Grrl Power #992 – Infernal relationships be like…
Sure, “Fiend” is not a direct equivalent because “Baby Eater” is far too specific. Fiend is more of an umbrella catch-all for half and quarter demon/devil mixes, plus assorted other miscellaneous Infernals.
Demons, even during their wardeathdoom phase, are sociologically hierarchical, and have a need to fight their way as high as they can. It’s a critical survival skill for them to assess their chances of taking on the next higher guy though. Now that demons are coming out of this live and die by tooth claw and giant-metal-vaguely-sword-shaped-thing era into a more civilized society, there’s still an urge to establish your place in whatever hierarchy is prevalent. Of course, this is being twisted into trendy consumer… uh, trends. Like instead of a girl wearing her boyfriend’s letterman jacket or his class ring, a lot of demon girls like being collared. Or the other way around. An Erinyes isn’t going to let herself be seen in a Draegloth’s collar, after all. (Unless the Draegloth is like some nerd who is really good at Cthonic Lore and she needs a tutor and he’s like “Okay, but you have to go on a date with me in my collar… yes, to a different layer of the Abyss where no one will know us. I don’t know, I was thinking the Layer of the Flayed? Yeah, it’s all skin. Like, the ground, the clouds, street lights, rivers. I don’t know how it works. I thought it would be interesting… really? Willikers, that’s great! Hmm? Oh, I don’t know if I can afford a collar that nice… No no! I’ll figure something out!” And Devil Roger Ebert gave the movie a thumbs up.)
Dabbler’s face looks just a little too excited in that last panel. I wasn’t quite sure what I was going for when I started drawing it, maybe like she was trying to bite back a smile, but then just went with the full sadistic grin. She obviously knew what Maxima’s reaction was likely to be.
Tamer: Enhancer 2 – Progress Update:
About 3/4 done with my editing pass. The more recently written chapters need a bit more editing as I haven’t already gone through them a dozen times when I was reading instead of writing.
October’s vote incentive is up! This is a redraw of a comic I did in 2011 I think, but never published. I had originally pictured the comic going through an establishment phase, and then taking occasional breaks from the storylines for little one-off moments like these. Which I guess I could still do. I just got wrapped up in the story telling and forgot.
So Dabbler and Sydney are up late one evening on night watch but Dabbler has just discovered Cinemax…
Nude version is up at Patreon, as is the original version of this page.
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.
If Tom is offended at Sydney remarking (rightfully so) that the term “Fiend” might have PR problems, he must REALLY be chagrined that the term “Slave” invokes such a frightful reaction.
And if Tom’s culture still practices slavery, in the traditional sense, then his goal of selling “Order” to Earth, which has a very, very dark history with the practice, just got exponentially more difficult.
You… do realise people enter into that sort of relationship every day, right?
Also, what’s the difference between ‘traditional’ slavery and indentured slavery that happens every day right now?
Personal responsibility is a factor in both having known and talked to them.
/world traveling contractor for decades.
Some differences between “indentured slavery” (by which I assume you mean the “Sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don’t you call me, ’cause I can’t go: I owe my soul to the company store” variety, not an actual contract of indenture, which I believe is illegal in most countries) and “traditional slavery”:
1. Indentured servants and “wage slaves” do not pass the condition on automatically to their children.
2. IS/WS are considered persons, not property, under the law, and so can vote, seek recourse for harm, etc.
3. It is not legal to hamstring, castrate, or kill IS/WS for leaving their place of employment.
4. IS/WS cannot have their children sold to another employer (with or without their consent, as the children are legal minor persons, not property).
There are more, of course, but that’s a few of the more notable ones.
Both are, of course, utterly different from consensual, mutually revocable dominant/submissive slave play, even if under-taken on a 24/7/365 basis (rare) rather than in a love-play only context (much more common). Slavery and indenture remove (to an absolute or legally proscribed degree) the instant and absolute right of revocation that is inherent to a consensual ceding of authority in one or more areas of a loving/trusting relationship. Actual slaves don’t have a safe word.
I’m more thinking it’s more of a dominatrix/slave sort of thing from how Dabbler is reacting to this.
The nations Tom would be trying to persuade/assimilate have a dim view of explicit slavery. Especially when the guy that wants to be in charge is openly in support of it.
Well, most of them anyway.
You forgot the increasingly popular “intern”-ment… The only difference being that an intern can walk away. Penniless, but intact.
You know, the power-play variety of sexyFunTimes is really a very *VERY* different thing from actual slavery.
(You DO know that, right?)
It ought to be called something else, except that the people who are into it *LIKE* for it to be called “slavery” specifically because those particular people are having play about extreme fantasies and the thrill of danger, and that’s the most extreme and dangerous thing they could possibly call it So “slavery” it is.
The rest of us, who’d rather *NOT* confuse any variety of sexyFunTimes with something that we’d cheerfully kill someone for even attempting, ought to be allowed to call it something else.
Or if it’s slavery in a ‘non-traditional sense’*, then we can add that to the growing list of things that seriously need a rebranding exercise.
*e.g. voluntary and term-limited indenture as a means of debt repayment, overly poetic/traditional language for a partner or subordinate, completely separate concept with an unfortunately coincidental name…
And yet, the practitioners of this practice that I’ve encountered tend to be *very* attached to the term being used and do *not* want to rebrand. Sure, there are some who do rebrand, but that’s usually also associated with some differences in the definition of the relationship. Ok, some people who like the term ‘slave’ do have those same differences, but only some.
Exactly. They’re play-acting, specifically into the badness of the bad branding. Trying to sell them on something else is sort of like trying to sell Disney on the idea that its “pirates of the Carribean” ride ought to drop that grim downer of a jolly roger flag and use something nice instead, like maybe some flowers.
I’m betting it will all explained if we just watch the slide show.
I’m assuming that ‘slave’ in this context is more of a BDSM sort of deal where it was voluntary.
Tom finally returns to his realm, face cracked, horns snapped, barely able to move, and the fact that he’s not a demonic grease stain in a rock quarry on Earth is considered a sign of the mercy of Earth.
Tom: We need to update the files on Earth. They are not mostly harmless. Any attempts to invade will lead to *our* subjugation.
Demon: Oh, sounds like a challenge.
Tom: No! Don’t!
Demon: See ya in 15 minutes!
2 minutes later
Demon: *returns through a portal screaming for his life, a golden arm reaches through and yanks him back through it, his arms flailing and he’s sobbing like a baby*
1 minute later
Demon: *returns through the portal again, missing 2 of 3 legs and 3 of 4 arms, whimpering* Y-you were right…
Thank you! I liked your take on this very much.
“Next time LISTEN TO ORDERS!”
Even better (to me, at least):
Demon runs ack through the portal the fist time. Tom says “Oh, no. You need to see this through.” and throws them back through it.
Certainly would have been awkward if his face was a tad less sturdy. Maybe take some anger management classes before you cause an inter-dimensional incident Max.
You’re joking right?
Tom decided it would be a good time for an invasion. Max has every right to do whatever it takes to prevent it. Top that off with being a slave owner? (of Dabbler no less) Now you’ve got a good recipe for fiend paste.
First point I get, but we don’t know how all the laws work in other dimensions. If it’s legal and fine to do in another dimension, where does Max get off trying to punish him for it? Not saying we have to agree with it, but I agree that Max should simmer down some.
Legality is irrelevant. Slavers are on my kill-on-sight list.
I’ll alert any dominatrix that you’re out to murder them, since I’m pretty sure with Dabbler and Tom, it’s more of a BDSM voluntary master/slave relationship thing. Or Dabbler might not be as cool with it as she seems to be.
Slavers are rather different than Dominatrixes/ors. Hence them being called different things.
Where exactly did you (or Regret) get that his relationship with Dabbler is that of a slaver?
He called her slave. Heck, he didnt even say ‘my slave’ – he said slave. Almost like it was her title. Which seems a whole lot more like a dominatrix/slave thing. At least from all the context we’ve seen so far, it would likely refer to that sort of relationship, or maybe a feudal system of lords and serfs.
But given we’re talking about demons, devils and fiends, and Dabbler is a succubus, dominatrix terms seems the most plausible.
Current day legalities don’t typically abide by the dress Scott decision. They ARENT in some other dimension, they are on earth, and what Tom said implies that he is here firstly to capture a fugitive slave and secondly to conquer the entire planet. Both of those things are wildly illegal, as in even mentioning that you are planning on doing so in a serious context is illegal. Tom does not have any variation of diplomatic immunity, and he is unlikely to get it seeing as how, again, he made a declaration of war within five minutes of arrival that was also backed up as being fully legitimate, not joking, he was about to bring over an army by his secretary.
If you care about legality, max has had enough cause to use lethal force for about 5 pages now.
Like seriously, if a demonic army burst through a portal, the leader says he is here to conquer the country, and you have enough evidence to judge that this is real, at what point are you allowed to fight back? Do you have to wait for them to finish their spiel? Kill someone? Or do you just still need congressional approval. A declaration of war seems to me to be enough for “immediate physical danger” to invoke justifiable self defense.
Dredd Scott*
Current day legalities don’t abide by the Dredd Scott decision, because Dredd Scott v Sanford was overruled by the 13th and 14th Amendments. Especially the 14th Amendment.
That being said:
” as in even mentioning that you are planning on doing so in a serious context is illegal.”
No. Words are not illegal. Actions are illegal.
Also, there is clearly context that we do not know yet.
“Tom does not have any variation of diplomatic immunity,”
This part is probably correct, since Tom is not from a recognized foreign state, unless there’s something in the agreements between the US government and the Council, which is possible since Infernals and Celestials are part of the Council.
“he made a declaration of war within five minutes of arrival”
He made no declaration of war at all.
“he was about to bring over an army by his secretary.”
His secretary did not say he was about to bring over an army. He was asked by his secretary if he WAS going to bring over the army, and Tom said no, and his secretary realized it was NOT an invasion – it was a booty call instead.
“If you care about legality, max has had enough cause to use lethal force for about 5 pages now.”
She has not had cause to use lethal force at any point, actually. She doesnt even have cause to use any violence at ALL after the body slam and Dabbler and Tom’s sex romp, since the risk of invasion was at zero at that point.
“Like seriously, if a demonic army burst through a portal,”
No demonic army burst through the portal.
“the leader says he is here to conquer the country”
The leader (actually second in command) did not say he was here to conquer the country. He was here to have dealings with Xuriel. It’s literally the first thing he said.
“at what point are you allowed to fight back?”
At the point where there’s an actual threat. Which there isn’t here.
Lets use a real world example. An illegal alien crosses into the US from Mexico, and starts saying that the US is racist and should be replaced with communism or something. But doesn’t actually do anything more than say words. Maybe a powerpoint presentation with stunning transitions. No violence at all.
You are not allowed to then shoot them in the head. Even though they’re not a citizen. Even though they came into the country illegally. Even though they might be calling you a pathetic peon of a corrupt state.
They are not yet a threat that requires lethal force, or even serious bodily injury and undue pain.
If you shoot them in the head or decided to put their head in a wood chipper, then you’d be psychotic.
“Do you have to wait for them to finish their spiel?”
You have to wait for them to be an actual physical threat. You can tell them to leave, and you can force them to leave. But you can’t just summarily kill or hurt them because they say something you don’t like.
Maxima is not doing what she’s doing to force him to leave. She’s doing it because she didnt like a word that he said to someone else.
“Or do you just still need congressional approval.”
If it’s the leader of an unrecognized state, then congressional approval would definitely help. It definitely should not be in the hands of a Lt. Colonel who doesn’t even bother letting his or her superiors know the actual situation.
“A declaration of war seems to me to be enough”
There was no declaration of war.
“for “immediate physical danger””
There was definitely no immediate physical danger to anyone on Earth.
“to invoke justifiable self defense.”
This was not even remotely self defense.
Self Defense is the right to prevent suffering force or violence through use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. However:
1) The threat MUST be imminent.
It is not imminent here at all. There was no violent action by Tom to cause Maxima to do anything in response.
2) There must be reasonable fear of harm.
Maxima had no fear of harm, especially after she bodyslammed him into the ground and he told his assistant that they were NOT invading. She also didn’t have a fear of harm for Dabbler (Defense of Others) because Dabbler was also never in danger.
3) There should be a proportional response to the threat.
Words are not a reasonable threat, and crushing skulls is not a reasonable response to someone saying words you don’t like.
First things first: On US soil, NOBODY is a slave. No matter what their status anywhere else, no matter if they are on somebody’s fucking leash when they step across the border, they are NOT slaves.
They are legally free human beings, illegally held prisoner by some asshole who [grinding my teeth] needs to be captured, tried, and if found guilty imprisoned for their crimes [mutter mutter castrate mutter mutter dull edge of a bowling ball mutter mutter garden shears mutter chunky salsa mutter mutter mutter nobody will ever find mutter mutter mutter….]
Actually, that’s not true.
If it were then the current American prision system wouldn’t work.
Yes, the American constitution allows slavery. Read the relevent paragraph carefully.
“Actually, that’s not true.
If it were then the current American prision system wouldn’t work.”
You’re mostly correct that Bear is not correct. What you’re referring to is, in law, called the Law of Comity. Comity is the legal principle that political entities (such as states, nations, or courts from different jurisdiction) will mutually recognize each other’s legislative, executive, and judicial acts. It’s sort of like the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, but on a larger scale.
You’re also correct that the American prison system would have major problems if the Law of Comity did not exist. Moreover, extradition treaties would not work.
You’re wrong, though, about the part where you say the American Constitution allows slavery.
The American Constitution does not allow slavery. It hasn’t for about 150 years now. The Thirteenth Amendment, passed on April 8, 1864, abolished slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The Fourteenth Amendment also makes slavery impossible in the United States as well, because it guaranteed all citizens, including former enslaved people “equal protection under the law.”
SO…. it depends on what Thothogoth and Dabbler mean by the word “Slave.” If it’s like a marriage or a serfdom, then it does not fit the 13th and 14th amendment. If it means a literal slave, then Dabbler, being a US citizen, cannot be enslaved.
If it’s basically just a legal term used for infernal marriage though… well…
Comity works in Thothogoth’s favor then.
Here’s a legal paper on how Comity works with respect to ‘Non-Uniform Marriage’ from other nations.
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=faculty_scholarship
Think of it like this.
The United States used to not allow interracial marriage before that was declared unconstitutional. If two people from another country, however, who were married and from different races, came into the US, their marriage was NOT nullified. The law of comity tends to mostly involve the problems of polygamous marriages, same-sex marriage (before that became legal in the US), and marriage with individuals who, under US law are considered minors, but under other nations laws are not considered minors.
A decade ago, a same-sex marriage from outside of the US, from a nation that did allow same sex marriage, would have to be allowed within the US as well, although they would not be able to become citizens and take advantage of certain marital tax laws.
It’s why people who want to have a polygamous marriage AND be a US citizen have to choose only one wife or husband for tax and intestate inheritance purposes, even if they act socially like they have multiple spouses.
