about it not advancing the plot.
Man, if someone points a gun at the head of a federal officer IRL and there life is basically forfeit then too.
Max was upset about the legality, precedent, and possible authority oversteps.
But I doubt anyone, morally, really cared about that guy dying.
The dude probably has a mother who’s heartbroken, a Dad who left when he was six, and a sister who’s celebrating the fact that the slimy bastard is already dead. Throw in an uncle or aunt who sees a chance to get a payout from the well-funded group of government agents who are sensitive to the PR consequences of anyone raising a stink, and you’ll probably get a wrongful death lawsuit that will call Cora, Halo, and Concretia into court.
And after hearing about the harrowing shit Halo and Concretia went through, the wrongful death suit will be thrown out on its ear and that will be the end of it. The sister who’s just ecstatic that the sonovabitch is finally dead will likely offer to buy Cora a drink, but then Arianna will strenuously beg her not to take up the invitation.
And honestly I think that’s probably the limit of consequences Cora might face for killing the guy.
This being a thing that happened in New York however, I’m pretty sure that pistol of hers falls under some kind of firearms law that could get her some damn jail time. Walking around with an unlicensed pistol in New York is a far, far more serious offense than killing some jerk.
Agree with you about most of what you wrote except the last paragraph. :)
The penalty for a felony conviction of Criminal Possession of a Firearm (Penal Law 265.01-b(1)) is one to four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. What Cora did, though, would arguably not be felony possession, it would more likely be a misdemeanor, and the maximum penalty for the misdemeanor version would be ‘up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000). It would be unlikely that a DA would charge her with either a felony or misdemeanor of criminal possession for a few reasons:
1) She’s probably outside of his jurisdiction since the Council has jurisdiction over aliens, and a treaty with the United States on that.
2) It would be a bad public relations disaster, given Cora used the gun to save the life of a federal officer (and celebrity superhero who the government is going through a huge marketing campaign to get idolized in the public eye), so the DA would use his or her prosecutorial discretion to NOT charge her.
3) ‘up to a year’ – it would more likely be no jailtime, because there’s no mandatory jail time as part of the misdemeanor charge. Maybe she’d have to pay $1000 if the Council waived all other jurisdictional arguments.
4) Cora is a first time offender (on Earth), which tends to come under the misdemeanor version.
But back to my original point, an unlicensed pistol is not a more serious offense than killing a random jerk (unless that random jerk is also about to murder someone, who happens to also be a cop on top of that, and a popular celebrity on top of that).
The misdemeanor for possession of unlawful firearms is up to 1 year in jail and $1000 fine
The felony for possession of unlawful firearms is 1-4 years in jail and $5000 fine.
Murder is life, with a minimum of 15-25 years (for second degree murder), life, with a minimum of 20-25 years (for first degree murder), or life without parole (for aggravated murder). Even assuming mitigating circumstances (not available here), murder’s a more serious offense. :)
And now i’ve gotten waaaay nitpicky and technical about a post where I mainly agree with the post-writer. :)
Question: did Cora use a firearm? We don’t know how it works, it could be a rail/gauss weapon that uses electrical propulsion, or some super science. While I think it’s perfectly fair to call it a ‘weapon’ I don’t know for sure that it would be classified as a firearm. As an example, Tasers are not firearms, but are covered by the second amendment per SCOTUS (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016)), so they presumably would not fall under jurisdiction of the ATFE?
I suppose we should also consider if it’s something ‘homemade’ (for definitions of homemade), and thus has additional exemptions due to enforcement issues.
Firearm Defined under Federal Law. Federal firearms laws define a firearm as any weapon (including a starter gun) which expels a projectile by means of an explosive or is designed or may be readily converted to do so.
So… Cora’s gun is a firearm legally if it meets that description.
If it does not then it’s not. Good possible loophole if she was charged with a concealed firearm misdemeanor.
The do it yourself excuse however is not a defense. A Do it yourself gun is still a firearm.
so a potato launcher is technically a firearm? coooooool
… actually yes. Under Federal Law it’s technically considered a firearm. :)
a”(including a starter gun) ” does not propel a projectile, as they only shoot BLANKS!
