SFP

sfp-6-97-for-web

 

   Hi guys, I wanted to thank you again for your generous donations and kind messages on Friday – you helped a series of charities in a concrete way and, personally, gave Brennan and I a lot of hope. I’m planning on doing this regularly for a variety of charitable causes (I’m thinking once every month I’ll pick a charity and offer commissions for $100), so if you missed a chance to get one, there will be more! Shoot me an email if you have a suggestion for a charity to feature.

   To the people telling us to calm down, that it’s not that big a deal – I deeply, sincerely hope you are right. However, at its core this is a comic about social justice, and paying attention when marginalized communities express fears and ask for help is a fundamental part of that, and something Brennan and I take seriously.

   Thank you, as always, for reading.

   -Molly

Show Comments
  • Yirtimd2

    I am the first one!

    • Kid Chaos

      “The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part.” 😎

  • Dean

    “Oh, and Feral’s friend, who once threw an atomic bomb at the moon. You’re OK too, I guess.”

    • Markus

      To be fair, the moon had it coming.

      • Izo

        The moon is a jerk.

      • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

        Don’t be mean toward Alison’s girlfriend. (Astralfriend?)

      • CanuckAmuck

        Damn moon, thinking it’s so super.

        • ClockworkDawn

          “Perfect orbit, my ass.”

          • Markus

            This statement left an opening for a countably infinite set of different sexual double entendres.

          • Izo

            Depends on where the comma is placed.

          • Weatherheight

            “Countably Infinite”

            a) This sounds a bit oxymoronic to my ear – therefore, +1 Internets to you.
            b) If anyone asks you for a name for their band, this has possibilities.

        • Markus

          “Tidally locked” is just another way of saying clingy bordering on stalkerish.

    • I think she just doesn’t stand out so much.

  • Shweta Narayan

    Aw Al, you could’ve gone with them instead of wandering off all guilty n lonely… ok who am I kidding, if you managed that I’d be all WHO ARE YOU N WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH AL

    Also: Thank you again, Molly (And Brennan!)

    • Infinitive

      See, I read her walk-off as her just being pleased and tired. She’s been going all-out for ages now, and I think what Ally really, really needs is sleep.

      I don’t think she’s gonna get it. I think she’s going to get where she’s going and find police/private security that Max sicced on her for her kidnapping.

      But she needs it.

      • Stephanie Gertsch

        The high set of her shoulders as she walks away makes me wonder if she was putting on a brave face for Feral. Al knows Feral would stay in for her and doesn’t want to guilt her friend out of a fun evening.

        • Walter

          I think that’s it. It seems likely to me that Alison wants some brooding time. The vomiting indicated to me that she’s not entirely at ease with this affair.

      • Shweta Narayan

        I like your interpretation, but I’m reading her shoulders as way tense and the way she has her hands stuck in pockets looks p miserable to me.

      • Walter

        Cops won’t arrest Alison. She has commented on it once or twice.

        Private security is possible… I mean, Moonshadow found guys to hire to play paintball with her. But it is hard to see what they’d be trying to achieve.

        I don’t think there will be any brushback from Max. If there is any fallout from that affair I expect that it is something HAPPENING to Max. (Conspiracy kills him, he kills himself, whatever).

        But if we want to go with a “Max looks for payback” sort of plot, what about him MAXing Alison? Maybe his power is addictive, or drives you nuts or whatever? Alternatively, he might MAX Cleaver, (he probably doesn’t know that they’ve become pals).

        • MisterTeatime

          There are a lot of biodynamics out there, and after fighting crime until literally all the supervillains in the US were captured or out of the game, Alison probably has more than her share of enemies among them. If Max played a long game, he could send an army after her, all amped up to the same degree as Feral is.
          Of course, that also assumes he’s willing to use his power, which he wasn’t when we met him, even when the stakes were “all the organ recipients in the world” and before he’d had a recent traumatic experience centered on it.

