Yeeeeeeeeeaa-no. This asshat is never going to help her.

THANK YOU, AL. Criminy.

I think Max hates his life. It’s why he was living downtown in that firetrap apartment. It’s why he doesn’t care about the gardeners not being able to spend time with their families – he doesn’t understand why anyone would want to spend time with their families. That ‘freakshow’ crack wasn’t his words. They were his mother’s.

His problem with his power isn’t about his feeling special, it’s about him wanting to escape his shitty life. He was jumping out windows to try to activate his biodynamism before he even knew he was bio. In his 14 year old mind, his only way out was to be biodynamic so he could fly away from it all.

…and then when he turns he does carry the gene, his power is to be someone else’s +1.

The fact that he is surrounded by the trappings of a good life doesn’t make his internal pain any less valid, and Alison reminding him of his ‘opportunities’ is not exactly salve for his wounded soul.

You have an unstated premise here that is far from universally accepted.

That is, that selfishness like Max’s can be divorced from narcissistic entitlement. That you are not, in effect, complaining that they wrote an internally consistent character rather than an animated, entirely unbelievable Why You’re Wrong lesson for Alison.

The crowd must be appeased. The sick burns must be dispensed, and how that reframes the argument be damned.

Also because Patrick actually has a good goal in mind, so we can see different people fighting for the same thing in vastly different ways and sympathize with both, whereas here we see different people with different goals neither of whom really gives a fuck about the other one’s goals because they believe theirs take precedence (“it’s my power! It’s my life!”, “you have to! The world matters more!”).

I would read a comic just about Patrick during the backstory years. I wanna see Menace. Because this: http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-3/page-45-2/

And this: http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-3/page-16-2/

JUSTICE, MERCY, DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

Power is Power. In some sense, Max’s financial power is more adaptable and applicable than Alison’s physical power. I’m not sure Max’s power is as weak as you believe it to be, just less obvious.

But yeah, that’s another parallel, isn’t it?

I’m outraged. Outraged and unsympathetic and yes, even unkind.
But that doesn’t change what would heal the world, and it doesn’t change the fact that you can be a part of it. That you would be the linchpin in it’s creation.
That you would matter more to the world than you ever have mattered at any point in your life of regret. What you have not worthless, and how dare you even think that you are worthless because of it?!
I wish you could see this, but I can’t make you see, I can only beg for you to open your eyes. Please find a way.
Please.
Please stop dedicating your life to keeping your blindfold on straight. If I had what you had, I would be able to do so much with that sight you deny yourself.
I’m just so outraged that you think so little of the greatness you would have if only you would try.

It would take a device worthy of a James Bond villain to get her that rhinoplasty anyway.

I suspect that its more of a heat-of-the-moment as well as the general sense of security of being in a safe place that allows Max to not think about the level of threat he’s dealing with here.
/s after all most people do think before they talk… right? /s

In her defense, she was probably in a state of emotional shock at that point, having just been flamethrowered and a few feet away from three doctors who the guy murdered right in front of her in one of the most horrific ways possible, plus hurting Feral, plus Alison was still trying to deal with the fact that Feral, one of her best friends, was willingly going to subject herself to essentially eternal painful torture in order to just help other people.

Right now, she doesnt have any of those excuses.

Of course he thinks the “flying tank” powerset is the best one. Of course he does.

Then Alison would be a dictator and an immoral person, relying purely on ‘the ends justify the means’ even if the ends involve blackmail and forcing someone to do something against their will because ‘you know better than them.’ As if Max is less of a person than she is with less right to have free will.

I don’t think Alison will do that.

The details of “I make other people more powerful” haven’t been explained yet. It seems many of us are supposing an increase in effective force application, but it could be greater fine control, expansions of the power set into related areas, or even entirely new abilities.

Neither have we yet heard the cost of those boosted powers, either physical, emotional, psychological, or spiritual.

What we want and why we want it is pretty strongly influenced by our past (I am Obvious Burro!). It’s interesting to me that so many of us (and I include myself) want to have a way to reason that either Alison is “more right” or Max is “more right” when maybe the issue is both of them are a bit “too wrong”.

Nice post!

I am in total agreement with those who say he needs to grow up. He does.
But, having had loving and effective parents, growing up isn’t done in a vacuum – it happens in interaction with the good people around you and by gaining perspective and judgement from them or because of them.

Used to work retail in a RPG/gaming store, years ago. I spent a lot of time listening to teens complain about how unfair their parents are. I had a lot of fun hearing them out and then playing devil’s advocate. One young man came back after his first year at college and thanked me for teaching him how to see the other side’s argument, even if you might disagree with it.

I consider that one of the nicest compliments anyone has ever paid me. 😀

To me it’s pretty clear Max has been isolated and lonely. I strongly suspect his parents (and more likely, mostly his mother) is the cause. His inability to clearly express himself, his need for affirmation via being agreed with and admired, his focus on external trappings and shallow perspective – it all can fall out of that. And I admit it, I’m kind of a soft touch for the outsider.