Sasha, nice argument but I literally just quoted the law word for word from 18 USC sec. 921(a)(3). :)
Also you’re forgetting part of the definition which makes it also apply to starter pistols – “or may be readily converted to do so.”
A starter pistol CAN be modified to fire real ammunition. Therefore, it’s defined by 18 USC 921(a)(3) as a firearm.
Thing is, we can debate all day about whether the minion *deserved* what he got. My issue is primarily with the comic picking and choosing what consequences occur. If you intend to do superheroic realism, you have to be consistent with the logical consequences of characters’ actions. Yes, I don’t think the Earth authorities would know what to do with Cora given the jurisdiction can of worms, but the fact that ARCHON still tolerates her strikes me as amoral at best. To say nothing of other supervillains who ought to be tempted to vengeance.
But it’s also a matter of Cora’s attitude. She has no regard for sapient life and no compunction about snuffing it out. When called out on it, she reacts with petulance. It makes her look like a psychopath.
(It also paints Dabbler in a similar light. ARCHON recruiting her seems more and more like a pragmatic measure to prevent her from becoming an adversary capable of besting their top operative. And don’t tell me that Max is the same; there’s a difference between a soldier doing what soldiers have always done–something that doesn’t apply to Max’s situation anymore–and someone deciding to end a life on their own initiative for the sake of convenience.)
>but the fact that ARCHON still tolerates her strikes me as amoral at best
Why? Their problems with Cora killing him had very little to do with morality.
>To say nothing of other supervillains who ought to be tempted to vengeance.
1)Supervillains have already tried to kill Archon officers on multiple occasions and Max has publically already attempted to use lethal force on at least one of them.
2)How are they gonna seek vengeance on Cora, the space-faring adventurer that they likely have no way to track down?
>But it’s also a matter of Cora’s attitude. She has no regard for sapient life and no compunction about snuffing it out. When called out on it, she reacts with petulance. It makes her look like a psychopath.
>
>It also paints Dabbler in a similar light.
Lol, someone hasn’t paid attention to the story.
That’s an intended flaw/feature of their characters. Drew has stated multiple times that Cora and Dabbler are more akin to Diablo protagonists; they’ve both killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people. But generally restrict themselves to non-lethal while on earth except for extreme situations. (Like when Cora rescued Sydney or when Dabbler was about to kill Vehemence with a rail-gun, or when she limb-ed Sciona.)
Nothing you said is a counter to my point: it’s outrageous and shatters the believability of the setting that Cora and Dabbler are presented as loveable in this world. This isn’t Diablo. Their behavior is unacceptable for the situation at hand.
All I ask is that the comic be consistent with its morality. Not have the guy who strongarmed sexual favors out of Sciona–something the creator himself explicitly excused because Deus is supposed to be a villain–is supposed to be a better alternative to the status quo.
I feel like some people around here are missing the forest for the trees.
Was gonna ask if you missed the part where Captain Lasagne had kidnapped and was actively torturing Cree, and was moments away from putting a bullet through Sydney’s head (at great velocity… the bullet, not Sydney’s head) or if you were just being a troll, clearly the answer is… you are being a troll
And clearly you missed the part where I said that whether or not he deserved to die was beside the point.
Dave Barrack displayed a similar attitude when he offered his commentary on the scene in Empowered when a character expressed how traumatic it was to have killed a group of people who were just as evil as that minion, if not moreso. That if ending their lives was a net positive, it should not be psychologically horrifying to have done so.
Dave frames the situation around that view and presents the murder as totally okay and without consequence. This makes Cora appear like a psychopath.
Am I making sense?
To be fair, Concretia did ask Cora, “What is WRONG with you?”
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-913-the-purge/
However, you really need to stop glossing over that Mr Spackles McStickywalls was about to murder Sydney, and had already been torturing another person. But mainly that HE WAS ABOUT TO MURDER SYDNEY. That’s textbook Defense of Others. No matter how she killed him.
Nobody deserves to die, but everyone dies anyhow. You can’t actually CAUSE death since it has been inevitable from the moment of conception; you can only alter the time and place. Once you realise this it becomes obvious that the right thing to do is minimise suffering and maximise happiness.