          • SJ

            If Max played a long game, he could send an army after her, all amped up to the same degree as Feral is.
            Of course, that also assumes he’s willing to use his power…

            I’m still not convinced that this isn’t a reasonable thing to believe. I have yet to read an explanation for why it would be unreasonable to believe that what Alison did to Max wouldn’t be enough to make him change his perspective about using his powers.

          • MisterTeatime

            He was terrified that the moment anyone found out about his power, the more imposing biodynamics out there would force him to use it for their benefit. And that’s exactly what happened. How would this make him change his perspective?

          • SJ

            Because hate overpowering fear is a pretty common thing in human behavior.

    • Stephanie Gertsch

      I think the fact that they are drinking also put her off.

      • Shweta Narayan

        could be? I don’t remember her being uncomfortable around other people drinking, just unwilling to drink herself; but it’s been a while since it first got brought up and I can’t even remember whether I’ve eaten so y’know. Could be way off.

        • Stephanie Gertsch

          That’s true. She was fine with buying the alcohol earlier. I guess it can just be kind of a downer for the one person who doesn’t drink when for a lot of younger people socialization = drinking.

          • Shweta Narayan

            I guess, yeah 🙂 I never found it a downer mysef at the times when I couldn’t drink but it could get boring. Some conversations are only fun in the presence of booz or something I guess!

  • Ellie K

    Thank you for doing this (the comic and the charities). And it kind of is a big deal for a lot of people I know….because we don’t know if trump was serious about all of his promises and all the bigots are getting bolder. It’s kind of scary and stressful for people who work with immigrants and disenfranchised minorities. I really hope things get better…but until it does I read stories like this to cope…

    • Oren Leifer

      I do really hope that the bigots getting bolder is their (metaphorical) last gasp, and that it is just bringing the infection of xenophobia to the surface where we can lance the boil of hatred.

  • Dawn Smashington

    I hope things get better too, but when the chief strategist is a white nationalist, I have whatchacallem, doubts

    • Ian Osmond

      I’m not saying Trump is a racist. I’m just saying that his messages resonated with racists. I’m not saying that he’s unable to do the job. I’m just saying that he has a lot of learning to do, and not a lot of time to do it in. And I’m not saying that he’s a Nazi. I’m just saying that he appointed one to be his Chief of Staff.

  • Weatherheight

    So.. uhm.. no one recognizes Mega-Girl? I mean, the domino mask is the Ultimate Disguise™, but she took off that mask on TV, for gosh sakes. I find that not one of those three recognizing Alison strains my credulity…

    ::adjusts his credulity::

    That’s better.

    • I think that it’s more a question of an organ donor being more important than a famous person. If you saw the person who saved your cousin’s life walking with someone famous, which would be more important to you?

      • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

        But Alison saved the world seven times Hector said, she saved tons of people too. That’s still odd.

        • Billy Smith

          Saving the life of someone close to you, that’s important.

          Saving the lives of everyone on the planet, that’s just a statistic. 😛

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            It’s not like it’s one or the other, the latter clearly encapsulates tons of instances of the former.

          • Jon

            Yes, but that’s not how human psychology works, especially if they actually told all of the people being saved what the sacrifice that allowed them to be saved was.

            That said, it strains my suspension of disbelief enough to think this is maybe a setup by The Conspiracy, but really, they haven’t done anything since being revealed, so I see that often.

            I suspect that Max is going to turn up dead soon as well.

          • Eric Meyer

            I said it before (and got berated for it), but in terms of personal experience, humans deep down don’t really [i]care[/i] about what’s happening to people they don’t know.

          • Seer of Trope

            And if all of us humans did really care about people we didn’t know, the grief would be catatonic.

          • Hiram

            I’m reminded of this page from TASS:
            http://spacespy.thecomicseries.com/comics/422

          • I can’t tell if I found that more beautiful or more horrific.