I feel sorry for Max, but i don’t like him. Pretty sure I wouldn’t want to hang out with him. I feel sorry for Daniel, and I kind of like him, but I’m pretty sure that I shouldn’t hang out with him – he’s kind of a trouble magnet. But if either of them said, “I need to change. I want to change. Can you help?”, I would try to be as much like Alison at her best as I could. Given my track record, not really my strong suit, but I’d try. 🙂

Last paragraph? Amen – It may be corny, but I like Captain America and Superman when they’re upholding the best of values even when it costs them. I stand proudly a sap!

::plants his hooves firmly, turns his ears forward, looks into the sunset, and lets his tail fan out in the breeze::

One of the reasons I love this forum is so many different thoughts come to the table and are so very often well expressed – and, I feel, that makes me better, little by little, and hopefully everyone else is of that same mind.

I am only as good as I allow others to help me be.

And thank you for the flowery prose praise.. Prosaise?

::sniffs the flowers and thoughtfully takes a bite::

“I knew an elf ” Details?

I’d love to see positive, sympathetic representations of people with inherited wealth.

So many stories, even popular targeted towards children, include a fairly un-nuanced “rich villain,” I assume because people who aren’t the most materially wealthy in their group want to feel better about themselves, and it’s a cheap way to appeal to that demographic. As someone who was born into some wealth, well, it made me sad to see those characters over and over. It probably made it harder for me to have a good attitude and understanding about my situation. Because, well, I didn’t want to be a bad person. It made it seem like having wealth is an inherently evil thing. Creating and maintaining a life of material security is a virtuous thing. It may not make someone more virtuous than anyone else, but in itself it’s a trait everyone can benefit from having.

I don’t think Max is just one of these “born rich villain” characters, there’s a lot more to his characterization than that, and I find it pretty interesting were this arc is going. But he reminds me of the trope. In SFP we have several characters who are at least somewhat sympathetic who have great personal wealth, but were not born into it: Lisa (Paladin), Patrick, presumably all the former members of The Guardians (the superhero group Alison was formerly part of as Mega Girl.) Maybe I’m missing some, but I think so far Max is the only character with significant inherited wealth.

So, I’d love to see a wealth-positive story about a born-rich person portrayed sympathetically and positively. Let them have genuine feelings and experiences and thoughts and information people in that situation would have. Let them deal with all that. Let them experience their situation through their own eyes, and let them not dismiss their own experience of it. Let the character be a role-model, perhaps, but don’t make them into one shaped by the most shallow wishes of people poorer than they are. Let them be a role-model for themselves and their own interests, like everyone else. And to be clear, I mean to include a person’s genuine, non-coerced desires to participate meaningfully and positively in lives others as part of “their own interest.”

I guess there’s an off-chance the SFP authors see this and find it interesting enough to address in the background or more prominently, but I more just wanted to throw the idea out there in general. I don’t think it’s the central focus of the current content, but it seems related enough that a comment about it is relevant, especially considering all the negative comments about Max that mention his wealth.

Here’s to hoping “rich” and “jerk” will one day be unrelated concepts in our culture.

(And as always, thank you to the authors for a thought-provoking comic.)

“Thomas Jefferson himself said people who trade freedom for security, ignore either.”

Not to be too nitpicky, but Jefferson didn’t say that. Benjamin Franklin said that. Also, technically the quote is this:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

It’s been butchered a bit in modern times. Actually people started misquoting it as early as 5 years after he wrote it in his Reply to the Governor letter in 1755.

“Would it though? I mean, is it really that simple? Is forcing someone to do something necessarily ethically wrong?”

Aside from the fact that, yes, I believe that forcing someone to do something is ethically wrong, because you’re treating another person as less than a person (and I hope you can see how that can be applied to other evils in history, like the Holocaust or slavery), there’s also that ALISON most likely believes that forcing others to do something is wrong, based on everything she’s said in the comic, especially after incidents like Moonshadow, and based on how her parents seem to have raised her.

“The government makes people do things all the time. (For example, you are required to pay your taxes and not doing so is punishable by force.) ”

And that’s actually one of the main reasons that Libertarians want a small government with limited power. Enough power to prevent anarchy and protect its citizens, but not so much that it can run ramshod over individual liberty. Taxes tend to be a way for government to do the latter. Government is one of the few things which can use LEGAL force on individuals, and individuals are who give the government the right to do that…. so when you give the government such a massive power, you want to make sure its going to use it responsibly by placing a lot of limitations on that power to use force. You’ve pretty much described the main reason for why abolishing the IRS in favor of something like a fair tax or a flat tax is a big theme for some libertarians.