“The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, *except as punishment for a crime*.”
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, *without due process of law*”
ie. You can still be sentenced to slavery as punishment for committing a crime.
And if you look at any of the prisons where inmates are forced to do work for the prison’s profit, then what can you call that other than slavery?
profit? I’d say the inmates working for the prison are paying their upkeep, earning food/drink/nutrition directly, rather than being paid for their work in cash (which would possibly be stolen by other inmates)
And that differs from actual slavery how?
Prisoners being paid is a joke.
The American prison system is a horror and is one of the reasons I find it embarrassing to be an American. (There are reasons I am proud to be American but they are getting to be a smaller percentage as time goes on.) The differences between slavery and the American prison system are cosmetic — yes, technically slavery was life-long and inherited whereas technically American prisoners are released after a time and their children are not enslaved for being their children. On the other hand, the system is set up to maximize chances of recidivism and the likelihood of the child of a felon becoming a felon is greatly increased due to the poor socioeconomic situation forced onto ex-convicts.
https://onlinedegrees.kent.edu/sociology/criminal-justice/community/how-much-do-prisoners-make-in-each-state
“Unfortunately, government-run facilities in some states don’t pay their inmates at all for their prison labor. Those states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.1 Despite not being paid for their labor, inmates may still want to work because it could help their chances of being released on parole.”
Where they are paid, prison wages are below minimum wage, nationally averaging $0.63 / hour.
Prisoner wages can be and are taken away for various reasons.
“Wages for inmates are even lower when you consider the number of fees charged and the cost of necessary items sold to people in prison. A female inmate in Colorado has to spend two weeks of wages just to buy one box of tampons; a Pennsylvania inmate will need to spend almost two weeks of wages on a $10 phone card.3”
Torabi:
Indentured servitude is a form of debt bondage, meaning it was an agreed upon term of unpaid labor that pays off, or partially pays off, the costs to the person holding the bondage. Indentured servants are not property of the state or warden. They still have rights, albeit restricted or limited during their sentences. it’s why prisoners do get paid, even if it’s a minimal amount.
Slavery is when a person is treated as the legal property of another person or institution. Slaves do not get paid because they are considered property or chattel, rather than human people, and therefore are not considered to have human rights.
The reason prisoners are not slaves is they still retain their rights, although some are restricted or limited during their sentence. The cannot be tortured. They cannot be subjected to actions which violate the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishments). They can be eligible for parole. They must be paid for their labor. They must be let free after the conclusion of their sentences, after they’ve paid their debt to society. This does not happen with slaves. With slaves, everything is dependent on the whims of the master, not by written laws guaranteeing rights.
Here comes Pander showing a complete lack of historic knowledge, and a complete inability to follow their positions to their logical conclusions. Again.
“Involentary servatide” is slavery. The clue is in the name: Involentary.
“Indentured servatude is also slavery. Its just slavery with more legal protections than some other forms of slavery, like, for instance, chattel slavery. Is it as bad as chattel slavery? No. Is it still slavery? Yes.
—
And for reference, throughout most of history there have been written laws garunteeing the rights of slaves. There only stopped being those laws when slavery was “officially outlawed”. See the treatment of prostitutes where the profession is legal compared to where it is not for a lesser example of the issues this causes.
““Involentary servatide” is slavery. The clue is in the name: Involentary.”
It literally is not the same thing. Also you spelled involuntary wrong. You also spelled servitude wrong. But bad spelling is fine – bad understanding of definitions is more of the problem, especially if you’re going to rag on other people.
Involuntary Servitude:
For purposes of criminal prosecution under 18 USC § 241 or § 1584 and the Thirteenth Amendment, the term “involuntary servitude” necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.
Here’s a recent court case which supports what I’m saying:
U.S. vs Kozminski, 487 US 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/487/931
Since you like citations.
On the other hand, SLAVERY is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary and Civil Law statutes:
The act in a person is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him ; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. Civ. Code La. art. 35.
“Indentured servatude is also slavery. Its just slavery with more legal protections than some other forms of slavery, like, for instance, chattel slavery. Is it as bad as chattel slavery? No. Is it still slavery? Yes.”
You’re now arguing that involuntary servitude is slavery but different than slavery. In other words… it’s NOT slavery. It’s something different than slavery. And the reason both are listed in the 13th amendment is because they’re NOT the same thing. If they were, they would just have said ‘Slavery’ and not needed to also include involuntary servitude.
“And for reference, throughout most of history there have been written laws garunteeing the rights of slaves.”
To quote you, citation needed.
Slaves had no legal, codified rights to guarantee. In court, their testimony was inadmissible. They were not allowed to make contracts. They were not allowed to own property. And even if attacked, they were not allowed to strike back. In fact, under US and British law, the very few rights slaves had under Dutch law were removed, such as the right to marry and have those marriages recognized as legal (see ‘Laws of 1665′) The only laws that actually covered slaves were NOT to protect their rights – it was to control the slaves and to protect their masters’ value in the slaves they owned.
NONE of that was the case with someone who was in an involuntary servitude scenario.
Here’s your citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Legal_rights
Other than that, you’re doing your “I’m a lawyer, therefore blind to logic” thing again.
Illy:
“Here’s your citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Legal_rights”
Do you bother, yknow… reading what you post as a citation?
Here. Let me.
“Depending upon the era and the country, slaves sometimes had a limited set of legal rights. For example, in the Province of New York, people who deliberately killed slaves were punishable under a 1686 statute.”
Um… that New York statute also FORBADE SLAVERY PERIOD. So of course they’d have rights, because under that statute…. THEY WERE NOT SLAVES ANYMORE IN NEW YORK. They were reclassified in New York as… INDENTURED SERVANTS.
Read your own citations for crying out loud.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2715308
“For example, in ancient Athens, protecting slaves from mistreatment simultaneously protected people who might be mistaken for slaves, and giving slaves limited property rights incentivized slaves to work harder to get more property”
This is from Ancient Athens, not US codified law or British codified law.
“prior to the extirpation of slavery in 1865, a proslavery legal treatise reported that slaves accused of crimes typically had a legal right to counsel, freedom from double jeopardy, a right to trial by jury in graver cases, and the right to grand jury indictment”
The treatise in question was not codified into an approved law. Even the footnote to this sentence is 2 pages in a book written in 1999. It does not show any actual law.
You really need to do better research. Maybe not use wikipedia? Maybe check the footnote sources?
So you are providing examples of slaves having codified rights now?
I thought you said slaves had never had rights?
“involuntary servitude, *except as punishment for a crime*.””
Yes. For involuntary servitude, NOT for slavery. Also you might notice that they keep requiring ‘due process of law’ to do that even. It’s. Not. Slavery.
“ie. You can still be sentenced to slavery as punishment for committing a crime.”
No, you can be required to engage in involuntary servitude for committing a crime, not slavery. Because it requires ‘due process of law’ as well. You have to take the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments together, since they were all passed at the same time.
“And if you look at any of the prisons where inmates are forced to do work for the prison’s profit, then what can you call that other than slavery?”
1) I actually agree that ‘for profit prisons’ should not be a thing, but for different reasons than you. ‘For profit’ prisons incentivize putting people in prison for crimes they might not have committed, or giving harsher sentences for crimes they have committed, in order to have an indentured workforce.
2) Having prisoners work while in prison, however, is not slavery – it is indentured servitude and partial payment for their upkeep while in prison, since running a U.S. prison is NOT cheap compared to many foreign prisons, especially with the large number of incarcerated felons in the U.S. compared to foreign prisons that are BETTER run than the US (ie, the Scandanavian countries’ prison systems, many of which tend to be closer to hotels).
I suspect that Illy does not actually disagree with you as to why for-profit prisons are a bad idea. There’s a fundamental conflict of interest: a business that depends on involuntary labor will not make an attempt to cut off the source of that labor. They have no interest in rehabilitation or reducing recidivism, and have an interest in redefining more and more actions as crimes deserving of incarceration.
“Due process of the law” becomes a meaningless phrase when the law can be changed. Slavery, when legal, was compatible with the “due process of the law”. The distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude is meaningless if you cannot tell the difference by observing how the people are treated, and if they cannot be certain that the distinction will be respected. If the incarcerated cannot be sure that their rights will be respected, then there is no perceptible distinction.
“I suspect that Illy does not actually disagree with you as to why for-profit prisons are a bad idea.”
I wouldn’t put it past her to disagree with me on general principle. She tends to not read most of my posts when she responds anyway.
“There’s a fundamental conflict of interest:”
I agree. Prisons should not be a ‘for profit’ institution because it reduces prisons to JUST retribution and incapacitation, but makes rehabilitation and deterrence LESS effective. Plus it opens the possibility of additional corruption in the system without much oversight.
“Slavery, when legal, was compatible with the “due process of the law”.”
For the masters/owners it was. Not for the slaves. Slaves had no due process of law under British and US law in the colonies and, later, the states where slavery was legal. That’s sort of the main difference between slavery and involuntary servitude.
“The distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude is meaningless if you cannot tell the difference by observing how the people are treated,”
It’s not meaningless, because you could tell the difference.
Here, I wrote this above in response to Illy, but I’ll post it again here, because you’ll probably read it while Illy will not.
Involuntary Servitude:
For purposes of criminal prosecution under 18 USC § 241 or § 1584 and the Thirteenth Amendment, the term “involuntary servitude” necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.
Here’s a recent court case which supports what I’m saying:
U.S. vs Kozminski, 487 US 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/487/931
On the other hand, SLAVERY is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary and Civil Law statutes:
The act in a person is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him ; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. Civ. Code La. art. 35.
Slaves had no legal, codified rights to guarantee. In court, their testimony was inadmissible. They were not allowed to make contracts. They were not allowed to own property. And even if attacked, they were not allowed to strike back. In fact, under US and British law, the very few rights slaves had under Dutch law were removed, such as the right to marry and have those marriages recognized as legal (see ‘Laws of 1665′) The only laws that actually covered slaves were NOT to protect their rights – it was to control the slaves and to protect their masters’ value in the slaves they owned.
NONE of that was the case with someone who was in an involuntary servitude scenario.
I suspect that the phrase “due process of the law” has a specific meaning to you, as a lawyer, but reading several descriptions online suggests that my understanding of the phrase isn’t far from its meaning. Given the description:
The law may define what legal rights a slave may have, or even state that they have legal rights, and may also define the process by which a person may legally become enslaved. As long as those rules are followed, has the slave not been accorded the “due process of the law”?
How does your stated definition of involuntary servitude differ from that of slavery, in terms of practical consequences that can be observed, rather than informed? If you were to observe both a slave and an involuntary servant, without being informed which was which, how would you distinguish between them? The distinction does not like in how they are treated, but in their knowledge of the condition or duration of that servitude. They both serve because of the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury.
Do you believe that the average prisoner in an American prison believes that they will ever again lead a normal life, that their “debt to society” will ever be considered paid? That they have rights, which will be respected? That they aren’t at risk of being summarily beaten or executed by either the prison staff or their fellow inmates? If they are made to feel like subhuman animals, is it any wonder they might continue to act as such upon release, only to be arrested again and repeat the cycle?
“I suspect that the phrase “due process of the law” has a specific meaning to you, as a lawyer”
It has the legal meaning, as described in the Constitution, as well as pre-existing sources upon which the Constitution took the concept of due process of law.
Due Process of Law – Fair treatment through the normal judicial system.
“As long as those rules are followed, has the slave not been accorded the “due process of the law”?”
No. Slaves do not get ‘due process of law.’ If you are treated differently than other citizens without legal cause, you are not getting due process of law.
“How does your stated definition of involuntary servitude differ from that of slavery, in terms of practical consequences that can be observed, rather than informed? ”
Indentured servitude was repaying a debt, and during this repaying of the debt, you still had legal rights of a citizen. You could testify in court. You could make contracts with yourself as a party to the contract. You were allowed to own property. You were allowed to marry. You were allowed to do almost everything EXCEPT stop being in servitude until the conclusion of your debt repayment. If you were attacked, you were allowed to defend yourself. Most importantly, you were still considered a person, not property or chattel. Slaves did not have any of those rights and were considered property or chattel.
Like I said to Illy, if involuntary servitude and slavery were the same thing, then they would not have had to say involuntary servitude and slavery. They could just say involuntary servitude, or they could just say slavery. They used both because they are distinctly different things, even though cursorily related – the main difference being the possession of codified rights belonging to the servant, but not to the slave.
“Do you believe that the average prisoner in an American prison believes that they will ever again lead a normal life, that their “debt to society” will ever be considered paid?”
Yes.
“If you were to observe both a slave and an involuntary servant, without being informed which was which, how would you distinguish between them?”
Again, yes.
“The distinction does not like in how they are treated, but in their knowledge of the condition or duration of that servitude.”
Again, yes.
“That they have rights, which will be respected?”
Prisoners do have legal, codified rights.
“That they aren’t at risk of being summarily beaten or executed by either the prison staff or their fellow inmates?”
They are at risk of being beaten or executed, but you and I are also at risk of that in our daily lives. However, if they are beaten or executed by prison staff or fellow inmates, then the prison staff or fellow inmates have broken the law. Because they have rights, and by brutalizing the prisoner or executing the prisoner outside of due process of law (ie, legal state execution), their rights will have been violated. A slave has no rights which CAN be violated, on the other hand. If you were to kill a slave, then the worst that would happen is you owe the master of that slave fair compensation for the destruction of that owner’s ‘property.’ It’s literally the biggest historical and legal distinction between involuntary servitude and slavery.
” If they are made to feel like subhuman animals, is it any wonder they might continue to act as such upon release, only to be arrested again and repeat the cycle?”
I’m not sure what this sentence has to do with the fact that prisoners do have codified legal rights, even as prisoners. If someone violates your rights while you’re a prisoner, that doesn’t mean you don’t have rights. It means someone violated your rights. If you were a slave, you wouldn’t have rights in the first place to violate.
“without legal cause” seems critically important in this sentence. Again, how is “due process of law” incompatible with slavery? If there is a legal process by which someone loses their rights, then how have they not been treated the same as every other citizen subject to those same laws?
I suspect those laboring under involuntary servitude would find the distinction between their circumstances and slavery… less than reassuring. If they have no ability to refuse the terms of time or place, then they have little control over their lives, and would find it difficult to avail themselves of the rights they supposedly retain. It’s a technical distinction that serves none but the slavers and whatever conscience they may have.
That wasn’t a yes or no question. How would you distinguish between them? What visible differences would you expect to see, particularly in light of your agreement with the statement that followed that one, where I said that the distinction was only one of knowledge, and not treatment?
The knowledge that the law has been broken is of little comfort. What matters is what the person experiences, and expects to experience, not how the law categorizes those experiences. You’re just as dead, whether you’re legally executed by the state, or murdered by a criminal.
Rights are meaningless without mechanisms to enforce or guarantee them.