Bikkie:
And sometimes, the best way to do that is to alter the time and place of someone’s death.
I know I had a very long series of posts about the legal aspects of this, and the comic had her defend herself as well, but it wasn’t murder.
I’m just going to give the cliffnotes version since my posts are still on the page where Cora killed Splatter McStickywalls.
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
So lets break down this definition, as you would in court.
1) “Unlawful” – what she did was not unlawful – she was operating in defense of others, namely Sydney, a federal officer, who was seconds from being shot in the head by him. Unlawful means breaking the law. She did not break the law when she killed him. Even in a duty to retreat state, you can’t argue that here, because Sydney had NO WAY TO RETREAT. Unlawful is used in the legal definition because there are many examples in which killing is not murder. For example, in war. Or in self-defense. Or like in Cora’s example, in defense of others.
2) “killing” – okay, yes, she did kill him. Obviously.
3) “of ANOTHER human being” – this is more of a technical argument, but until the laws are changed to include aliens, a lawyer could and most likely would argue that ‘another’ means it’s ‘one human killing another human’ because an alien isnt killing ‘another’ human. That’s not how the word ‘another’ works. It necessitates that the first individual is also a human. In other words – a bear kills a human, without a human directing the bear to do so or taking steps to make sure that the bear kills another human. The bear did not murder, because the bear CAN NOT MURDER. The bear can only kill.
4) “with malice aforethought.” – this means the INTENTION to kill ahead of time. This can probably be argued either way, for or against in respect to Cora. For = Cora intended to kill because her gun has variable settings, although none of those settings have been shown to be ‘non-lethal’ settings. Against = Cora had a split second to act, and had just come from essentially a warzone against supers for whom normal bullets would be minor annoyances. Her statement of ‘oops’ can be implied that she forgot that she was now not dealing with aliens and supers, but normal humans.
So in conclusion, even if Cora was to be judged as human. And even if you stretch malice aforethought and say she HAD malice aforethought (which would be really tough to show), the killing wasnt unlawful, and therefore wasnt murder.
She could be tried for murder, sure, but the defense would be pretty airtight.
Not to mention the only real type of extradition would have to be between the US and the Council, which is the only authority on Earth that has direct jurisdiction over Cora’s actions, and DA’s have prosecutorial discretion on of they are to attempt a conviction or not. This would be a problem for any DA given the scenario presented.
Cora IS human. I’m not going to dig through the archive for that press conference right now, but a reporter asked her why she looked so human and she answered that it’s because she is human, descended from abductees and with a little genetic engineering.
Cora claims to be human on page #755, but I’m sure there’d be Terrans who’d disagree. Some because they actually believe it, others because it would be legally convenient for them.
On the very next page she qualifies this answer by saying:
“Well, mostly human. Like two thirds maybe.”
And that’s before taking the gene mod stuff into account. :)
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-756-human-plus/
ie, would you consider a mouse that has some human DNA in it to be subject to the legal definition of human?
That would at least be what a lawyer could argue to a judge in this hypothetical. :)
Just gonna humorously stir the fire a bit here :D … bu tthink about it: if a CORPORATION can currently be recognized as a “legal human”, then i see no real difference at all for that mouse also being recognized either… that being said. i am firmly in the camp of use-common-sense, and i actually favor applying the death penalty to some of those same corporations for their more outrageous antics that they currently get away with, suffering just a minor, slap-on-the-wrist penalty for whatever horrendous crime against humanity/ nature, etc… that they got caught doing, and their profit conquers all attitude continues.
“if a CORPORATION can currently be recognized as a “legal human”,”
A corporation is not recognized as a legal human. It’s recognized as a legal PERSON. It’s different, especially legally. Another comic, Freefall, actually has quite a few storylines about how ‘person’ is not necessarily meaning human as well, in a less legal-based sense, because Florence is considered a person, and most of the robots are considered people. But they’re not human.
” then i see no real difference at all for that mouse also being recognized either”
Mice and other non-human animals are not considered legal persons. There’s a specific series of caselaw that makes corporations defined as legal persons:
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823)
Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific – 118 U.S. 394 (1886) – which decided that the 14th amendment equal protection clause applies to corporations as legal persons
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888) – which further defined corporations as persons.
Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs – 203 U.S. 243 (1906)
And in the statute known as the Dictionary Act (Title 1, section 1 of the US Code) states “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
So based on both caselaw and legislative process, corporations are persons. They are not human. They are persons.
If there was a law that made animals full legal persons, then you’d have a point. But there isnt. Animals are still classified as property and only as persons in a VERY limited sense, which does not include criminal action. It’s mainly to protect them from animal cruelty under the law.
“and i actually favor applying the death penalty to some of those same corporations for their more outrageous antics that they currently get away with”
That’s called dissolution. Essentially the death of a corporation. It happened to Arthur Andersen in 2001, after the Enron scandal.
She’s only partially human. Not sure if that qualifies actually:). Its still worth arguing at least.
Not to mention that to Monophysite Christians, there’s only one God (capital G) . That adds additional confusion.
Anyone else thinking that Maxima is going to have to see Dabbler every time she wants the collar recharged?
…And Dabbler’s powers derive from tantric energy, so a choker full of pron juice.
there are other magic users, one of them could charge the battery. im sure Max has a high enough credit limit.
“Max, this comes with its own charger. Guess where it plugs in!!!”
So… can we get a fire elemental or lava golem like appearance and start calling her “Max Kablamazon”?
For those having trouble with it, ekwensu ọcha is an Ibo (Christian) colloquial phrase approximately translating to “White Devil”. Ekwensu Olaedo would be “Golden Devil” if there were anyone to call that.
Might mean Kenya actually has an accent, too.
Though, in fairness, I’m not sure how common learning that is for African-Americans
Given her height though, i wouldn’t be surprised if Kenya’s got some Masai ancestry.
Masai ancestry could be, but don’t forget many Somali tribes, and probably quite a few West African tribes have “tall” genetics. I wouldn’t try to run DNA on Kenya without a full 10ml syringe of blood.
Hmm, Kenya as voiced by Grace Jones?
Sounds good to me!
I mean, “winter complexion” sounds better than, “TB complexion” or “consumption complexion” or “albino complexion”, right?
Never really heard of winter complexion but when I read it I sort of assumed you meant albino.
Winter Complexion makes it sound like the complexion is like snow. Like… literally white. Like an albino. Albinos are not ‘caucasian’ – there can be albino pacific islanders, albino africans, albino caucasians, etc etc. It’s a biological condition, not a race. :)
I never even heard of TB complexion or consumption complexion, and albino’s just an actual skin condition where your body produces NO pigmentation or color (save for the eyes, which are pink or red in ‘most’ albinos, although not all), including in the hair (or scales or feathers or shells (if the albino is not a human). And yes I know white is a color technically but you know what I mean, directed at whoever is invariably going to think that argument. :)
Murder by the state, is STILL murder!
Im confused about this response. Wut?
Btw murder by the state is murder. But killing by the state is not necessarily murder.
Legal excecutions are not murder. Because its not unlawful. Because its a LEGAl execution.
Death during war is not murder if it complies with formal internationally accepted rules of war.
Police killing a suspect is not murder if the reasons for the death were legal.
Murder is different than killing. If you say “murder by the state” you are assuming it was already illegal and that requires an argument as proof as well, or its a circular argument.
It is still taking a life away, from a human! Without their consent. It is only for revenge, not justice! BTW, I have a near genius IQ.
“It is still taking a life away, from a human!”
Doesn’t matter. It’s not murder unless it’s unlawful. That’s a necessary element of murder, as opposed to mere ‘killing.’ If the death penalty was made illegal, and the state executed someone anyway, THEN it would be murder. If the death penalty is in the law, and the prisoner’s sentence is death by , and they’ve had all their legal appeals and lost them, and they do not get a pardon, then it’s not murder.
“Without their consent.”
Consent is not required as part of the definition. For example – if a doctor assists a patient to commit suicide, and there’s no law allowing for euthanasia, then THAT’S considered murder. Even if the patient consented.
“It is only for revenge, not justice!”