      • I’d say it’s also that Alison, while widely known, doesn’t stand out all that much visually. Not only is she a bit older and with a different haircut and general appearance but she was a freckled blue-eyed blonde to begin with – they’re not that uncommon in the US. Compared to glowing green cat-eyes, anyway..

    • Alison is a very average-looking person. It’s very easy for her to not stand out.

      Whereas Feral has bright green cat eyes and fangs.

    • Kifre

      Alison has gotten some bad press in recent (in comic) months….? *shrug*

    • Walter

      “Lance Hunt wears glasses, Captain Amazing DOESN’T wear glasses.”

    • therufs

      They’re at a dynamorph con! Who gives a crap about the solid! 😀

    • GaryFarber

      I agree. I mean, if you see Paul McCartney and Pete Townsend walking down the street, you’re still going to give Townsend some attention no matter how much of a Beatles fan you were, and if you were a Who fanatic, you’d still acknowledge Paul McCartney.

      To make clear how very very ancient I am with my examples.

      • Weatherheight

        If I see Paul McCartney and Pete Townsend walking down the street , first thing I’m doing is wondering how the hell I got to England and where in God’s name is my passport.

        Then I would, obviously gush over both of them (being a fan of both the Beatles and The Who), terribly hurting Mick Jagger’s feelings.

  • Weatherheight

    At the very least, M&B, you are doing something concrete for the good of others which you haven’t done before.

    This little light of thine…

  • Cori J.

    Patrick senses…tingling…

  • Mujaki

    My mantra for the next four years:
    “Don’t aggravate. Advocate.”

    • Izo

      That’s a really good mantra to have.

    • There’ll be those who see advocacy as aggravating.. In the UK we had a disabled people’s group branded as extremists by an MP* speaking in Parliament – they’d collected a petition asking the government to measure the impact of disability benefit cuts.

      * One of only two MPs to themselves be disabled.

  • bta

    My thought process:
    “Aren’t her donation anonymous?”
    “Oh right, she did superheroics too.”

    • Elaine Lee

      I imagine, after the big incident at the hospital, some people might have started digging and found information.

      • Ian Osmond

        Yeah, I think the “secret” thing fell apart after that.

      • Keith

        The secret came out before the incident at the hospital. The incident at the hospital happened *because* the secret came out.

        • Rens

          I thought the implications were that “someone” (probably the nurse that opened the door for the flamethrower guy) leaked the information in the first place.

  • Izo

    Just wondering when the ‘negatives’ from Alison’s actions are going to start to become apparent.

    Just asking this since every time I ask, I’m told ‘It’s only been X strips since she did it.’ Well… so far it’s looking like what she did has had no problem and will have no problems.

    PS – Feral looks adorable as drawn here. Especially in panels 2 and 4.

    • weedgoku

      I thought she looked kind of offputting. I would say off-model but I don’t think we really have an “on model” for any character.

      • Izo

        Maybe in the last two panels a LITTLE, but panels 2 and 4? She looks adorable.

      • Walter

        How she looks to us isn’t a huge deal. In-story, though, Feral is hot.

        1: She wouldn’t be able to be as forward as she does if people didn’t appreciate it. Most characters find her attractive.
        2: *bonk*

        • SJ

          I thought she looked kind of offputting. I would say off-model but I don’t think we really have an “on model” for any character.

          How she looks to us isn’t a huge deal. In-story, though, Feral is hot.

          So, it’s Informed Attractiveness, then?

          • KevlarNinja

            I think it’s more like how, in the Wild Cards series of books, Jokers (people who have been mutated by an alien virus to have all kinds of crazy deformities) are shown to have strip clubs that are very popular with baseline humans because some people are just into that.

            My point is that, it wouldn’t surprise me if someone was into cat’s eyes and the like.

          • SJ

            Unless, of course, Max boosted Feral’s pheromone output out of control?

          • MedinaSidonia

            ZOMG so she’d be like Wolverine + Spider Woman!

          • Weatherheight

            Hot is in the eye of the beholder, not an intrinsic value of the beheld.