““without legal cause” seems critically important in this sentence. ”
Every part of the sentence is critically important to the sentence, because every part of the sentence is meant to eliminate as many loopholes as possible. That’s how law works. Laws that have a lot of unintentional loopholes are usually badly written laws.
“Again, how is “due process of law” incompatible with slavery?”
Slaves do not get due process of law. They do not have codified rights, while indentured servants do. I mentioned many examples above.
“If there is a legal process by which someone loses their rights, then how have they not been treated the same as every other citizen subject to those same laws”
Yes, it’s called prison. And due process of law must be met before a person can be sent to prison. It’s called the investigation and trial and conviction. The rules of evidence, the right to an attorney, the right to confront your accuser, etc. Those are all parts of due process of law. You cannot limit a person’s rights WITHOUT that happening first, unless you voluntarily agree to it (ie, a plea bargain).
Prisoners do not have FULL constitutional rights, because some of their rights have to be temporarily curtailed to keep them in prison in the first place (ie, their second amendment rights are able to be curtailed). However, because of the 8th Amendment, they are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, which SCOTUS has determined to mean most of their other constitutional rights that do not have to do with keeping them in prison and ensuring they remain in prison for their sentence. And, in the event of the death penalty, there are a number of additional due process of law steps that must be followed as well, since part of the existence of ANY government is that government is the only institution that can legally have an intentional killing of a person (via a trial and process that are the same set of rules and framework for everyone).
Prisoners still have most of their constutional rights even in regards to being KEPT in prison btw – including due process in their right to administrative appeals, and a right of access to the parole process. In addition the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment has been ruled to apply to prison inmates, which means no unequal treatment on the basis of race, sex, and creed. There’s also the Sentencing and Corrections Act (it’s one of the laws created by the Uniform Law Commission in 1978). That states that a confined person also has freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin and sex. Prisoners still regain their first amendment rights, as long as those rights do not conflict with their status of being prisoners (ie, if you have a religion that says you need to be free and not in jail, that’s going to be incompatible and that freedom of religion right CAN be curtailed).
There’s also the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) which applies to prisoners as well.
There’s the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which allows additional ways to appeal different conditions of their imprisonment.
There’s the ruling in Jones vs Bock (549 US 199 (2007)), which held that a complaint does not need to include a demonstration that administrative remedies have been exhausted, and it clarifies the rights and obligations of prisoners regarding the ‘exhaustion of remedies.’ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/199/
Prisoners can still enter into contracts (although there are a lot of people who mistakenly think they cannot). The thing is they need a co-signer usually. But this is because most people will not enter a contract with a convict, since there’s less recourse if the prisoner breaches, and if there cannot be a penalty for breach, then the contract might be unenforceable – not because they don’t have that right anymore. For example, a prisoner can’t run a business while incarcerated, but they CAN sell their car or house if they do the proper paperwork.
Prisoners can also still enter into a marriage contract, even while incarcerated.
Obviously one of the main rights that prisoners have limited is ‘liberty’ – in that they are being imprisoned, which is a significant limitation, but they still have liberty in many other areas, hence limited rights, not no rights.
Slaves, on the other hand, simply do not have rights. Period.
“If there is a legal process by which someone loses their rights, then how have they not been treated the same as every other citizen subject to those same laws?”
Because anyone who gets their rights limited by being convicted by a crime and being sent to prison have to go through a FAIR treatment through the normal judicial system. Every citizen who is accused of a crime has a right to that same due process of law, regardless of who they are. The result may be different because the situations for different people are going to be different. A person who has a lot of evidence showing they did commit a crime is more likely to be imprisoned than someone where there’s no evidence of them having committed a crime. The PROCESS, however (Due Process of Law) is the same for everyone. Or, if you want to be cynical, that’s how it’s meant to be, barring corruption of the system.
“I suspect those laboring under involuntary servitude would find the distinction between their circumstances and slavery… less than reassuring.”
This answer, like all my answers, assumes they are prisoners because of crimes that they ACTUALLY COMMITTED btw.
Because they’ve never been a slave to realize how much worse off it could be. They may focus on the rights they have temporarily lost or have had limited, while not realizing they still have a lot of rights even as prisoners. And they will get their full constitutional rights reinstated upon completion of their sentence or upon a successful appeal of their sentence (btw, an appeal doesn’t even mean they were not guilty – it can mean that there was some error in the process which did not give them a FAIR due process of law, thus meaning they need to be released).
“If they have no ability to refuse the terms of time or place, then they have little control over their lives, and would find it difficult to avail themselves of the rights they supposedly retain.”
They do have rights to refuse terms and places. They have rights to argue these things and have council to go through due process in regard to them, based on some of the very statutes I described above.
“It’s a technical distinction that serves none but the slavers and whatever conscience they may have.”
It’s not a technical distinction. It’s a very real distinction. And it serves the prisoners, not the prison system (ie, the state). If anything, it justifiably limits the state.
“That wasn’t a yes or no question. How would you distinguish between them?”
One is allowed to access the courts. The other is not.
Sell them some land for some minimal price. One will be allowed to buy the land. The other will not be allowed to do so.
Ask each of them how long they will be in service to another person. Indentured servants will have an actual time period. Slaves will not.
If they have children, the children of indentured servants are not indentured servants. The children of slaves are slaves as well.
I could go on?
“The knowledge that the law has been broken is of little comfort.”
The comfort is they get legal recourse. Just like it’s little comfort if someone hits your car, but you have legal recourse to sue them. It’s little comfort if someone beats you up, but you have legal recourse to sue them. It’s little comfort if someone attempts to murder you, but you have legal recourse to get them sent to prison if they are captured. It’s little comfort if someone kills you, whether intentional or accidentally, but your family will have legal recourse both by having them sent to jail or possibly the death penalty, and/or financially with a wrongful death lawsuit.
That’s the case whether you’re a prisoner or not. When bad stuff happens to you, it’s not comforting. But at least you (or your family, or society as a whole) can have SOME recourse to try to help or give some semblance of justice.
“What matters is what the person experiences, and expects to experience, not how the law categorizes those experiences.”
That would literally be impossible to codify.
“You’re just as dead, whether you’re legally executed by the state, or murdered by a criminal.”
It makes a difference to society. It can make a difference to your family and friends you leave behind.
“Rights are meaningless without mechanisms to enforce or guarantee them.”
Um…. yes? Do you think the rights I mentioned are in a vacuum? ALL the rights I mentioned DO have mechanisms to enforce them. Our entire system of government and society IS that mechanism.
You’re conflating the specifics of US law with the abstract principles. I’m not asking whether slaves under US law were ever afforded due process, but am trying to find the boundaries of the concept of “due process” by examining whether it would be possible to design a system of laws in which slaves were afforded due process, and yet were still slaves. This would be useful in examining the concept of slavery, how it relates to involuntary servitude, and why to some people the distinction between the two is meaningful, while to others, it’s irrelevant.
“You’re conflating the specifics of US law with the abstract principles.”
Slavery is not just some abstract principle. In the abstract, slavery and freedom do not mean anything without the concept of rights. Slavery is an actual state of being based on what the law says.
A slave does not have rights. A slave is not considered a ‘person’ – they are considered property or chattel.
An indentured servant does have rights. They are still considered people. They are not considered property or chattel.
“whether it would be possible to design a system of laws in which slaves were afforded due process, and yet were still slaves.”
Yes. Ancient systems of government like Rome or Greece had slaves, but slaves there did have certain rights. They were fewer rights than citizens, but they had rights. They were able to be bought and sold like property, but were still considered human – just humans of lesser worth than free citizens. I think many islamic states which practice slavery also give certain limited rights to slaves as well, but I don’t know much about that. I mainly know how it was under British and US law.
“These are better answers, but they still rely on information that must be communicated, rather than observed.”
Since slavery is based on having to do what another person says, I’m not sure why you’d think a slave OR an indentured servant OR a free person could be identified solely by appearance.
It’s about what rights they have, if any, and how they are treated compared to a free person.
“If you deny a servant the opportunity to petition the courts, are they then a slave?”
I can’t think of any situation that has ever existed under US law where a person cannot petition the courts EXCEPT when the person was a slave.
But the way you worded that question is a little odd. If I deny a servant the opportunity to petition the court, that’s not the same as them not having the right to petition the court. That’s me doing something illegal to prevent another person who has the right to petition the court from petitioning the court.
“Must they be given the time or means of communication, or is it simply that the courts have an obligation to respond, if they happen to be notified?”
I don’t understand what you mean by this. In the first part of the sentence, they aren’t treating the servant like an indentured servant – they’re treating them like a slave.
“What if their servitude takes place on a boat or an island, with no means of communicating with the relevant court?”
Then they have the right to petition the court as soon as it’s possible to petition the court. A free man who is on the same boat also does not have he means to petition the court until it’s physically possible to petition the court.
Denying someone their legal rights does not change that they have legal rights – it just means that you’re doing something illegal to prevent them from their legal rights.
It’s like saying that they have the right to not be murdered, but if I murder them, it doesnt mean they don’t have the right to not be murdered – it means I committed a crime by murdering them.
“Ownership is entirely a mental affair. We document it, but is ownership found in a record, or in being allowed to use the property?”
Right. Because slavery is a legal construct, not something you can just tell from looking at someone. You asked me, and I quote, ‘If you were to observe both a slave and an involuntary servant, without being informed which was which, how would you distinguish between them?’
I told you how you could distinguish between them. By finding out which one has rights and which one does not have rights. And then I gave a few examples of how to find out if they have no rights.
“If some people agree that you own the property, and allow you access, but other people disagree, and attempt to deny you, do you own the property or not?”
If you mean legally – It depends on if the people who agree that you own the properties are the ones making the laws or not.
If you mean ethically – I don’t think it’s ethical for one living, sentient person to literally own another living, sentient person. By which I mean treating them as property where they have no rights, instead of as a servant where they do have rights. And I can’t think of any situation where it would be ethical. As an American, I can only think of one example even where indentured servitude can be ethical, and that happens to be prison as a punishment, since the goal is not the servitude – it’s stuff like societal protection, rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. Which is also why I do not agree with privately-run prisons or prisons-for-profit. Because then the servitude can become the goal, which leads to corruption of the system MUCH faster.
“There is an important distinction between “being entitled to legal recourse” and actually getting it. The former is meaningless and useless without the latter.”
1) It’s less meaningless than not being entitled to it
2) Not getting it does not mean you don’t have that right. It means the person who is denying you that right is doing something illegal. See above with my murder example.
3) It matters on a societal level.
“And yet the law codifies things that equally do not exist outside people’s imaginations.”
That’s the point of codifying something into law. So that it can exist outside of people’s imaginations. It becomes something you can point to and adjudicate in a way that is consistent.
That’s literally why law was created in the first place. There’s no such thing as justice in the wild. There’s not much concept of good and evil in the animal kingdom, outside of human civilization. So it’s not surprising that humans are the only animals that have codified laws, instead of just relying on instinct or ‘the physically strong dominate the physically weak.’ When a lion kills an antelope, the lion isnt doing it because it’s evil. When a group of chimpanzees tears apart a chimpanzee that they do not recognize, they arent doing it because they are evil. They are not breaking any sort of law. They’re just doing it because it’s their instinct on what you do to those outside the group. When a plover bird picks the food out of an alligator’s teeth without the alligator eating it, it’s not because it’s the alligator’s servant or slave – it’s because it’s just a naturally symbiotic relationship. When ants herd aphids, they are not enslaving the aphids. They don’t ‘own’ the aphids because the concept does not exist outside humanity.
I should mention this has had VERY rare exceptions of certain apes and certain pets which were raised and socialized by humans to pick up human traits, like wanting to ‘own’ a cat as a pet, or own a special toy. But again, this is because of human civilization.
“But is the government that which is written on paper, or that which actually occurs?”
You’re essentially asking the same questions that was discussed by John Locke, a major political philosopher of the Enlightenment.
There are four major ideas of how government forms
1) Evolutionary Theory – government originates from a family or clan-bound structure, which can explain the formation of the world’s first political structures. These earliest and very loosely formed governments were the result of a shift from hunter-gatherer societies to more settled agricultural societies. As families joined to form clans and clans joined to form villages, the need for leaders and a central organizational structure developed. These leaders helped determine how to address still unfamiliar issues, such as water rights for crop irrigation and the distribution of other resources. They also provided an increased sense of safety and security for the society. In many early societies, these first states developed monarchies, with rule based on membership in a ruling family. In modern times, some governments continue to be led by a succession of members from the same family.
2) Force Theory – the idea that government originates from taking control of the state by force and is often found in a dictatorship—a type of government characterized by one-person or one-party authoritarian rule. Historically, this has been achieved in some cases through forcible invasion or occupation when a more dominant people or state takes control of the political system of a less powerful people or state, imposing its governmental system on that group. New governments can also be formed by force during revolutions or coups within a country. A coup is the overthrow of an established government, and the resulting leader or dictator is most often a military figure.
3) Divine Right Theory – government originates with power vested in an individual by God or gods. Generally, monarchs lead governments of this type. This theory was followed in ancient times, including by the ancient Egyptians and Maya. The idea of divine right experienced a resurgence in western Europe in the 16th to the 18th centuries, when King James I of England, several French monarchs, and other rulers asserted that their authority came directly from God—and thus could not be challenged. Russian czars, such as Peter the Great, believed their autocratic rule was God-given, and they used their power to gain territory, wage war, and impose taxation on their subjects.
4) Social Contract Theory – This is the theory espoused by John Locke, which was used by Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution was written. government is a kind of contract in which those in power have responsibility toward those they govern and the governed respect the power of the governing individuals. There are various versions of the social contract theory, ranging from an emphasis on maintaining a peaceful social order to a focus on using individual free will to determine what is best for the public good, or that which benefits all people in a society. Although the social contract theory has numerous variations, at its core is the idea that government is an agreement between those who govern and those who are governed.
“Theoretical protections aren’t sufficient: they have to actually work, and people have to be able to believe that they will work.”
Any government is going to be based on theoretical constructs. Otherwise you are relying on anarchy and the law of the jungle, the strong dominating the weak, and no concepts of good and evil or morality at all.
“If what people experience doesn’t match what’s written down, then the government isn’t fulfilling its purpose.”
Incorrect. IF what people experience does not match what’s written down, then those people may be getting oppressed by people violating those rights, but it does not mean the oppressed don’t have those rights. It means the people doing the oppressing are doing something illegal. If the government actually has any power granted by the people, then there should be a risk of them paying for their crimes.
You have gone off on quite the tangent. But I like the tangent because I like this sort of discussion.
But lets try to get back to the main point of the thread.
The main point is the difference between a servant and a slave. Regardless of where the rights come from, the difference is that a servant, by British and US historical definitions, has rights, and a slave, also by British and US historical definitions, has none.
I’m pretty sure slavery predates formal law, and it’s possible to discuss the concept of slavery without referring to any specific legal definition. The point that I am making, and I believe Illy is as well, is that slavery and involuntary servitude are both wrong, and both wrong for the same reasons, regardless of whatever legal distinctions are being made. It doesn’t matter how much you try to disguise it and rationalize it, and the only reason to do so is to avoid feeling bad about it.