Actually the death penalty is not only for revenge. Retribution is just one of the three justifications for capital punishment. The other two are deterrence and incapacitation (societal protection).
“BTW, I have a near genius IQ.”
That’s great to know. :) Then this explanation that I just elaborated on should definitely make sense to you.
BTW, I have a near genius IQ.
(Ignore that last ‘BTW, I have a near genius IQ’ – that was an accidental cut and paste. But I totally do. :) )
And yet proper punctuation and grammar are beyond you.
IIRC, an albino’s eyes are pink or red because absent any pigment in the irises, they’re translucent, so the bloodflow behind them tends to show through.
I think that in the context that Leon is using ‘flesh colored hair’ isnt offensive, because he’s meaning ‘YOUR hair is the same color as YOUR flesh.’ Rather than ‘YOUR hair is the color of ‘all’ flesh.’
Which was the problem with the naming scheme for Crayolas a few decades ago.
Hrm i seem to have left out a middle paragraph
Enjoying Dabbles’ cat-face in panel six :D
Also, nice to see Maxi finally getting into the spirit of the moment and enjoying herself :D
Panel 6. Krona has a wrist where she ought to have a neck. It’s fairly disconcerting.
Fleshy-Maxi in panel five, Math’s older sister?
You’re outnumbered Kenya, stop making a racist bully out of yourself
I never really understood the whole naming scheme about the color of band-aids.
They are not ‘flesh colored.’ They’re tan. Maybe beige. If took a band-aid, I matched it up with a spectrometer, or one of those paint color machines at Home Depot, and wanted to make paint that color, I would wind up with a can of tan or beige paint.
It does not actually match a white person’s skin color. No idea why ‘Band-Aid’ brand bandages would have ever designed band-aids to be that color for blending with skin, except maybe for stupidity on the part of the marketing execs. ‘Flesh-Colored’ does not even sound remotely appealing from a marketing standpoint. It sounds like some sort of body horror lovecraftian thing.
I can tell on a white person that they’re wearing a band-aid rather distinctly, unless it’s one of those clear band-aids. But that’s the same for a black person or asian or hispanic or whatever other race. Honestly I don’t care about the color as long as it does it’s job, but clear band-aids are obviously the best ones if you’re worried about it ‘blending’ with your skin. Plus it’s cheaper and less time-intensive than making 30+ different colors from pink to tan to brown to dark brown, then the consumer having to figure out which band-aid best matches their skin color.
So yeah – Clear band-aids for the win.
I have no idea why I made a post on this btw, except to respond to DaveB’s blurb.
Just had to check with the old folk, and… sticky-plasters (whether band-aid’s or some generic brand) were never labelled ‘flesh-coloured’ (or any other colour)
Yes, that’s the colour they were, they were just not giving a name to the colour
And it was never about having the plaster blending in, as though you had to hide the fact you had a boo-boo
Ok. Seems like they were marketed that way though even if not given a formal color name :)
Or, just different packaging in different countries
Wasn’t implying that they weren’t labelled ‘flesh-coloured’ in the US, just that they weren’t here
Here being where again? I forget where you’re from. :)
The undersea (mostly) continent of Zealandia
So basically New Zealand? kk. Lovely country, visited once. :)
Now I want to see Anvil looking dejected as mad science makes her “The Multi-Hued Master of Mayhem!”
At least Maxima seems to be enjoying this a lot. :)
I think you are mis-spelling skein.
It’s one of the exceptions wherein E comes before I.
Not really. From Etymology Online, “early 14c., ‘skaine’, from Old French ‘escaigne’, ‘escagne'”, but also see Irish ‘sgainne’ “a skein, clue.”
We English didn’t actually steal the word, rather the descendants of a certain upstart Duke from Normandy forced it upon us.
Actually, unless DaveB is talking about a city in Norway, it is ‘skein’ not the current ‘skien’
But see comments page 1 where it is discussed, and DaveB responds :)
He just hasn’t fixed it yet
Either that, or Dabbler’s using a technical magic term that just happens to be spelled one typo away from a word in English.
As DaveB hinted…
love the use of the windows “hill” in the background of the second panel
” not a race. :)”” neither is black nor white.