            There is some degree of objectiveness hotness (facial/bodily symmetry, lack of scars or other obvious physical defaults, rarity of feature coloration), but I think each and every one of us can find exceptions to the rules (I, for one example, find tattoos off-putting as a general rule, but every once in a while I see one that evokes strong attraction to the bearer of that tattoo).

            Attractiveness becomes much more difficult to evince in art as the art becomes less and less photorealistic or less detailed. Personally, I agree with Izo – Tara is quite cute in panels 2 and 4, but I prefer shoulder-length hair and the kind of obvious attitude Tara usually adopts in her postures and poses, so this shows more about my biases rather than objective cuteness.

            SJ also has a very good point. 😀

    • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

      We haven’t seen her alone ever since. Seems we’re to understand next page will give us that, so maybe some panels with an Alison not having to perform going well as she wanders the streets sulkingly?

      • Izo

        Yes but again… like I’ve said before. Waiting to see some sort of negative beyond ‘I feel guilty’ Blah blah blah. Because that’s not a negative consequence of her negative actions.

        • Santiago Tórtora

          I thought this whole debate was about consequentialists vs deontologists?

          If it turns out there were terrible consequences, there would be no debate, and all previous debates would be rendered moot in a very anti-climatic way.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            There is no way for the webcomic not to take a stance. Either it does have consequences or it doesn’t, there doesn’t exist a combination of circumstances that makes it so the entire debate is left to the reader.
            If nothing comes to pass then the webcomic is saying a whole bunch of things more than a mere “ambiguity reigns”

          • Izo

            Um… if there are not terrible consequences, then THAT nullifies the debate. Not the other way around. Because if there are terrible consequences, then you have to try to measure the terrible consequences to the good intentions.

          • Santiago Tórtora

            If there are terrible consequences then what she did was wrong. There is no debate. Intentions only matter if you are a not a consequentialist, and she failed at deontology already when she coerced Max.

          • Izo

            No. You can do something that has unintended, negative consequences while still arguing what she did was not wrong. And intent does matter as well, and can be debated as well, whether you are consequentalist or deontologist.

            For example, when the British ruled one of their colonies (I think India, might have been different one though), there was a problem with rats. So the British decided to pay for rat tails. The idea being the people would kill the rats, then take the tails to give it to them in order to prove the rats were captured and killed. Good intent. Debatable good action. Negative outcome though – people started farming rats, cutting off the tails, then raising more rats to cut off their tails instead. When the British realized what was happening, they abandonned hte program, so everyone just dumped the rats. As a result, the rat problem increased.

          • Santiago Tórtora

            Suppose there was a debate about the relative merits of colonialism vs being infested by rats, and someone argued that only the British have the administrative genius to come up with such an effective anti-rat plan.

            Then if India had indeed become rat-free, people would have interesting debates about whether or not it was worth it, how many lives were taken by British colonies vs how many were lost to rat-borne diseases and so on.

            But in the real world the British policy was a disaster. The plan didn’t work anyway so that debate is moot.

            However some other British plans did succeed, like the trains and other infrastructure, so people today still have interesting debates about whether the British were evil colonists or if they did India a favor somehow by helping them industrialize.

          • Izo

            You literally just ignored my entire post’s point, and the fact that the debate was not moot. The whole point of the debate is the law of unintended consequences.

          • Santiago Tórtora

            Unintended consequences would indeed serve for a “debate”, albeit a very boring one that has been done to death in all forms of fiction since time immemorial.

            http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/

          • Izo

            Boring to you. I consider debates on that to be one of the core elements of most philosophical discussions and FASCINATING to argue about.

            Also I’m not sure why you’re linking to that comic. It’s not even very funny.

        • Richard King

          Dude, the pace of updates means that we have to wait. It’s the nature of the beast when it comes to fiction that is released slowly over time.