That’s exactly my point. Is someone a slave based on how they are treated, or based on some record in a book?
How do you distinguish between someone who is being denied their rights, and someone who has no rights?
The law does not exist outside the imagination. It’s a shared delusion. The only point at which Law intersects with reality is in how it influences behavior. That’s the only means by which it can have an impact. So the question then, is the Law and the Government that which exists only in people’s heads, or is it that which can be observed?
You may wish to pretend that they’re one and the same, but in reality, they often diverge. Burying your head in the sand and pretending only allows them to diverge further. If you want them to be the same, then you need to recognize when they have drifted apart, so you can take corrective action.
“I’m pretty sure slavery predates formal law, and it’s possible to discuss the concept of slavery without referring to any specific legal definition.”
It might or might not. But it does not predate the beginning of civilization and proto-laws, in which case there might be a type of ‘proto-slavery.’ But not sure how you’d be able to say that for sure. What would you consider a slave to be among a group of neanderthals, for example?
The problem here, I think, is you are not defining ‘slave’ at all, while I’m giving the definition of slave. I’ve stated that the difference between a slave and a free person (and an indentured servant and a prisoner) are if they have legally recognized rights or not, and how limited those rights are. Slaves have no rights, what we consider to be prisoners or indentured/involuntary servants have LIMITED rights, and free people have full rights.
What happens, though, when rights don’t exist? How would you then say that someone is a slave. How would you say that a person can be bought or sold to another before there’s a concept of money or personal property?
“slavery and involuntary servitude are both wrong,”
I think there are LEVELS of wrong. One thing is more wrong than another.
Slavery is more wrong than indentured servitude, even if both are wrong. There are exceptions when indentured servitude is NOT wrong. For example, prisoners in a prison system. The choice when punishing for a crime that is committed is going to be either exile/banishment, imprisonment, death, or some sort of penalizing injury (code of Hammurabi, eye for an eye, theft= cut off the hand, etc). Banishment and exile tends to be only useful if the banishment is more dangerous than being part of society. Death as a universal punishment seems obviously extreme (like in that Star Trek TNG episode where EVERY crime was punishable by death, including stepping on the grass). Removing limbs aka Hammurabic code also seems rather brutal and extreme. Which leaves imprisonment, which winds up being the most moral and practical punishment. Which means that, in certain cases, the equivalent of indentured servitude is NOT wrong, or at the very least, prevents a greater wrong from occurring.
“and both wrong for the same reasons, regardless of whatever legal distinctions are being made.”
I disagree here as well. Having NO rights at all is worse than having limited rights. And having limited rights for a set time period (ie, until repayment of the debt, either of money or debt to society, as happens in indentured servitude) is not as bad as having no rights for the rest of your life, which will then be passed down to any offspring that you have (as happens in slavery).
Both can be bad, but one is ALWAYS bad, and the other is sometimes bad. And even when indentured servitude IS definitely bad, slavery winds up being even worse. Being treated as property or animals is worse than being treated like a human that is a servant for a set period of time.
“Is someone a slave based on how they are treated, or based on some record in a book?”
Ummm it’s based on both. It’s based on how someone is treated BECAUSE of what it says in some record in a book. If the law is written to say that X is a slave, and thus accorded no rights as a human being, and not to be treated as a human being, then they are a slave. EVEN IF THEY ARE TREATED WELL. Because what actually matters in defining if they are slave or not is that they do not have any legal rights. You can be a well-treated slave, but you’re still a slave in that scenario. It’s still morally wrong. Slavery is always a morally wrong act, which is what most of the Founding Father’s believed, despite having to allow it to continue where it already existed in order to try and prevent war with the Southern colonies and allow a unified defense against England attacking again (like they did in 1812).
“The law does not exist outside the imagination. It’s a shared delusion.”
No, and I think I see the problem you’re having with this.
The law does exist outside imagination. That’s what it means to codify something into law. To be able to present it to people.
What you’re confusing that with is that the primary OF the law is a shared delusion. That we put any real value in those codified laws, usually because we allow the government to punish people who violate those laws by group agreement. Which you are considering a shared delusion.
“So the question then, is the Law and the Government that which exists only in people’s heads, or is it that which can be observed?”
It’s one that can be observed. But only works as long as everyone agrees that it works. Sort of like money. Especially fiat-based money On its own, it’s just paper and metal discs. But because we ALL agree that it has value, it therefore has value. But even there, we arent agreeing it has vlue for no reason whatsoever. For delusion’s sake.
No, we agree that money has value because its A LOT EASIER THAN BARTERING. We agree, not out of delusion, but out of a need for convenience.
Government and laws are the same way. We do not have laws and government out of a shared delusion. We have laws and government for the conveniences that having laws and government give us – stability. Not having to watch over our shoulders every second. The ability to form larger groups than the family unit or an extended family unit.
“You may wish to pretend that they’re one and the same, but in reality, they often diverge.”
If they diverge too much, the government destabilizes, which means there’s no enforcement of the laws, and anarchy occurs.
However, anarchy is not something that can remain permanently. Anarchy is more like a period of time BETWEEN governments and laws. Eventually a different government forms, with new laws, which the people will again agree upon for the sake of convenience, not because of delusions.
Thomas Jefferson put this cycle best when he said:
“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
He also said:
“God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. […] The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
I would contend that a person’s status as a slave is dependent on whether they are treated like a slave, and not their legal status. They may be legally a slave, or an illegal slave, but if they are treated as property, rather than a person, they are a slave.
I was under the impression that we both subscribed to the belief that most rights are natural, and not granted by a government. So to say that a slave is someone who has no rights would be to categorize them out of existence.
I am curious how much your acceptance of involuntary servitude is driven by its status in US law, much like your acceptance of the necessity of punishment.
I use the term “shared delusion” to refer to law slightly in jest, but I also can’t think of a better way to put it. Law has no physical existence. You cannot observe it. It’s an idea. It’s a fiction that’s shared between a group of people. You may refer to words on a page as law, but they’re not really the law. The delusion to which I’m referring isn’t really the law or government, but the belief that those things have an independent existence from the people believing in them.
Anarchy is unstable, because without something to prevent the consolidation of power and formation of a government, those who desire power over others will create one. Government is that which governs, regardless of what you call it.
“Slavery is legal in my dimension so it should be perfectly fine to do it in yours!”
Try changing that to “Mass murder, child-rape, and puppy-eating is legal in my dimension so it should be perfectly fine to do it in yours” and see if you still think the “it’s legal where I come from” argument holds water.
I mean, at this stage, I’m kinda on board with the idea that we need to “liberate” and “bring democracy” to the infernal realms. <_<
we here in the USA deserve the paperwork that would cause.
Dabbler, is an American Citizen!
He was on earth in US , yes ?
Slavery is illegal in US … and Maxima had berzerk buttons.
Imagine if he was kicked by a french dragon, “He was the most anoying thing since St Georges” after saying in english “I’ll accept your imediate surrender, you know the drill” pushing the berzerk button.
> Slavery is illegal in US
No it’s not.
The American Constitution explicitly states what you are still allowed to be enslaved for.
I feel like Max getting upset because this guy who’s saying he wants to rule Earth is referring to one of her teammates as a slave.
Max actually taking action on that while they were just talking? Not OK.
It’s certainly something to talk about. I feel like the term “Hard NO” might be in order. She might want to ask for the assistance of someone more familiar with talking with fiends to convey the sincerity of her will in a manner that will be understood better. It’s possible that this is it, I don’t know, but doing it without that consultation just isn’t right. Depending on where exactly Tom’s from, this is basically now an interdimensional conflict or an interstellar conflict. WHEE!
Depends. Are they in Texas? If so, that would be enough to invoke “thems fighting words” (legit Texas law) and the subsequent fight falling into more or less the same category as self defence albeit with less allowance for accidentally killing the guy.
Even if they are not in Texas, punch Nazis, crush slavers faces. You go max!
Nope.
Rip his head off, send it back, followed by as many high-yield nukes as can be fired.
I don’t thing we have any ordinance anywhere near par with a “Maxima Bang Attack”.
Am I the only one who is assuming, based on Dabbler’s reaction, that ‘slave’ in this context is more of a BDSM dominatrix or master/slave voluntary relationship and not a plantation owner/field slave or Pharoah of Egypt/jewish slave relationship?
I do not think its a BDSM thing it would have come up in the festivities earlier. (make love not war- some of the people who say that should have to watch the relevant part…) I have been of the opinion that it is more complex than that. I am hoping for an explanation soon.
that and lucky for you I have not found a pun to use. I can offer selections from r/dadjokes.
“I do not think its a BDSM thing it would have come up in the festivities earlier.”
There hasnt been much ‘earlier’ for it to have come up during in the first place.
“I have been of the opinion that it is more complex than that.”
Yes it seems pretty obvious that context is missing. It’s a shame that Maxima seems more likely to start an interstellar war over a perceived verbal slight to someone ELSE (someone who she has on muitiple occasions physically and verbally attacked herself), rather than ask for context first. Use your words, Maxima. :)
“that and lucky for you I have not found a pun to use.”
Thank goodness for small blessings. :)
As TempoDiValse stated above, within five minutes of appearing on the scene Tom declared his intention to invade and later his secretary showed up to demonstrate that it was a serious threat. Maxima is a Lt Colonel in the American armed forces. It is literally her duty to defend the country and she has every right to turn this guy into a grease stain at any moment. The fact that she’s still talking is a gesture of forbearance on her part and a desire to see if there’s a way to avoid actual military contact.
And yet she’s been talking calmly for the last few minutes (plus waiting however long Dabbler & Tom took to catch up), and this particular physical assault was clearly motivated by the term he employed for Dabbler, and not by his intent to invade the USA / Earth. Tom has made no further statements or actions indicating he plans to continue an invasion, now or ever, so diplomacy is very much the right course of action here.
Max grabbing the fiend by the horns isn’t defending the country, it’s acting on the chip she carries on her shoulder about individual rights.
Rejecting slavery has nothing to do with individual rights. It is possible for groups to be enslaved, therefore her “chip” as you call it also applies to groups. Individuals + groups covers all possible forms of agents that can have agency, therefore this is simply about rights. Some kind of rights must exist for a society to exist, therefore calling it a chip on her shoulder is silly. You’re basically saying that the existence of society as a concept is a delusion.
Max isn’t responding to slavery as an institution – they were discussing Tom’s proposed subjugation of mankind quite calmly a few pages back. She’s responding (rather impulsively) to a (perceived) personal slight against a friend because her own world-view interpreted a phrase as sexist, degrading, or otherwise disparaging to an individual.
We’ve seen Max lash out like this repeatedly, with little provocation, at a variety of things she interpreted as sexist remarks or actions; she even acknowledges the tendency during Sydney’s briefing. The idiom I employed is an accurate description of her pattern of behavior.
Max does *not* have that authority. That’s not how the military works. A person showed up with an intention to invade *via a power point presentation* for God’s sake. Even the secretary was talking about a slide show.
Even the slave comment isn’t justification for her actions. I’ve got a number of friends in the BDSM community that happily submit to being someone’s slave.
Then there is Dabbler. I mean… It’s Dabbler… I’m pretty sure Dabbler is into some kinky stuff. This is a situation where Max needs to stand down and try to process exactly what is being said.
> A person showed up with an intention to invade *via a power point presentation* for God’s sake. Even the secretary was talking about a slide show.
Tom’s words: “My armies are poised to grant humanity a clean break from their squabbling and corrupt institutions, to start anew with lessons learned from past mistakes, and my grace alone will determine whether or not you live to see the much needed order I will bring.”
Very slide-show-centric, definitely.
Killing everyone, amounts. to the same thing!
Eaglejarl, did you miss:
1) the part where he specifically said to his assistant that they were NOT invading, and things had changed.
2) the part where Tom’s assistant said it’s apparently a booty call, not an invasion.
3) the part where Tom said it is not subjugation, and it would need to be voluntary, working with affected stakeholders (ie, the Earth government who would be in agreement). Hence, I am assuming, the powerpoint slideshow.
4) Tom’s initial implied threat came after MAXIMA’S implied threat, which came first.
In short, there was no longer any danger of invasion. Maxima is using violence for reasons that have NOTHING to do with an invasion. She’s using violence because she has a hair trigger temper not becoming of a Lt. Colonel in the Armed Forces and could spark a war where there was not going to one. And if anyone IS to die as a result of this, it would be squarely because of her. She probably needs a psych evaluation and anger management when she has this much power at her fingertips and this little control over her anger, when she’s in a high rank position. I mean that probably wouldnt happen because of plot armor, but comic nerd arguments like this tend to put plot armor aside for the point of the argument. :)
I think you missed the bit where Dexon was also rushing about marshalling the actual army. the slideshow is for the seditionist puppet government. The army of demons is for the invasion, or as Tom puts it, TABULA RASA!!!!!!!
“I think you missed the bit where Dexon was also rushing about marshalling the actual army.”
As a backup in case it was necessary. Peace through strength.
“the slideshow is for the seditionist puppet government.”
Where did you get that from? There was no mention about a puppet government. You’re engaging in headcanon again. Tom said he would work with concerned stakeholders. IE, governments that WANT him to help with the problem they’re going to have with the Xevoarchy by having him be in control over the greater galactic front.
“or as Tom puts it, TABULA RASA!!!!!!!”
…. Okay I need to explain what tabula rasa means, because it does not mean invasion. It means ‘clean slate’
In other words, Earth is currently in the Xevoarchy’s crosshairs as a very potential threat to galactic stability due to Earth’s fractured and squabbling governments, lack of world unity, warlike nature, and unheard of levels of power due to supers on Earth. Especially Maxima, in particular. And now because of Aetherium Causeways. Which means Earth is a galactic threat without having gotten through certain galactic milestones necessary to mature into a galactic partner.
Tabula rasa means that Tom was offering to give Earth a clean slate with respect to the Xevoarchy, since Infernals ARE known to the Xevoarchy and probably have at least some pull within it.
A clean slate to wipe away the trouble that Earth is probably in with the greater galactic community, all before even getting FTL technology on their own.
Fuck that. This guy has specifically declared himself here to lead an armed invasion, and has NOT backed down from that even after a solid boinking which, frankly, was way way WAY more consideration than he deserved.
Max is a sworn protector of the very same place he’s planning to land his god damned invasion, and if she turns this whole canyon into ash and glass while converting him into ionized gas, nobody is going to blink an eye. If she decides he’s not worth dealing with otherwise, she’s well within her remit. This would be a straight up, hands down, one hundred percent justified use of near-nuclear force consistent with military doctrine.
Except maybe the quarry guys who are going to have to get jackhammers and things instead of just shovels.
Alternative take, considering the hierarchical nature of things possible it’s equivocal to dating or engagement, not a BDSM thing there are other demons then succubus after all.
Sidenote Max really needs to learn to read the room one of these days sh’s going to attack someone and cause a massive incident against something that she can’t muscle through.