I just realized we are all debating about the color of white/caucasian people while DaveB must know what the actual color is, since he draws the comic and does the coloring. So….. what color is Maxima’s skin? Like the actual color.
Hrm when I am at a computer I am going to take a block of her face that just has that color and go to https://ginifab.com/feeds/pms/color_name_in_image.php to find out. :)
Wait is the color called khaki? Just realized that might be what the last panel means!
Yes. It is.
It is a traditional beige-like colour for army and scout uniforms as well as big game hunters.
That thought didnt even pop into my head until I wrote that post. I always thought of khaki as a type of clothing only. :)
Even though that would make no sense in context of the comic strip, until I thought about it and realized it must actually be a color, and was probably the technical color for caucasian skin that DaveB would obviously know since he’s an artist that uses that color regularly on some of his characters.
Yay. Learned something new. :)
Keep getting ‘khaki’ and ‘olive-drab’ mixed up, even though they are not even close to being similar colours (mostly just the names, keep thinking that ugly green is khaki)
I never got the description ‘olive skinned’ either. Because people do NOT HAVE SKIN THATS THE COLOR OF OLIVES. It’s like the people who say that have never seen an olive. :)
Some olives are a medium rich brown the color of creamed coffee. I usually think to myself, “Olive, her skin isn’t pitted!”
Just like how most Chinese have more of pale tan skin-colour, and yet, people still depict them with yellow skin
I think if someone really had olive-colored skin they’d look sort of like they were suffering from jaundice.
We-e-e-elllll, just pale up the “tan” colour, some meaningful distance past “light tan”, now we get “yellow-ISH”.
If the Chinese are yellow-ISH then so too are the ‘native’ Americans, seeing how they both originated in the same area
Somewhere I read the reason they were called “redskins” was perpetual wind- and sun-burn.
And ‘redneck’ originally referred to English farmers in South Africa (name came from the Dutch settlers who were there first)
“Rooinek”, as jy wil.
Maxima has a range of different skin colours, so there will not be a singular answer.
Other than “I’m not gold!”
So….. what color is Maxima’s skin? Like the actual color.” It was Caucasian, now it’s gold!
What a cute demon.
Also not arguing, just adding:
There are a LOT of socially-constructed things other than race that have a real existence not strongly connected to DNA. Perhaps the most popular is “Marriage”, which is not found in our genetic code, although vaguely and messily related to reproduction somewhat and sometimes, but it is as real as you care to make it.
What you’re talking about here, IMO, is Magic. Serious, real-world magic is things that exist SOLELY because people believe in them. Race has a lot of magical components. Money is pure magic – probably the most powerful spell humanity as a whole has ever cast. Nations are probably the second, and Law is the third. Marriage is a powerful spell on its own, and frequently tied to Law for reinforcement.
The point is none of these things has any objective existence. They are called into existence solely by the fact that people believe in them. And that’s spellcraft. Humans do spellcraft every day, right down to such minor rituals as kids making a ‘pinkie swear’ that they’re going to do something.
That’s a really interesting way to describe social fictions, and indeed, the effectiveness of some magic in fiction is dependent on the target’s belief in the magic.
It is also interesting just how invested people are in these fictions, how certain they are that they’re real and immutable, despite not being something you can see or touch.
Agreed, “magic” is a great way to describe social fictions.
Perhaps the distress people sometimes feel at questioning the particular structure of a particular social fiction is related to the need for broad agreement for the magic to work. If enough people stop believing in … let us say … the importance of following laws, then the result would be chaos … or so one might fear.
Indeed, many of these social fictions would lose much of the power if enough people stop believing in them, or become capable of considering alternatives. That is quite probably the reason why people fight their cultural wars so intensely. If their views were truly, universally, inherently correct, then they wouldn’t need defending, because they would withstand attacks on their own, while the falsehoods would wither when subjected to the real world. But since we’ve constructed a false world, in which falsehoods can survive as long as the majority believes in them, that world is inherently fragile. People may intuitively understand that, even if they can’t consciously recognize it.
Marriage, is a civil union and always has been.
