This comic, especially with the last line, is perfect for this day. Deception and misunderstanding, war where it is not needed and information warfare, that is something we must remember as well.

Thank you Moonshadow. You seem to actually have a good grasp of politics and public perception, but unfortunately you raised the stakes too high, and couldn’t deal with a Alison’s intervention.

Also, the “Autostraddle” logo is covering that last line of text, which is annoying because it’s the most powerful and relevant line of the comic.

“Pigs watching from home.”

Makes me wonder if that camera on her head has been streaming everything.

Probably not–I think law enforcement would have shown up by now if anybody was seeing this.

In quite a few of the cases, the police had already investigated. Heck, in the first case, it had already gone to trial.

“If she were punishing these people some other way- ruining their reputations or credit scores or relationships, using deliberately nonlethal violence like kneecapping- would we actually accept her more easily?”

Yes. I mean, that seems kind of obvious, doesn’t it? Death is pretty permanent, after all (and no, she’s not exactly infallible.)

This… is getting a little thick. Words are failing me in describing how irritated I am at Moonshadow right now.

I mean, boo-hoo Mary, because people will say you’re in the wrong? Dang straight they will. Sorry, but your logic is weak, and your actions are senseless. You’re complaining because she “made you stick your neck out for him.” You could have left as soon as you heard Alison come–it’s not like she and Furnace were supervillains who needed to be stopped NOW, or else.

And never mind that whole inconvenient “innocent until proven guilty” thing… if he’s speaking out, then he’s a suspect, and that makes him a candidate for kidnapping and interrogation, and if he’s innocent, hey, no foul, at least he’s still alive, right? Seriously, how hard is it to wrap your mind around the fact that superheroes are reactive, they go out and stop crimes, they don’t go out LOOKING FOR CRIMINALS TO KILL IN THEIR HOMES?

(And please stop talking as if you’re in the same category as soldiers or police. You know what THOSE guys do when someone drops their weapon and raises their hands (at least, what they’re supposed to do?) That’s right, they take them to JAIL for a TRIAL. They don’t go Judge Dredd, pass sentence and shoot them on the spot. And you know, it’s rare in your society that the punishment for rape is death in the first place–not saying it should or shouldn’t be, but who exactly made YOU the decider in what the punishment is for a crime for an entire society? If you similarly decide child abuse warrants the death penalty, do you expect us to just watch your videos and declare that you’ve improved things there, too?)

Alison needs to take this miserable, petulant child in to the authorities, and now. I thought Patrick had irritated me, but despite less monologuing, this is at least as bad, and made all the worse by the fact that it looks like Alison is actually buying it.

*hands Alison a Looney-Toons mug*

“Go on. You know you want to. What? Are you kidding me? The woman tried to slash your throat, and would have left you for dead–attempted to MURDER you in cold blood–but you’re NOT in a rage over it? You’re OK with it because she thinks she’s in the right? Because she just “needs help?” Because she was some “friend” you ignored, and you supposedly feel a legitimate emotional attachment? Really?”

*picks up mug, tosses cellphone in front of her*

“You owe someone an apology.”

I don’t see how the events of the story support that. If she wanted to make him give her a reason to kill him, she wouldn’t have yanked the vest off of him when he started to heat up. That was her excuse, right there, and she not only didn’t take it, she actively prevented it from happening.

Well, obviously Mary is evil if you assume the system works.

She’s clearly unbalanced, but she also clearly has a strong belief in due process (if she didn’t consider Furnace innocent until proven guilty she wouldn’t risk her own life to save him), she just doesn’t consider the legal system a functioning way to get fair judgement.

She’s clearly not insane, sorry. And if ideology disqualifies you, is anyone qualified to you?

This is correct. Fruit of the poisonous tree protects citizens from illegal acts by government agents acting in an official capacity. Evidence discovered by a normal citizen, or even an off duty cop in the wrong place at the wrong time, is admissible in court even if the evidence was discovered while the individual was violating someone else’s rights. There are a couple of legal precedents for this.