Oh, really hope she starts some shit with someone who then uses Sydney to smash her into orbit
Doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t kinky talk with people in the room that aren’t involved.
Dabbler always does this. She’s the queen of TMI.
There is a difference between TMI and openly saying “I’m his slave”. Plus she usually doesn’t go into detail on “screen”.
And now we get an explanation for where Dabbles’ collar came from (won’t Maxi by thrilled to learn about what the Archon collars really are :D )
Yup. Fun times.
I’ve kind of been waiting for this since they introduced the collars and explained their capabilities are enough to suggest that they might possibly be leaked space tech.
Yeah, if Max learns that she was forced to wear apparel based on a literal sex slave collar, she is going to sue so, so hard for sexual harassment/assault. As in, that would fully qualify as sexual harassment/assault.
That would surprise me.
If something is based on something it is not necesseserally the same.
By that logic a police officer could sue the government, because he is forced to use tech meant for oppressors(The Nazi’s invented the gummy )
An astronaut could sue for being forced to use all kinds of weaponry(rockets are upgraded versions of the V2)
Everyone riding a Volvo 240 for their job for being forced to ride tools of oppression
Anyone working in a refurbished prison could sue for unrightful imprisonment
Anyone having to fly with an airplane for their work could
Entire species of animals have been bred by the Nazi’s for propaganda purposes, there are people who feed some of them without being informed about their dark past, nearly all modern psychology is based on grueling Nazi experiments, canned food was invented as a weapon of war, the ballpoint pen was a weapon when it was first introduced, history is a weapon, some current treatments started as grueling torture, thanks to nukes we discovered all kind of things, fruit themed candy was invented for gambling, many pieces of mass-production machinery were designed to make slave labor more efficient and some plastic surgery was invented to make slaves more marketable(breast enlarged and botox like treatments are examples of this).
Many tools and technologies around you have seriously dark pasts yet we don’t just throw away a something, because someone who wasn’t us once used or even designed it for bad purposes.
? None of those things would be a crime outside of germany or such where they outlawed nazi imagery. Sexual harassment is a crime.
Also, species being bred by the nazi’s and all of psychology being based upon the nazi’s work??? What? The Nazi’s were around for 15-25 years dude.
Also, for those things, you are talking about a past “it used to be” something or else. The sex slave collars are still sex slave collars. Dabbler appears to be wearing an actual sex slave collar that Archon then used without checking what it actually were. Not to mention that sociology is actually dependent on cultural context. Sexual harassment actually does care about cultural context.
“Sexual harassment is a crime.”
Just want to point out that sexual harassment is not a crime. It’s a civil lawsuit – a tort. You can’t be put in prison for sexual harassment. You can be fined instead and have to pay money to the plaintiff.
Sexual assault is a crime, not sexual harassment. And while sexual harassment is not a crime itself, there are other actions that can take place in conjunction WITH sexual harassment that CAN be a crime, like sexual assault, rape, common assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
Looks like Thot is about to get his face pulled off… ouchies, i don’t think a bandaid will fix it…
Max in panels 5 and 6 is *fucking amazing*.
Dramatic backlighting c/o Sidney! (LOL)
…Actually, I don’t recall one of her orbs functioning as a flashlight?
She is likely using her smartphone flashlight.
Either that, or she kept the high-powered flashlight in her utility belt from back when she was picking out her gear in
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-427-utility-euphoria/
Tom later finds out that he got off from Max’s treatment and realises he could set her up as an Infernal Dominatrix. The conversation goes as well as you would expect….
OED definitions for Fiend (noun): 1. An evil spirit. 2. The Devil. 3. A wicked or cruel person.
Tom, if you think that “Fiend” is a value-neutral way to name your species, you need to check a dictionary.
(This does raise a lot of questions about how translations in this setting work. Like, did the word in English come first, and Tom’s species decided in their war-death-doom phase that “yes, we want humans to call us that?” Did the word in English get coined by people who had bad experiences with fiends? Did the person who wrote the Abyssal/English dictionary have an axe to grind?)
I don’t think our dictionary definitions would much matter to him. He probably deals with hundreds of worlds. Who cares if fiend means “evil spirit” on this world, “chicken” on that one, and “a case of extreme gastral distress” on a third?
If he comes to fight you or you go to fight him, and you win, then He can acknowledge your definition. But until you can back up your definition with your army, nothing matters. He wins, he can rewrite the dictionary.
They use universal translators, however tom seems to be using a magic version of the translator that doesn’t know when to stop translating (or consciously does translate the name of their species into the closest matching term).
Sydney’s boyfriend a while back mentioned that he is a woof which has an actual definition that wasn’t translated.
It could be a species by species thing where some species prefer to be called by the correct name and other species prefer to be called by the correct definition.
Woofer being in the former category and fiend McEdgypants being in the latter category. Demons seems to care about their image enough to avoid the possibility of “the sound of their title names being hilarious in some other languages” like the figurative and metaphorical plague. So I can totally see fiend matching the dictionary definition of whatever their species name is actually pronounced
From what I understand universal translators don’t translate nouns, with the exceptions of non-verbal languages like pheromone, light, radio wave, *or outside the range of human hearing* to either the nearest equivalent sound or meaning.
However I can see a species wanting the meaning to come across more so than the sound, and thus we end up with a dozen ethereals, floramorphs, psionic cephalopodics, all being called “The Inhabitants”.
Or if the language is too different you program your own translator to NAME INSERT the species like “Radio Heads” or “Barnacles”.
Now that there are real translator gadgets people can order from Amazon and wear, all these stories with plot-device translator gadgets are under a bit more pressure to make their gadgets conform to the reality, for the same reason that “shirt” in a fantasy novel pretty much has to mean the same thing as “shirt” in modern times.
But when the translators are magic, or ultra-super-science, or just plain IJD. Incorporated Plot Devices, there’s no limits on what they translate unless the author wants some.
Show me a proper built-by-aliens IJD Plot Device translator and I will happily make a case that you can in fact have babies with that Tentacled Sploo/Arboreal Squid cross you just took aboard, because the translator gadget translates every language, even chemical languages, including the molecules of your DNA,
eh, conforming to reality means making them pre-programmed or hooked up to a server database of languages. Not very useful in a fantasy or science fiction setting; which seeing fantasy is still going with either translator spells or *don’t think about it*, sci-fi too with either handwave they exist or go again with “just don’t think about it*.
I guess JDTA Corporation, the manufacturers of the well known “Just Don’t Think About It” line, must be one of the main competitors, in the Plot Device industry, of IJD Technologies and their ever-popular “It Just Does” products. I mean, seriously, MacGuffin Industries may have an artistic design edge, but they are so far behind the technology curve it’s hard to see how they stay in business.
What a job, though. Can you imagine going to work at IJD every day, and how careful they have to be sometimes about NOT OPENING THE BOXES once something comes off the line?
I presume they make enough profile off S.E.P. fields to subsidize the rest of the product line.
I will be blunt, I don’t know the reference you are making.
I am referring to writers of shows and movies handwaving something to keep the story going and not spend time explaining how everything works. If you have thirty minutes to tell a story, spending five of those to explain how the lightbulbs work as your characters investigate the robot alien’s apartment is not good storytelling.
(sure some novels can get away with it, if such breaks in the narrative match the over all style).
Yes, exactly. All of these are humorous ways of referring to the unexplained devices that, in many cases, drive the plot forward. Particularly in the case where there IS no possible explanation.
“How does this time machine work, anyway?”
“You set the date you want to go to, make sure the hatch is sealed, and press that big button there.”
Somewhere on the time machine, goes the conceit, a tiny plaque with the proud logo of IJD Technologies (or perhaps one of their competitors) may be found. The device will never be explained because the plot does not require that kind of explanation. And that’s exactly the kind of device – specifically Plot Device – that IJD is in the business of making.
The SEP field is a specific Device, usually not even mentioned in most stories. It’s the reason why people don’t respond to or engage with the clearly anomalous things they’re exposed to. It was introduced, in fact AS an explicit Device in the possession of a character, by Douglas Adams in his increasingly misnamed HitchHiker Trilogy. It’s a field generator that makes people near a designated area see everything in that area as Somebody Else’s Problem. The more outrageously impossible or threatening a thing is, the easier it is for an SEP Field Generator to convince folks to Not Deal With It. If they notice it at all, they are convinced that if they can just ignore it very hard then it doesn’t really exist.
Rhuen, he’s referencing the second book in ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ trilogy (actually 6 1/2 books, hence why it’s called ‘the increasingly misnamed Hitchhiker’s Trilogy’), written by Douglas Adams.
Do you mean proper nouns? Not sure how translators would work without translating nouns. Noun, is a noun. Plant, is a noun. Most words are nouns. The name of Tom’s species being a word in english either means that there was a really exceptional case of convergent linguistic evolution, demons really frequently came to earth to the extent that modern english language includes the correct current term for fiend, or Tom is using a translator that *does* translate proper nouns to the closest word.
yes I meant proper nouns, names, *including place names* are often left un-translated otherwise there would be odd confusion, especially if the translation back doesn’t translate it back as the name but the more common word for it, like a person having a name that means savior, it translates that way to the alien, “My name is Savior”, then when they address this person the translator says the word, “savior” instead of their name, and here comes a bit of back and forth confusion with both parties explaining and the translator mucking things up.
“Fiend,” “demon,” and “devil” *all* mean roughly what a human would expect them to mean from mythology and pop culture, so I don’t think we can just say it’s just a coincidence and on other planets those words might just be types of fruit. Not to mention Dabbler saying that demons want to rebrand themselves, implying that they’re aware of the connotations in our language (or that English is for some reason the language of demons and devils).
I’m pretty sure that the names are all being translated into closest English equivalent, with it just being a certain setting on the translator. The name of their species isn’t the sound “devil”, it is the meaning “devil”, so each species would hear the closest equivalent to the word “devil” in their language when a devil gives their species name.
To be fair, Max ALREADY wanted to crunch his face into neutronium, and knows what that is, and could actually do that.
I really like the cracks in panel 7 and to a lesser degree 8 and don’t think they’re getting enough attention from our comments.
Ummm… Those are access terraces for mining purposes. We’re just seeing them edge-on.
I think they mean the cracks in Tom’s face.
Er… I’m only viewing the peons’ version, and a very old 1080 monitor. Tom’s face is a bit blurry?
I’m pretty sure Dabbler intentionally acknowledged being his “slave”, knowing/hoping Max would react not that good to that term.
And given that Tom wants to conquer/invade/subjugate earth, and made a threat on Max’s life, it’s not that unreasonable that Max does not immediately gives him the benefit of the doubt on his use of the word “slave”.
I’m beginning to think that kinkshaming is Max’s kink.
Given slavery carrying on today, and in fact thriving, personally I am quite comfortable with using extreme measures to counter it. Hanging drawing and quartering seems like a good point to start at.
Of course appeals should be allowed, in order to satisfy due process. Posthumously.
OK one or two laws might require tweaking to allow such an enlightened process. We can but dream.
Are we talking ’bout Walmart wages here, or something more sinister?
It’s usually referred to as ‘human trafficking’ these days, and it’s kept quiet to avoid getting caught in most countries and very much illegal most places, but it still very much exists. It’s more well known some places than others…where in, say, New York City, you worry about being mugged if you go walking alone at night, there are other places – and not just non-first-world-countries – where the concern is walking alone could get you kidnapped and sold. Most places don’t exactly -advertise- it’s a problem where they are, but usually looking at the kidnapping stats in the crime rate statistics can give you an indicator.
Ahhh yes. Obviously NY has the same problem as London: the slaves aren’t sourced in UK or USA, they’re imported in seatainers.
both
just read the documents form facebook and how they knew the platform was being used to sale slaves
Slavery by descent and chattel slavery
Government-forced labor and conscription
Prison labor
Bonded labor
Forced migrant labor
Sex slavery
Forced marriage and child marriage
Child labor
Fishing industry
Forced begging
Just the titles extracted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
Here is an example article on the subject, under the headline “One in 200 people is a slave. Why?”:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200
Even though the instance is higher in Africa, for instance, I still periodically see articles about people being found to be kept as slaves, in atrocious conditions, within the UK. Sometimes individuals with diminished mental capacity, who are being exploited by those who should be looking after them.
Very often it is people brought in from other countries, who are kept isolated, so that they don’t learn that what is being done to them is criminal and that if they reported it, it would be their slavers who would go to jail. But, of course, it is actually the other way around. Some are simply kept locked away and forced to work for no pay and little more than the necessary food to keep them alive. Similarly in the sex trade.
It is probably happening in many ‘developed’ nations, but Britain is actively seeking to counter it. So officers and social workers etc keep an eye open for the warning signs. And claims by the exploited tend to be taken credibly, rather than just being swept under the carpet (as can happen all too often for those in the sex industry &/or others living in a country illegally).
“But, of course, it is actually the other way around.” should have read:
“But, of course, they are purposely misinformed by their slavers who claim it is actually the other way around, due to them being in the country illegally.”
Extra points for the art in Panels 4-7. The shadowed face is leaves us to imagine, and notice how the veins and muscles start to pop out on Max’s hand?
This is not your kinder, gentler Max.
“please, that isn’t a mask, it’s my actual skull! YES MY SKULL IS ON THE OUTSIDE!”
DUN-DUN-DUUUUNNNN!
Am I the only one getting tired of Maximas short temper and frankly terrifying inclination to turn to violence at the drop of a hat?
Like, putting aside the fact she is apparently more powerful than every being she’s come up against, the fact that her temper and propensity towards murder should be a thing discussed as a problem.
Yes, comedy but still!
Why, the second the big dude appeared and was not immediately trying to murder people was she not unceremoniously ordered back being the diplomatic and political disaster that she is!
Because the big dude went there as part of an INVASION and is in fact still attempting to lead one? We haven’t reached the point of diplomacy yet.
I’m kinda with Adam here – Max has a track record of reacting to annoyances with violence, not only crushing objects but deliberately physical harming direct subordinates over personal annoyances (Harem & the ambulance prank, Dabbler & the shower). Yes, they’re tough enough to take it, and Max dialed it back, but given her position of authority over them it was incredibly unprofessional and borderline actionable. It’s getting harder and harder not to see Max as a bully.
Tom has been engaging in civil discourse and paused (if not cancelled) the invasion, and Dabbler has previously indicated both sides need to learn some things before taking irreversible actions. Regardless of whether Max could handle Tom and [strike]The Thumbs[/strike] his army herself, she is on the frontline of not only ARCSWAT but the nation. Diplomacy is the only responsible course at the moment.
She gave Harem a wedgie, and frankly, Dabbles was committing borderline sexual assault.
I would submit that in both cases, Max exercised remarkable self-restraint, given her actual capacity for destruction & violence.
I get it, Max has a comparatively shallow character, compared to most of the rest of cast, so far as we know them. And yes, most of that is built around her being a walking tac-nuke, couple with the old adage about hammers seeing everything as a nail.