Yeah, not so sure about that, many a marriage has been anything butt civil
Then again, USAsians like to refer to that little ‘spat’ between their own people as a ‘Civil’ War
Yes but … marriage is not inherent in our DNA. It takes many forms, generally according to the nature of the society. It is an artifact of society and that’s why it called socially constructed.
Life is a game.
Marriage is a blood sport.
… at least once a month. The rest of the time it is just a headache.
i think Leon didn’t need to correct himself; at the time he said it, her hair was the color of her skin
I can see she fought orcs on a hill in California at some point in the past. I’m referring to the “Bliss” desktop background in the second panel, it’s a real location in California and the image is just covered in enough filters to make it… Liminal? I think that’s the word.
Also her “caucasian” hair looks more like a bleach blonde.
Umm, well I liked how she is teaching Leon advanced magic programming. Great comic!
I “love” Dabbler’s face in the second last panel :)
Meow!!!!
People mentioning the Caucasian colored hair… What about the Caucasian colored IRISES‽
(FYI… Why aren’t interrobang’s part of keyboards and unicode‽ They need to be used!)
lol! I just realized what Anvil shouted to Maxima.
Ekwensu ocha “White Devil”
The third result down on my google search for “ekwensu ocha” was… a link to this comic and Dave’s quote “… calling your C.O. an ekwensu ọcha is not usually allowed. (Google it.) Max and Kenya obviously have a friendship that transcends such things.”
This reinforces my growing suspicion that Google is an ever-increasingly useless circle of self-reference, but whatever. I thought it was funny.
She’s right about the skin-tone eyebrows. True blondes, like Ed Begley Jr (St. Elsewhere) with blond eyebrows really squick me out.
Goddammit Dave… -_-
If your readers need to undertake a damn RESEARCH PROJECT (“google it” my ass. The best matching result is THIS page) to begin to grasp your punchline they’ve never heard of in a language they’ve never heard of spoken in a country they probably couldn’t find on a map if their life depended on it without the aid of Googlemaps or Mapquest…
…And the only reason YOU know the term is a reference to a 1995 movie sequel that enjoyed brief “flash-in-the-pan” popularity before fading into obscurity and a 25% Rotten Tomato approval rating…
You know how they say if you have to explain a joke, it’s not funny anymore? I think you’ve set a new gold standard example of that concept.
Anyone else trying to figure out what the hell Dave is talking about, skip Google (mostly inexact religious references and partial translations) and go straight to Youtube.
Or click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei5BSXhX-E0
given how old the characters themselves are supposed to be it makes perfect sense they’d reference a movie from when they were younger.
Most people in the real world tend to make pop culture references from their own youths, not just what is currently the best known in the younger generation; and a 90s Jim Carrey movie…especially one of the ones that was quoted like crazy at the time, would be something that would stick in their heads decades later to reference.
Specially remember that Maxi is a self-confessed lapsed-nerd, and it’s very possible those two have long history about taking the mickey out of each other (using words and phrases that would be deemed racist, on both sides, if anyone else said them)
While it may be true that explaining a joke ruins it… that’s only for people who didn’t get the joke in the first place. For the few people who did get it, the obscurity of a joke intensifies it.
Yups, the only people who say that explaining a joke ruins it, are those (like The Joker, who said it first), who didn’t understand the joke, and The Joker has a huge ego when it came to jokes, so the possibility he didn’t understand it (and thus needed it explained) was too much for his frail, feeble, boy-ego
Was agreeing with you by the way Torabi
Ok. Long time reader. First time poster. I had to comment to make sure.
‘ekwensu ọcha’
Is that the same phrase used in Ace Ventura 2? .. You’ll know the one.
Why not just make a receiver/beacon for the Veil? “I am supernatural, please cover me”.
It can already deal with just about any visual effect one might have to consider.
The only thing is that it is set not to cover supers by default. But the choker could make Max a eligible target, despite normal rules.
And they must have had provision for that, in case anyone ever was not properly targeted.
Silver Maxima…
If this were a cartoon that would be the color scheme of her evil clone.
You know, he said nothing wrong right? If the hair turns the color of Maixma’s (currently illusion skin), then it’s flesh colored. If Anvil’s hair turned the color of *her* skin. It’s also flesh colored.