“Parents make children do things. ”
Children lack the mental and emotional capacity often to understand the consequences of their actions, and parents are responsible for their actions, so they can tell the children to do things. But even then, there are limits. Go too far, and there are child endangerment laws (among other laws). You can tell a child to go to bed at a certain time. You can tell a child to eat his or her broccoli. You can’t tell a child to jump off a bridge or to beat someone else up.

“Teachers and employers coerce people into doing things (albeit not with the threat of physical force, but with powerful threats all the same)”
Employers don’t force people to do anything. They are engaged in a contract. Services in exchange for currency. If the employee does not want to do the work, they don’t get the money. Why should the employee be entitled to money if they don’t do the work? You’d be then coercing the employer to give money for nothing. In essence, you’d be condoning theft. Teachers likewise arent ‘forcing’ anything. There’s an agreement. They teach a lesson. The student learns the lesson. If the student wants to disobey the teacher and be a disruptive influence in class, he or she can be removed from the school, or they can drop out and have no prospects for employment and grow up ignorant and stupid. Or, less drastically, they can be homeschooled and learn but would need to have their parents still be an authority figure.

“I know Max is a big ol’ libertarian who believes nobody should ever be able to force him to do anything, but I’m not. And I don’t think Alison is. And I don’t think any of us should be.”

While Alison is OBVIOUSLY not a libertarian, and probably is more into a more utopian-ized version of socialism, I don’t think she’s a socialist at all – she doesn’t want to be a dictator. She knows how easy it would be to do exactly what you’re describing for her, and she hasnt done it. On some very deep and instinctual level, she knows it’s wrong.

“He has resources and those resources should be used to help people. If they aren’t, then why should he be allowed to keep them?”

(before I write this, this is not directed at you specifically or personally)

Ahem…

You have more money than I have, and you’re not using it in a way that I think you should be. Give me your money and I’ll use it in a better way, because I know better than you.

That’s basically another way of saying what you just wrote.

Except who exactly are you (not you in particular btw, I’m saying ‘you’ in a general sense) to judge that how I’m using my (again, not me in particular, but ‘me’ in a general sense) money is superior to you? Why should I do what you want, just because you have a different belief of what is a good use of money which you yourself have not earned? It’s basically diminishing another person’s identity as a PERSON. And we used to have that in this country. It was called slavery. It’s the same thing. The plantation owner feels the slaves are less than people, and besides, “they ain’t gonna know what to do with freedom anyway, so they does what I tells them to do”

Not to invoke Godwin’s law or anything … but the Nazis had a similar view of the jews, who had a rather large amount of successful businesses in Germany. They seized the jewish businesses and wealth, because they, the government, felt it knew what to do with the money better – and besides, so the German government said, ‘they’re Jews, they’re not human, and they are less worth living or possessing anything than the Aryan people.’

“(I understand that at this point I’m basically arguing against private property. But really, is there a strong ethical basis for private property?)”

Actually yes, there is. Especially in the United States. Jamestown originally was run essentially as a predecessor to the socialist commune idea. The colonists set up a common storehouse of grain from which people were supposed to take what they needed and put back what they could. Lands were also held in common and were worked in common. The settlers owned no land of their own.

The whole thing was a disaster and fell apart, and within two years most of the colonists were dying of starvation and the ones that didn’t starve were ravaged by malaria. In the end only 38 colonists were alive after 2 years, from an initial 144 colonists. Most of them were eating rats to survive, despite being on VERY farmable and soil and game-rich land.

The problem was twofold. First, they were told that if they did not generate any wealth for the crown, the crown’s financial support of the colony would end (this was a system common at the time called mercantilism, which was the one of the main reasons nations even had colonies in the first place). Second, and more importantly, they discovered that when everyone is entitled to everything, no one’s responsible for anything. A colonist who started working early or worked later than the others received the same food as a colonist who worked less, or even didn’t work at all. Plus they felt they could still generate wealth for the crown by looking for gold instead (a futile effort actually – they should have just been farming and hunting instead).

Then James Smith scrapped the commune government model and instituted a new one. Each colonist was given a parcel of land – essentially, the beginning of private property in the European colonies in the Americas. If you didn’t work, you didn’t eat and your family didn’t eat. Work or starve, in effect. Everyone started working their land because they had a responsibility to the success of their private property. Within a few years, they were not only feeding themselves, they had surpluses so that they could send back wealth to the Crown.

Heck, the entire American Revolution was essentially because British Mercantilism was unduly burdensome on the rights of individuals’ private property, with taxes like the Stamp Act and the Tea Act.

So yeah, there’s a strong ethical basis for private property, and an even stronger logical basis for it, strange as it may seem to some.

TL;DR – what Loranna says below, but a whole lot less verbose than my wordy butt.

That’s definitely one way to look at it (from a principle standpoint), but from a results standpoint, I think you’d have lost.

I think it’s a weird thing Americans have developed:P