Nonetheless, she’s not “bullying” anyone, she’s enforcing boundaries.
Max knows nothing of demon society, knows nothing of demon hierarchies and terminology. I’ve seen so many in these comments immediately jump into human defined slavery (excluding the fetish industry) in Dabbler’s & Tom’s (Who paused and clearly did not want to use that title when speaking to Dabbler) argument.
Max’s actions does nothing but start a war, because she is a prude and a feminist extremist. Max is interacting with one of, if not the, leader of space demonkind. A leader who, if you reread the previous couple pages regarding their short little discussion about humanity being part of the demon-empire, pushes for diplomacy and the “peaceful” option first.
Is Max a bully? No, she’s a military operative who does not have the authority to conduct negotiations, and she’s putting her rather extreme pettiness above the diplomatic mission she decided to entrust herself with.
Why is it her responsibility to know the ins & outs of a self-proclaimed conqueror’s culture?
Seems like he should have done more homework.
I say again: credible threat. Ash him below the neck, throw the head back through the portal, followed by all the high-yield ordnance. It’s the Universal Sign for “This was a bad idea and you do not want to ever try it again.”
Seems to me that sort of action would be a good reason for them to actually send spies through, find out who Maxima’s family is, and murder them, the people who cannot rely on being invulnerable or having powers and training, in some sort of gruesome and horrible manner before Maxima would know about it, as well as the families of others in Archon with expendable grunts. Then never bother invading Earth so Maxima can be in anguish. But also occasionally, randomly, sending suicide bombers to Earth out of the blue, preferably when there are other problems happening for ARCHON to have to handle.
To be honest it’s a little bit harder to root for her mainly because it’s making the would-be invaders the underdog. Which I’m assuming is not how a heroic narrative is supposed to go.
Right now, Maxima seems to more be a danger to the Earth than helping it with her hair trigger temper in this particular case. She tends to be EXTREMELY hubristic, which can be fun to watch, but not when she can destroy all others with a flick of her fingers. It turns a cool arc into ‘The Adventures of God-Man’ (see the trope on TV Tropes). It does make me want to see her get hurt, actually. Which is weird since Tom DID threaten earlier to invade, which is an aggressive and evil thing to do, although the whole powerpoint presentation deal makes it seem a lot more like he wants voluntary agreements than war.
Soooo yeah, I sort of want to see Maxima get knocked down a few pegs and have her ego deflated a bit, if for no other reason than it’s easier narratively to root for an underdog who has to punch up rather than punch down. If the bad guy is soooo much weaker, they need to be able to at least show they’re superior in other areas, like strategy and planning. Like Sciona, who’s a pretty awesome enemy, despite being weaker than Maxima as well. Or how Lex Luthor is no match for Superman physically but his inventiveness and strategy evens the odds a bit.
I for one appreciate characters with flaws over 1-dimensional shells. I wouldn’t be annoyed by Max lashing out today if I didn’t care about her character and role in the larger story. Sometimes well-told stories have people do something dumb, because that’s what humans do.*
* Gestures to r/WinStupidPrizes, FailArmy, the Darwin Awards, and the internet in general.
You should know as well as anyone what Max’s role in the story is.
Yes, it’s supposed to be MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO. Not getting Earth sucked into a war because she can’t control her temper over a word she doesnt like being said.
It makes it hard to cheer for her when Tom’s turned out to be pretty much a huuuuge wimp with a big mouth, instead of an actual threat. Because she’s just punching down, and it’s not fun to cheer for that because I’m not a bully by nature, and it’s weird to see her bullying an INFERNAL ARCH-LORD who one would assume would be more powerful than he’s been shown to be. Dabbler’s been able to fight Maxima to a standstill but Tom can’t for reasons that elude me from a narrative standpoint, given his position.
I have admittedly conflated her role within the story with her role within the US military, but regardless… You’re not supposed to cheer for her. She’s ultimately an antagonist, in terms of how the story is structured. She’s a “hero”, but her role is maintaining the established order — not only preventing bad outcomes, but also obstructing change that results in improvement. She’s not the protagonist. She’s effectively something for Sydney to overcome.
Dabbler beat Tom in the past, so that would put him below both her and Max in terms of combat capability. He may be powerful in other ways, but not all power can be effectively brought to bear in a one-on-one fight, particularly when caught by surprise. If he were seriously attempting to fight Max, he may have the raw power to injure her, trap her, or otherwise defeat her, though he may still have trouble hitting her.
” You’re not supposed to cheer for her. She’s ultimately an antagonist, in terms of how the story is structured.”
I don’t think she’s been written as an antagonist. She’s written as a deuteragonist, if anything. Sydney is OBVIOUSLY the protagonist, but next to Sydney, she’s pretty much the most important character in the story.
As such, yeah you probably should be able to cheer for her, but it’s nearly impossible when she acts like this and never seems to improve.
“She’s effectively something for Sydney to overcome.”
I’m not really sure where you get that she’s that, at least as an antagonist. I think we should probably cement the definitions, as always seems to be my ‘thing.’ :)
Protagonist – the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.
Antagonist – a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something (ie, the protagonist); an adversary.
Deuteragonist – the person second in importance to the protagonist
There’s also tritagonist, tetartagonist (tetratagonist?), pentagonist, etc. But the main two people in this story are Sydney and Maxima. After that, it gets a little hazy on character importance ranking.
Maxima is hardly ‘hostile’ to Sydney. Nor does she really oppose Sydney. If anything she seems to act incredibly protective of Sydney in almost a ‘big sister’ way. So I have trouble seeing her as an antagonist, currently.
“Dabbler beat Tom in the past, so that would put him below both her and Max in terms of combat capability.”
I’ll give you that. Although we don’t really know the backstory on HOW Dabbler ‘beat’ Tom, or if she actually beat him rather than temporarily got him trapped in something via trickery.
What we do know is Tom was built up to be something really threatening, and since a single strip after this introduction, he’s been anything BUT threatening. Both because he’s a wimp unable to do ANYTHING against Maxima, and because he hasnt actually done a single thing that can be defined as ‘violent.’ The ‘poke’ was rude. And I’d be fine with someone saying it’s a non-violent assault and battery (since assault and battery do not need to be violent to be crimes, just an offensive touching and something that the person touched was in reasonable apprehension of imminently). But there’s no way to argue that he’s actually been violent in a way that makes sense. Words are not violence, and words without any potentially physical, violent action are not going to be part of a violent act.
“He may be powerful in other ways,”
Possibly, since the story arc isn’t over, but so far we’ve seen no evidence of it, and if he was powerful in other ways, and was even mildly competent, he would have used those ways INSTEAD of these actions.
“If he were seriously attempting to fight Max, he may have the raw power to injure her, trap her, or otherwise defeat her, though he may still have trouble hitting her.”
I might have though the same thing a few strips ago, but the further this story arc goes, the less I feel that is true. It’s still possible but increasingly unlikely. Honestly, if some infernals are powered by suffering, probably his best option would be to surrender, go back through the portal, send some spies to find out who their non-powered families are, then murder their families while Archon is otherwise occupied before they know what happened. Then let them wallow in their loss and realization that they could have avoided this by being more diplomatic.
Even if they (ARCHON) went after Tom’s boss’s army in a full out war, off of Earth and even if they won, it wouldnt matter because their families would still be dead. They’d still have lost. They’d still have had a Gwen Stacy moment.
Not that I want that to happen. It probably would be way too dark a turn, narratively. Plus wouldnt be consistent with how they are in the beginning of the comic, which is actually in the future.
Just saying Maxima isnt really behaving like a character that’s interesting to follow long-term (and I really WANT to be interested in her, because I think she has potential to be extremely interesting), and the more unstoppable she is without also having morals and a lid on her temper, or at least some emotional growth, the more boring she is. The most growth or humanization I’ve tended to see with Maxima, if ANY, has been once with Deus, twice with Sydney (when Sydney was trapped on Alar, and when Sydney returned and hugged Maxima), and once with Anvil (when they were ‘fighting’ over trying to make Maxima be more social). I guess I coullllllllllld also include the flashback to before she was gold pre-geode metorite-water, but it wasn’t really that much about her behavior or thoughts there.
Max and Sydney are positioned to help each other grow and develop, to moderate each other’s impulses. Max will teach Sydney to be more responsible, and to take an orderly, structured approach to being a superhero, in the context of law enforcement, rather than the vigilante approach common to comic-book heroes. Sydney provides Max opportunities to be human and motherly, and discourages her from using violence when another approach would be better. As far back as the first fight with Vehemence, the message was that Max tries to solve problems with violence, and Sydney shows that there’s a better solution. That’s their dynamic.
It’s not the Mentor-Student dynamic, because it flows both ways, but I wouldn’t consider them equally protagonists either. While antagonist isn’t the right word, I still think Max’s role is as a threatening force within the story that causes challenges to be overcome. Her growth occurs within the context of Sydney’s story, as a result of Sydney’s actions, not of her own. She doesn’t reflect and improve, which often means she ends up doing stupid things and avoids learning from her own mistakes so that Sydney can upstage her and show her a better way.
I agree that it would be better if Max were a full protagonist of her own, and wasn’t stuck acting like an idiot to make room for Sydney. But it would be hard for her to still fill the role of representing the dangers of an extremely powerful person, barely restrained by the law, which I also think is particularly interesting to explore. If real people had superpowers, I don’t think it likely that most of them would turn into virtuous paragons or megalomaniacal supervillains; they’d be petty, selfish people who suddenly have the power to push other people around, and think they’re in the right for doing so.
Like I said, I don’t see Maxima as a protagonist OR an antagonist. She seems to be firmly a deuteragonist. Sort of like Ron Stoppable to Kim Possible.
Sort of like the protagonist … but not nearly as important as the protagonist, but not adversarial to the protagonist’s growth and development and goals, like an antagonist would be. I just am trying to say that if she’ s always behaving like this, she becomes a much more ‘flat’ character and not a great deuteragonist.
I think it could be fun if Tom was just holding back all the time because Dabbler is there trying to be diplomatic.
Tom: ”Dabbler my dear I must say your violent friend here really knows how to turn on a guy.”
Dabbler: ”Yes she is quite lovely right?” Happy sigh.
Tom: ”Don’t worry my dear, you are always my number one dom.”
Halo: ”Awww! That’s so sweeeet!”
Max: ”What!”
One day Maximas kneejerk overreactions going to get everyone killed….well….if the writer was ever going for realism anyway ^^;
Ok guys you might want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(BDSM)
Given its Dabs were talking about and shes worn a collar since https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-59-camaraderie/ and it was comented that hers was not the issue collar but basicaly her Collar….
Also, right now? pannel 6-8? she kind of reminds me of me.Ive had almost that exact conversation only Tom was in more of a what the fuck state of mind and not a murderous rampage frame of mind because he read the entire thing wrong (I bought her the strop to use on me, I would have thought that my wearing a collar ON ME with her name on it would have been a clue but no she had to spell it out that 1) she owned me 2) I was her slave and 3) Him beating me while hot would have also been kind of incestuos because brother beating sisters sex slave. granted I should have explained it better that the strop was for her to use on me, not that its a Strop, you beat slaves with it. so yah no fowl on him.
Do you have a link for it not being her issue collar?
It’s not her issued choker (not collar), because she’s been wearing it since Cora was barely out of her teenage years
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-698-the-digital-closet/
Panel 1, where Cora is just starting to get new arms to replace the ones she had in high school, when they FIRST met (Dabbler seems a lot younger there as well)
But when Dabbler was in demon high school, she did not yet have a choker.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-311-succubi-rarely-diet-insert-joke-about-juice-cleanse/
Panel 4, you might need to either magnify or be on DaveB’s patreon for a higher res image maybe to see tht there’s no choker on her when she was in HER teens.
She also had the choker on when she was able to get Thothogoth to get dragged down into that pit
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-177-intergalactic-baggage/
(Panel 5 you can see the choker on her neck there. YOU can also see he was DRAGGED into the pit, not technically defeated in a fight, because you see his claws digging into the ground in panel 4)
sorry was refering to the character “Tom” in the comic, not my former owners brother,
So Dabbler doesn’t mind being submissive at times. Not surprised. Not one bit. Tom just needs better tact. And a lot more of it I think. Getting a bad case of the giggles here.
Love how Sid is doing the mood lighting there. Really sets the scene.
I think Tom is getting off light.
…. he’s not walking away with all of his limbs at this rate. We taking bets on if he walks away at all?
If anyone deserves to walk away minus a limb or two, it’s Maxi
Because she’s a military officer who has been using diplomacy and non-lethal force against an interdimensional invader? I dunno, seems a bit excessive to me. Personally, if I were her commander I would have given her an attaboy for trying peace-adjacent methods for intelligence gathering before kicking the guy back through his portal in pieces.
“Because she’s a military officer who has been using diplomacy”
You have an odd definition of diplomacy”
“and non-lethal force”
Crushing a person’s skull is not non-lethal force.
“against an interdimensional invader?”
There is no invasion and there hasn’t been an invasion. There isnt even a POTENTIAL plan for an invasion as of a few panels ago after the body slam. Any threat was already gone. So yes, Maxima is in the wrong.
” I dunno, seems a bit excessive to me.”
Well obviously she shouldn’t lose any limbs, but she should be penalized by her superiors for her action here. If she wasn’t so valuable for her power, then she probably would be. She’s definitely not her rank for her strategy or diplomacy or ability to think.
Punished not the body slam. But for the crushing of Tom’s skull.
“Personally, if I were her commander I would have given her an attaboy”
A normal commander would drop her in rank or put a mark in her record and order her to take psych evaluations and anger management until she can control her temper like an officer of her rank would dictate. She gets a lot of leeway because of her power level. Special treatment. But if a war broke out because of this, she should be court-martialed and held responsible for every single casualty that occurs as a result after Earth wins.
“for trying peace-adjacent methods”
Psychopathic crushing of people’s skulls for hearing words she doesn’t like is ‘peace adjacent methods.’ That’s some unique wordsmithing there. :)
“for intelligence gathering”
He was literally just talking to them. She was able to get intelligence by asking questions. Sydney could have asked questions if she wasn’t asking such dumb ones. But Sydney is gonna Sydney so that part’s understandable. :)
“before kicking the guy back through his portal in pieces.”
At which point Tom’s boss sends waves upon waves of demonic armies at Earth who are now attacking NOT because they are the aggressor, but because an insane powerful Earthling murdered their second in command for TALKING, and the resulting war may cause the deaths of millions before Earth can finally fight them off. Not a great idea.
I feel like Dabbler’s smile is along the lines of “He absolutely deserves what is happening right now, but may not deserve what is about it happen in 5 seconds.”
So we wait to see if this is just their terms for wedding ring and married, or if the collar is more sinister *even just a little more like some of those weird fantasy anime that have slave collars that have spells on them to invoke loyalty and…actually no that slave-girl fantasy in anime even played off for laughs or whatever is still messed up. Even when they play it as the character wants it, its part of their culture, we still see plenty of evidence in these shows like How not to Summon a Demon Lord, that there is a much darker side to it.
its like the love potion thing, because its magic and they are a magic people its shrugged off; but think about it for a few seconds and there is no way this wouldn’t get abused in some seriously messed up ways.