I’m honestly conflicted now. I want to say that she’s totally wrong, but that would make me a hypocrite. Her ethos wouldn’t be out of place for a Chaotic Good PC in a D&D game, or a shonen anime character, and I support both of them.

It’s only because this comic just seems more real to me that I don’t want to say she’s right. Well, also the fact that I question how she can be so sure that she only killed “the guilty”. I didn’t see her giving truth serum to the fratboys in the convenience store, the mercenaries in the barn or the judge.

Technically, all those superhero fights break the second criteria.

I think Alison said something similar. Superheroes are a good idea when there are supervillains around. It’s just that their brand of heroic violence does jack-sh!te against the more entrenched issues.

I don’t remember where I heard it, but I once heard something along the lines of this:

“The means matter because the ends will inevitably fade at some point.”

Many did, but many just dedicated their lives to their deity of choice.

I’m as concerned as anyone else about the way that religious institutions like the Catholic Church or even the Orthodox Rabbinate treat sexual offenders. I also dislike the self-righteous attitudes of some clergymen.

But I absolutely despise how people look at the good people who have dedicated their life to their religion and to helping their fellows and treat them the same as the xenophobes and the criminals.

Heck, I’m only borderline religious myself, but I just hate it.

If she was video-taping the rapists, she could just stop them in the act.

Even if they were illegal immigrants, the legal punishment for that is not the death penalty.

What about the mercs though?

If you can look at Furnace’s behavior up to that point, and then his statement, and immediately jump to “well there you go, he HAS to be a rapist too, arrest him!” then I think our perspectives on (1) Furnace, and (2) the certainty of that suspicion are far enough apart that we may as well be speaking to two separate readerships of the comic.

But we refer to gang wars, and civil wars, and wars against Drugs and Terror and other Nouns.
I’d say that a war is simply any occasion where two (or more) groups of people get together to kill each other.
If Country A sends troops into Country B, and Country B responds by sending more troops to the border to fight off the invaders, a war is started. Formal declarations are just formalities to help everyone else keep track of things.

Given, but not the point I was making. The OP was saying the war was different because of the people who show up – which is all fine and good if war happens in some remote location between professional soldiers, but mostly that’s not what happens, and there’s a huge amount of civilian involvement – often an awful lot more civilians and soliders, in modern wars. So my point isn’t that the rate is higher – it’s that it’s significant, and that it effects people who are not professional soldiers. (And also not professional soldiers on the other side, though I’ll admit that was a bit of a digression.)

We’re also assuming that ‘someone at a protest’ had accurate, unbiased information about the situation, or use a stricter definition of Murder than ‘killing I disapprove of’, which is idealistic at best. That Furnace was still referred to as a superhero in the media and not in superjail is an indication that the situation wasn’t black and white.

I asked why it was bad and you responded “the system is good something something it could be worse.” I wouldn’t consider that persuasive, for the reasons I outlined prior.

For me, a better system than now is one where people aren’t raping people. I don’t need to choose between a perfect world and this shitty one, I am 100% okay with harm reduction while waiting for the mystical far off land of Everything Is Awesome. I also don’t care why people do bad things like rape (versus, say, property or drug crime), as there is not a reason that will suddenly invoke my “I mean I guess that’s fine” instinct.

Which still sits right alongside every other crime so I fail to see what the problem is. Then again this conversation would be easier to have if anyone tracked the attrition rate of crimes other than rape, but there is not much reason to do that since the numbers have no value to anyone anyways.

Good point. I just used “enlightenment” and “monk” as general terms I’m using to describe people who gave up carnal pleasures to get closer to whatever ideal or god they hold dear.

She can be both.

She was probably going to interrogate him on whether he’s raped anyone in the past. Probably specifically ask about his ex-fiance.