I think Tommy has worn out his welcome. Max needs to do the “Hulk with puny god” trick and then ask Sydney to take out the trash and drop him a few light years away. He isn’t bright enough to figure out where he fits on the food chain.
Well, I sure didn’t expect to see Max with a filthy mouth.
She must really be pissed off!
Oooh, Dabbler gets the center square on her ‘Make Maxima Say’ Bingo card!
… honestly, I enjoying this page just for the fact more people should think twice before blurting shit out without thinking. In the words of a great philosophers, don’t start none there wont be none.
Indeed.
As Socrates put it, “I know nothing, until I fuck around & find out.”
“don’t start none there wont be none.”
You’re quoting Will Smith from Men in Black, arent you? :)
Granted, Tom was digging his own grave when he showed up trying to sell Max & Co. on subjugation by T. & his buddies, but . . .
Granted, I’m enjoying the heck out of today’s storyline & panels, but . . .
Isn’t “someone” supposed to be in charge of Sydney’s mouth in Public Relations situations? Oh, I actually get a kick out of how her pointed randomness in picking her terms is scrolling T.’s nerd, but he wouldn’t be putting his slave whip in his mouth if it weren’t for Sydney’s goading. Someone should have pinged Arianna as soon as new players entered our sphere, just to keep Sydney from starting another war with her reckless (but fun and pointed) wit.
But it’s all OK, because our illustrious Author’s done a right fine job of setting Tom up for the fall. Tom seems a bit of a cross between a spoiled kid and a Caesar wannabe. It’s obvious, from T’s reaction to Sydney’s words, that he’s used to getting his way through “might=right” and through his size. But he’s quickly proving he’s not as mentally developed as he appears to be physically developed.
I’d say “poor guy” except for the fact that he’d peddling badness. “Poor guy” because Max seems to have plenty of what it takes to physically cast him out in shame, while Sydney’s proving that words can hurt worse than blows.
Now if Max weren’t there, Sydney might be spending a long time holding onto her shield orb while T. tries to put some hurt on her.
And if Sydney weren’t there, it would be a lot shorter story arc; Max would get rid of Tom, dust her hands off, and haul Kevin up by his ear and say “Now let’s get back to work.”
Also: nice save on relating slave collars to lettermen’s jackets or class rings. But on the other hand, I think all readers have strong negative feelings about slavery as a real thing instead of as a temporary fun role playing pastime where nobody gets hurt, and everyone walks away content and remains fully free.
MORE SYDNEY! Love her!
Sorry Tom… but you’ve been superseded… She may have worn your collar once, but if you’d open your eyes she’s not wearing that collar now, is she? She’s been Collared by Max… for Arc-Swat. Not against her will either….
Actually, Dabbles is still wearing her collar, everyone else is wearing a collar based on hers, so, does that ‘slave’ state extend to all of Archon? They are under his domain?
I’m not doubting you about this, but how do we know that it’s her collar and everyone else’s is modeled on it?
I don’t know for sure why G thinks Archon’s chokers are based on Dabbler’s … but Dabbler HAS worn a choker even before she was part of ARCHON.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-756-human-plus/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-698-the-digital-closet/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-692-common-ground/
So Dabbler’s choker DOES obviously pre-date ARCHON, and Dabbler likely had a part in creating the chokers for ARCHON, since she works with Digit frequently. So maybe that’s why G is saying that?
Damn, DaveB! Your art is not only entertaining, not only rich & well thought out, but it’s SOPHISTICATED in your use of shadow & light sources being well-explained AND subtle.
Thank you tons for Grrl Power!
Max sure seems to have issues with respecting other species heritage, but I bet she totally expects others to respect other human heritage. :p
He could be talking about her being a sex slave, as in a submissive partner in a consensual relationship. This is Dabbler we’re talking about here, after all. It would be equally understandable that Max wouldn’t leap to that conclusion. As for the heritage of other species, that doesn’t get to supersede that laws of the land.
That was my thought at first and really, likely should’ve been Max’s seeing as how Dabbler does nothing but talk about sex.
That’s my thought as well. Sex slave sort of thing like a dominatrix and slave relationship. Voluntarily entered into.
Given this is Dabbler we’re talking about. Maxima is being a bit stupid in that this possibility didn’t even click in her mind (but I’ve mentioned before that I think Maxima’s superpowers do not seem to include high levels of intelligence or deep thought – she tends to be a punch things, then punch things harder sort of deal once she gets it in her mind to fight).
Or it might be a serfdom/lord deal, since Demons seem to be more of a feudal system among their own, what with being called stuff like Archlord and Lord and Duke and stuff like that.
She is LEO in the United States where slavery is a crime.
Now voluntary bondage using the word “slave” is not an issue, but Max is (or should be) aware that there are places where slavery still exists, and it is her duty as well as her pleasure to stomp it out when it comes onto her territory – which this location is. Notice that she is still using non-lethal force.
Tom might want to file a complaint with Archon’s Office of Professional Responsibility if he feels she should be tagged with an Excessive Force complaint. If it gets the traditional treatment, well we’ll see. He’s not suffering an injury (that we can tell) so perhaps the issue would be whether she is inflicting excessive pain in restraining him. It would be interesting to see how that is calculated given the forces involved.
Slavery is not a crime in the United States, prison slavery currently exists and is used by the United States as a form of punishment. Certain “types” of slavery are unconstitutional.
Max is not a LEO at the moment, she is a diplomatic officer by her own choice (which violates a bunch of military code, I’m sure) who is engaging in an act of aggression against a/the leader of a foreign nation. Because of her own pettiness regarding the use of a term that clearly has different context for demonkin as it does for humans. That if she was one brain cell smarter than she currently is, would know that in regards to Dabbler, demon terminology and behavior are clearly different that human terminology and behavior.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
— U.S. Constitution (as amended).
Prison labor – while definitely subject to criticism on moral and practical grounds, is not slavery in U.S Law, for the same reason that a (lawful) arrest is not kidnapping and impounding an improperly parked car is not theft.
Now you *can* re-define slavery to include punishment under law. Certainly there may be a moral argument for doing so, and amending our Constitution is in theory possible. However, Max (presumably) swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, including the 13th Amendment Section 1.
Also, Max does not cease to be LEO by virtue of negotiating. The nature of Archon appears to be inherently ambiguous; obviously it is tasked with performing LEO operations within the United States – such as fighting crime – that military are not allowed, and in the course of which its operatives frequently interact with foreign nationals. Tom has given no evidence of having diplomatic immunity.
Anyway, good cops negotiate where possible.
As I said – Tom is free to file a complaint with Archon’s Office of Professional Responsibility. No doubt they will give it the usual careful consideration we see in OPRs across our country ;-)
> except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted
So, slavery *is* legal in the USA under certain conditions.
Read your own damned quotes!
It’s okay rewinn. I can talk to Illy in her language. I’m getting good at translating into Illy-ese.
Ahem…
Illy:
Please show the court case where SCOTUS or any court defined that exception as relating to slavery, instead of involuntary servitude.
[Citation needed.]
No, you can’t? So you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about?
Cool beans.
Involuntary servitude is a form of slavery.
Nope. They are distinctly different things.
Slavery is a type of involuntary servitude.
But Involuntary servitude is not a type of slavery.
There’s a distinct difference, at least in US and British law – that being people in involuntary servitude who are NOT slaves have codified legal rights.
Sort of like how ‘all cars have four wheels, but not everything that has four wheels is a car.’
—
Translation to Illy-ese:
You havent shown the court case where SCOTUS or any court ever defined that involuntary servitude and slavery were the same thing.
[Citation needed]
You still haven’t. You’re wrong. Cool beans.
You’re doing your “I’m going to treat this like a cout instead of a discussion” thing again Pander.
No, I’m just giving you common definitions and showing you how you are wrong.
If it was a court, I could ask the court to take judicial notice of those definitions. That means when a court declares a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation of evidence. Then there would be a judge to tell you you’re wrong and to move on, and i wouldn’t have to see such long threads.
Cool beans.
His face and horn are cracking, that probably counts as suffering an injury. That said this was clearly intended to be a hostile military action at the beginning and at best this is an informal ceasefire (I don’t know the legal side of such things) but Tom has not issued surrender and arc have rejected his demands for Earth to surrender and be annexed so this is one of a) a policing action against a non national who is addressing an offer in a manner deemed disrespectful or b) a military standoff by a foreign power on US soil.
“at best this is an informal ceasefire”
For there to be a ceasefire, informal or not, there would have had to have been hostilities in the first place.
So far, the ONLY hostilities initiated have been from Maxima. Literally no hostilities have actually happened from Tom.
“a non national who is addressing an offer in a manner deemed disrespectful”
Being disrespectful does not merit crushing one’s skull with your hand.
“a military standoff by a foreign power on US soil.”
There is no military standoff, since he announced his reason for being here as the first thing he said. He was here because he has dealings with Xuriel (Dabbler).
About the same reaction as a white guy dropping the n bomb after seeing how freely it is used by all his friends. yay hypocrisy
“Well why can’t I say it,” is a really shite argument, my guy, and kind of telling about you, yourself.
Again, if they are using it as a fucking greeting, why they fuck are they getting pissed that someone else is also using it as a greeting?
Because words carry a lot of meaning that’s hard to fit in a dictionary entry, particularly when that meaning is specific to a particular relationship or context.
It is common for people to have private languages, words that mean something special between them that they do not mean universally. It is also common for people in a trusting relationship to speak more informally, and sometimes even vulgarly, with each other than they would with other people. Attempting to use another person’s private language without having the requisite relationship feels like an invasion, a violation of a private space.
Between two people in a marginalized group, calling each other by some offensive term may be a recognition that they have that burden in common — that in the eyes of their outgroup, they are lesser beings. It’s a recognition of peer status. That other people would mean it as an offense, and so they should stick together. If someone outside their group uses it, it’s either an attempt at putting them down, or a claim to be a member of their peer group. It’s irritating, to put it mildly, when someone who doesn’t understand your experiences claims to be a member of your group, or to be able to speak for you.
I’ve actively asked people of colour that use the ‘n’ word if they realize it’s a pejorative no matter who’s saying it.
they most often will either move the conversation out of my hearing range, or will choose to attempt using it less.
in one case only, the person asked ‘what’s that mean’?
“… it’s a pejorative no matter who’s saying it.”
This is not true.
There is a LOT more to the meaning of a word than its dictionary definition: tone, time, place, manner, and the nature of the speaker, for example. A dog breeder saying “Son of a Bitch” in reference to a puppy means something different from you or me saying it in reference to hammer dropped on a toe.
In the particular case of the N-Word: a member of a group may use a word about their group freely. It’s not an insult when they use it about themselves. When others use it, it’s a pejorative.
You may not like these rules of language and of manners, but that’s just the way it is. We crackers and honkeys just have to live with it.
Maybe Dabbler knew this was coming. Tom’s the head of an invasion force and appears to be laying a property claim against a US citizen (Dabbler has dual citizenship, from what I recall). I feel that Dabbler’s end-game is the annulment of her contract with Tom. Maybe she can’t break it, but he can, and that’ll be the price to Max doesn’t end him.
If she can’t break it and he can, then that’s definitely proper slavery, not just the BDSM stuff everyone in the comments seems to be assuming.
Even if she isnt breaking it because she agreed to NOT break it?
Think of it like a contract, since that’s been mentioned before (when he was mentioning a pact). If you break a contract, there are usually penalties involved. The more important the contract, the more severe the penalties. There’s a limit obviously, because too severe a penalty could be ‘unconscionable’ which would result in a voidable contract, but the penalties can still be worse than just staying in the voluntarily entered-into contract.
Or think of it like a marriage, which is itself a contractual agreement. If you want to break the contract (ie, get divorced), for most of human history there’s been some sort of penalty as a result even when you’re allowed to get divorced. Admittedly nowadays, it’s mainly a penalty for the husband instead of the wife, but it happens in reverse as well occasionally. Alimony, for example. Or splitting any and all marital property, including anything from before the marriage that increased DURING the marriage, etc.
The fact that a man who gets divorced from his partner probably has to deal with a financial hit that could go on for the rest of his life (or until his partner gets remarried) doesn’t mean marriage was enslaving him. Maybe Dabbler and Tom are in a demonic equivalent of a marriage contract, even if it’s an open marriage (given that I suspect monogamy is not big in demon society) which probably DOES involve quite a bit of BDSM.
To Chris:
Threats of death in order to end a contract of another doesnt seem like it would be legal. But who knows in demon law.
You never give up your right to withdraw consent.
Once your consent is no longer required, the whole thing has crossed into the realm of chattel, and I refer you to my default position of “remove the bugger head, and send it home with all the gd go bang.”
“You never give up your right to withdraw consent.”
In sex? Correct. You can withdraw engaging in sex at any time. Also, you can’t have a contract about sex. That would be an illegal contract, and illegal contracts are unenforceable. No idea about how that works with demons and succubi and fiends, but I’m going to use US law anyway, in order to steelman your argument.
In a LEGAL contract? No – you can’t break a contract without incurring a penalty. That’s the whole point of a contract. And often, the penalty will be equal to or greater than it would be to fulfill the contract in order to make a disincentive against contract breach. In order to put the person who did NOT breach the contract in a state equal to or better than they would have been, had there not been a breach of contract (adequate compensation).
That contract is already ended.
Once she’s had one hoof on American Soil – EVER – our law says all claims of ownership against a person are null and void. Legally speaking, US law does not just make slavery inapplicable WHILE someone is on our soil, it annuls and revokes the claim period no matter where they go afterward.
So it’s been held anyway – but *enforcing* the (absence of) claim outside the borders of the US has always been subject to the jurisdiction of the nation of their current residence. However, right now there is no jurisdiction problem. Dabbler is not a slave according to our laws and we have law enforcement on the scene.
“That contract is already ended.”
Incorrect… partially. It depends on what he means by slave in infernal relationships. Clearly there’s more context than what you’re assuming, or Dabbler wouldnt be telling Maxima to stop. If it’s the equivalent of a marriage then… no your marriage is not annulled by stepping foot on American soil. Contractual obligations are also not nullified by stepping foot on American soil.
“Once she’s had one hoof on American Soil – EVER – our law says all claims of ownership against a person are null and void.”
But not any contractual obligations. Wait to find out the context of the word slave being used here.
It’s always a good idea to look at the text of a law: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
I would DEFINITELY support the idea that once you set hoof in the United States, any ties of slavery are gone and vanished poof! because (involuntary) slavery is inherently bad. However, enforcing American law outside our jurisdiction is unlikely – the other jurisdiction would just laugh.
That’s why pre-civil war slaves in America who escaped to free territory were well advised to stay away from slave states (…and it was super courageous for Harriet Tubman et al. to go back to rescue others…I would not have the guts.)
> except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted
And if she fits that catagory?
Maxima made the demon super-horny thru accidental BDSM, and Dabbler is TOTALLY feeling it.
…as for succubi accepting collars, they’re a kink item. It’s just that demons may not understand that humans don’t get this at first sight around the word “slave”.
I’m pretty sure that if this is the case, Dabbles will be tell Max later, just to see her squick.
Maybe Max is simply taking the opportunity this revelation offers. Simply enslave the big scary monster threatening to invade the Earth, and problem solved. If they didn’t have slavery, then she’d have to go the diplomacy route, and who knows how long that would drag out. With slavery allowed, you just have to beat the top guy.
Deus would approve.
Also, since Dabbler is Tom’s slave, then if Tom is Max’s slave, Dabbler will have to do everything Max tells her to. Mwah-hah-hah-ha.
Dabbler clearly doesn’t do everything Tom tells her to, I don’t see why Max would be any different.
Hmm I suppose tom picked bad luck make the slave comment on earth where slavers along with pirates and torturers are considered Hostis humani generis by earth’s international law and did in front of someone of him capable of being a threat.
I don’t know. Despite some bad guy talk, Tom’s actually been talking in a rather civilized manner most of the time. The only one who’s done anything violent at all has been Maxima.
It does make it harder to see her as likeable when she’s attacking people who have only used words. Not even words directed at her – directed at someone who doesnt seem to mind the word being used.
On the other hand, Maxima could be doing the ‘be as scary as possible to make sure anyone in the future approaches with caution.’ But so far it looks more like she’s acting out of anger, not out of strategic thought. Which could blow up in her face in the future.
> I don’t know. Despite some bad guy talk, Tom’s actually been talking in a rather civilized manner most of the time. The only one who’s done anything violent at all has been Maxima.
I don’t disagree with your point overall, but I note that virtually Tom’s first words to Max were a direct threat against her life followed by a poke with a claw that was massive and sharp enough to have very probably caused significant harm or death to any non-super, or even many weaker supers, if Tom even slightly misjudged his strength.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-984-dont-tug-on-etc-etc/
“but I note that virtually Tom’s first words to Max were a direct threat against her life”
Technically he said it as a response to Maxima making similarly veiled threats to him. So again, Maxima actually ‘started’ the aggression.
And even if we are to take that as true, that he started by making the threat, after the bodyslam he was no longer making any threats, and in fact had DIRECTLY said there was not going to be any invasion, nor any subjugation. Multiple times. Maxima is not using physical violence because of any of that, and anyone who’s arguing she has an excuse because of that is being disingenuous.
Maxima is engaging in physical violence SOLELY because he called Dabbler ‘slave.’ She’s responding to words with physical force. It’s like if I called Illy or someone else I disagree with/have disagreed with in the past here a jerk, and in response, they find my house, come over, and shoot me in the face. Not exactly a reasonable response, when the proper response is to use words instead. WITHOUT violence like a psychotic rage-filled nutcase. :)
Even with the poke, which I doubt was meant to be anything more than a poke, not a stab, the threat had already passed.
If I poke someone, then they punch me in response, then I MIGHT have an assault lawsuit against them, but they could still argue that I technically initiated the fight with the poke as a form of non-harmful battery.
But if, a few minutes later, after there’s been no further aggression by me, the other person pulls out a gun and shoots me, then that’s ALL on them having done the criminal act, and NONE on me.
I’m actually going to disagree with you here by giving a specific example:
Punching Richard Spencer (and people like him) every time you cross paths is a good and right thing to do. Regardless of if he has done any phuysical violence to you recently. Seeking him out to punch him in the face is also a good and right thing to do.
If you don’t know who Richard Spencer is, go look him up.
Also, note I said “right” not “legal”.
“I’m actually going to disagree with you here by giving a specific example:”
That would be a delightful change of pace. Proceed. :)
“Punching Richard Spencer (and people like him) every time you cross paths is a good and right thing to do.”
Legally? No, it’s not at all the right thing to do. OBVIOUSLY. But like you said, you’re talking about ‘right’ not ‘legal.’ So your question is one of morality.
Morally? Maybe. I mean I’d genuinely WANT to say yes. I’d probably feel really good saying yes. He’s morally repugnant, and a genuinely evil man with a fake, plastered-on smile that he uses in public settings. Not to mention I’m the type of person who Richard Spencer hates and would want out of this country. But I’d still argue that punching him without legal cause is probably not the ‘right’ thing to do. If he’s not doing anything but saying words, not inciting violence to his followers, then I’d just be committing assault and battery. I’d be acting like a thug at that point. And worse, I’d making HIM look like a sympathetic victim, which is hardly what I should WANT third parties to view him as. In general, I’m better off fighting words with words – especially since his views are easy to refute with words if you take a few seconds to think of what to say. Neo-nazis are not generally known for their deep viewpoints. They are shallow and view things as skin deep. Literally.
“Regardless of if he has done any phuysical violence to you recently.”
No, that would make me the bad person, instead of him. And in any comparison with Richard Spencer, you should want it to be plainly apparent that he’s the bad person. And it should be easy, because his arguments do NOT hold up to verbal scrutiny. Making him look like the bad person that he is…. is not achieved with randomly attacking him without a legitimate reason.
I attack him, or people like him, physically when they just used words, then what I’m doing is encouraging him, and people like him, to either:
1) Not use words and just use physical violence FIRST. Because if both words AND violent action will get violent actions as a response, why bother using words?; or
2) Proclaim himself to be a victim, since I’d literally be making him the victim, which puts him on the moral high ground. Something I definitely should not want to give to a white nationalist, antisemite, and literal neo-nazi. I don’t want other people looking and seeing one side, his side, the side with morally repugnant views, being the peaceful side who uses words, and the other side, who is against his beliefs, being the violent and unhinged side. It weakens my arguments, and strengthens his.
“If you don’t know who Richard Spencer is, go look him up.”
I’m aware of who Richard Spencer is. He’s a white nationalist and white identarian, a neo-nazi, and a noted antisemitic conspiracy theorist. IE, he’s a very evil man.
It still doesn’t make it ‘right’ to attack without due cause. It makes you feel good in the short run, and empowers him in the long run. Why give him P.R. ammunition to use against you, or to rally more people to his side?
I’d rather speak out against him to make him look like the backwards-minded fool that he is. It shows we’re better than him if we don’t have to resort to fists. It also makes it look like we don’t have a good argument against his racist ideas if the first counter is to physically attack him.
Sort of like with Injustice Superman. The Joker won when he got Superman to kill him and then caused Superman to slide down into being an authoritarian dictator. One who meant to do the right thing but wound up being corrupt and evil.
> He’s a white nationalist and white identarian, a neo-nazi, and a noted antisemitic conspiracy theorist. IE, he’s a very evil man.
> It still doesn’t make it ‘right’ to attack without due cause.
The way you described him sounds like due cause to me.
If someone is talking about literally wanting you dead, and has followers who have very obviously used his words as inspiration for violence and murder before, does it matter that he’s “just talking”? Look up “Stochastic Terrorism” for how the leaders of this avoid legal culpability while very clearly causing deaths.
Regarding your thoughts on optics, that has been shown to not work. Repeatedly. If you’re as smart as you claim then I shouldn’t need to list examples.
The only thing that has been show to stop Nazis from killing people has been to aggressively oppose them at every turn.
They spout their evil ideas (your words): You stop them talking, any means at your disposal.
It’s a simple matter of self-defence. Unless you’re arguing that you don’t have the right to defend yourself from someone pointing a loaded gun at you, just because they haven’t pulled the trigger yet?
“The way you described him sounds like due cause to me.”
It’s not due cause though. It just means he’s someone I will argue against, because I want his ideas to be shown as trash to any third parties and, hopefully, some people who have been convinced by his words because not enough people argue against him without just resorting to violence.
Not someone I will physically assault.
“If someone is talking about literally wanting you dead, and has followers who have very obviously used his words as inspiration for violence and murder before, does it matter that he’s “just talking”?”
Because there is a difference between talking, inciting, and acting. The latter two create an imminent danger, the former does not.
“Look up “Stochastic Terrorism” for how the leaders of this avoid legal culpability while very clearly causing deaths.”
Again, there is a difference between talking about ideas that are morally bad and actively inciting imminent violence.
“Regarding your thoughts on optics, that has been shown to not work. Repeatedly. If you’re as smart as you claim then I shouldn’t need to list examples.”
For someone who always responds with ‘citation needed,’ you’re seeming to be hesitant to give any yourself. But I do appreciate that you’re implying that I am smart.
“The only thing that has been show to stop Nazis from killing people has been to aggressively oppose them at every turn.”
It’s more that it’s morally repugnant than people actually taking up arms against them, which hasnt happened really since World War 2. Since then, racism, antisemitism, etc, is more often kept in check by societal means. It’s a negative social norm that people TEND to avoid now. With exceptions of people like Richard Spencer or Louis Farrakhan. They are very much in the minority of ‘hearts and minds’ (if I want to sound cliche).
“They spout their evil ideas (your words): You stop them talking, any means at your disposal.”
No, not any means. Means which are less likely to create more violence in response. I’d rather have a neonazi spouting off hateful rhetoric than a neonazi engaging in physical violence, because I’m quite a bit more capable of fighting someone with words than I am with fists or guns.
Literally the same reasoning you’re using is ironically similar to the method used BY the actual nazis of 1940s Germany. Or Maoist China. Or the Taliban. It’s not a GOOD thing, and it tends to just lead to more violence.
“It’s a simple matter of self-defence.”
I mentioned this before elsewhere, but one of the three main elements of self-defense is that self-defense requires proportional response. Using physical violence against words is NOT proportional response – it’s escalation.
“Unless you’re arguing that you don’t have the right to defend yourself from someone pointing a loaded gun at you, just because they haven’t pulled the trigger yet?”
Pointing a loaded gun is not remotely analogous to using words. One is an imminent threat, the other is not. You obviously have a right to defend yourself if someone points a loaded gun at you. OR if there is a substantial and reasonable risk that they WILL imminently. Which is why I wasn’t strenuously arguing against the body slam (because there is a technically valid argument in favor of what Maxima did there), but I am against the skull crushing (where the arguments are invalid).
Spencer is inciting with everything he says.
He literally was part of the crowd who incited the coup attampt on the USA.
Waiting until the violence is “imminant” is just going to let them win.
“Spencer is inciting with everything he says.”
That isn’t accurate. To incite means he has to actually be saying something that is inciting others. Incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime.
“He literally was part of the crowd who incited the coup attampt on the USA.”
Well then he can be arrested, through due legal process can’t he? And by duly recognized authorities who are supposed to be bound by certain rules that we, as a society, have agreed upon. I’m pretty sure no one put you in charge of criminal punishment. That doesn’t just protect him. It protects you in case a majority of people ever decide that what you said merits you being hit as well.
Btw, a trial is attacking his words with other words. That’s the right thing to do. Posse justice is not ‘right.’
My point, as always, is that it’s not moral to just punch people because you don’t like their words.
The same reasoning you’re giving is the reasoning given by people to lynch black people for being ‘uppity’ or being accused of crimes without bothering to prove it.
‘Waiting until the violence is “imminant” is just going to let them win.”
Becoming a violent authoritarian is what lets them win, because you’re making yourself look like the bad guy and them look like the besieged victim.
If anything, punching them for words just encourages them to not use words – to just go immediately to violence, since both words and violence will result in violence back. The reasoning of people who think like Richard Spencer would be ‘Might as well get the first hit in, in that case.’
So you’re saying to keep doing the thing that has consistantly and constantly failed to stop the modern Nazis instead of things that have stopped them?
And you wonder why I was sus of you refusing to acknowledge that “The Happy Merchant” is an antisemetic dogwhistle.
“So you’re saying to keep doing the thing that has consistantly and constantly failed to stop the modern Nazis instead of things that have stopped them?”
First, it’s naive that you think that actually stops them. Not to mention, historically incorrect. The idea that you think ‘violence in response to words’ leads to peace just shows that you are NOT a safe individual to be around. If anything you seem unhinged and more like an authoritarian nazi than someone who believes in liberty, or you just talk a big game because this is anonymous talk and you don’t think anyone will confront you in real life about it. And you really better hope that you’re always the one on the side in power. Because as soon as you aren’t, and someone else decides that your words are worthy of violence…. well you don’t strike me as someone who keeps their mouth shut.
If anything, just punching people who say things you hate, when they are not engaging in violence, just grows their numbers. At best, it drives them underground. At worst, it means they will just go directly to violence since, if both words and violence get violence in return, then why bother with words?
“And you wonder why I was sus of you refusing to acknowledge that “The Happy Merchant” is an antisemetic dogwhistle.”
I’m sus that you want to spur on a race war. Or that you just want to murder anyone who says anything you don’t like. You’ll start with easy and obvious targets, like people that have disgusting opinions that society agrees is evil, like racism or antisemitism (although I suspect you would not want to also punch Louis Farrakhan or Illhan Omar). Then you’ll move on to others who have less evil opinions, but different than yours. And so on.
It’s a lot like the ‘They Came for the Jews’ quotation by Pastor Martin Niemoller. Except you’re the nazi. Because you sure as heck have the behavior of one.
Also, I’ll state again, I think you’re a disgusting individual who makes disgusting allegations. Heck, I never even HEARD of ‘The Happy Merchant.’ I still don’t even know what that is, and it was part of you making a tangent of a tangent of a tangent because you’re incapable of having a normal back and forth argument. Because you want to just fight instead. Between the two of us, you seem to be the only one who knows what ‘The Happy Merchant’ is. That seems sus to me that you’re so familiar with it.
Fortunately, I believe that words take precedence over physical violence. I am, by nature, rather pacifistic, but I’ve probably helped put away a lot more people who are ‘evil’ than you in the one year I worked in a DA’s office. With words.
Now I’m pretty sure you’re just going to start making more accusations. Go ahead. Your opinions are meaningless to me. I’d prefer that you say them so everyone can see how unhinged and warped your opinions are. Better than you using violence, which someone like you probably has done before.
If they’re truly a threat, then the appropriate response is to eliminate them. Punching them on sight just makes it a power struggle, rather than a moral struggle. Either convince them, or their prospective audience, of a better philosophy, or eliminate them so that they can’t spread their evil. Intimidation may make people behave, but it won’t make them better people, and the moment you lose dominance, their evil resurges manyfold.
I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to say that here.
But yes, the way you stopped chattel slavery in the south, and the way the Nazis were stopped in WW2 were the only way that’s been shown to stop them.
It never occurred to me to question whether I was “allowed” to speak truth.
People disagreeing with truth doesn’t make it no longer true. People imposing consequences for speaking the truth can’t change the truth either. The truth will outlive them all.
Unfortunately, Sometimes website ToS mean that stating certain truths clearly and explicitly will get you banned.
I don’t actually have a problem with that, as it stops more harm than good. But sometimes it does get in the way of clear discourse.
Depends on who is making the rules on what is banned and what is not.