          The author (so far) has shown quite a bit of talent, and has demonstrated excellent world-building skills, so give her a little credit. The consequences are coming, but as near as I can tell, in the reality of the comic strip it’s been what, a couple of days?

          Since only she and Max know what happened, and Max was an antisocial douche before this, it’s just not realistic to say that (for example) he’d make friends with super villians he could power up so they could attack mega girl for him in that short period of time (just as one example of how this sitch could backfire horribly).

          Generally speaking , villains don’t publish their names and addresses in a phone book, so, even with all his resources, it might take Max a little while to reach out and touch someone.

          In addition, as a literary device, letting someone experience the fruits of their bad decisions and “appear” to be happy is an extremely useful tool to emphasize exactly how far the fall is when it finally comes.

          Personally? I think a “Maxxed out”(tm) supervillain could show up, pound on mega girl, feral could get caught in the middle and then disintegrated, as one guess. Permadeath. Yes, she heals, but if there’s nothing left to heal from….

          Of course, that’d be the blunt instrument, in this case. It’d be the literary equivalent of smacking the audience in the face with a two-by-four. It actually seems kind of low-brow for this author (which is kind of weird, since this is a super-hero comic, and smacking people with clue-by-fours is kind of what they DO, but whatever). Trust me, that’s a compliment.

          The far more subtle knife would be if the (now super-regenerative) donor organs were to somehow start causing problems (most likely killing people, but possibly helping active dormant super powers, thus creating more and bigger problems, etc….or turning them into (somehow) mindless copies of feral that go on rampages and then need to be put down (hopefully by mega-girl herself, just to really twist the knife, so to speak).

          It’s coming. Unless the author is leaving chekov’s gun on the table (which is a huge no-no) it’s definitely coming. Max *might* have been able to let this thing go if he thought it was a one and done deal, but the fact that she basically promised him that she’d be back?

          Desperate people do desperate things. Always. And those things are almost always rushed, ill-planned, and completely stupid, and end up causing a ton of unexpected fallout.

          Or as they refer to it in literary circles: “drama”.

          Muahahahahahahahah!

          • Izo

            Normally I’d respond piece by piece, but a lot of what you’ve said is stuff I’ve responded to a lot in the past. So instead i’ll just make a general response.

            I think the longer it takes for any consequence, the less people will think it had anything to do with Alison’s action, and more they will think what Alison did was a good thing, nullifying the actual debate in their minds. Also, compared to past story arcs, it’s already taken longer than those story arcs for a consequence to happen, aside from Alison feeling a little guilty, even though she’s said she would do it again if she wanted to. A little guilt would be a weaksauce consequence.

            I do think the author is talented, but that doesn’t mean every story arc is flawless. This one is actually the first one which has really had me truly concerned based on how some others are acting about Alison’s actions being good. ESpecially since that means they would be willing to do the same thing in their real lives.

            Making Max into basically a supervillain would also be a weaksauce consequence, because that would be villifying the VICTIM. And Max is a victim, whether you like him or not as a person. He didnt do anything aggressive or hurt anyone by his actions. And inaction is not an action if he did not cause the danger that others are in in the first place.

            I’m fine with a maxxed out person killing someone Alison loves, but she’d then act like Max was the cause, not herself. And probably kill Max. Which means all her talk about wanting to use his powers to help the world was a crock anyway.

            I hope thauthor does not leave the chekhov’s gun on the table, and I hope you’re right. It’s just the longer that it doesn’t happen, the more I think it won’t happen at all.

            Good post, btw.

          • Cyrano111

            I think there are two separate concerns here.

            One involves seeing this comic as a guide to moral behaviour, as some kind of practical ethics text meant to educate the readers as to the proper way to behave. That’s not clearly an entirely inappropriate way to regard it, and if this webcomic were meant solely to be a pedagogical tool, then yes, I would completely agree with you that the lesson would be taught more effectively by having consequences flow quickly after misbehaviour.

            The other way to see this webcomic, though – and really the more natural one – is as primarily a story meant to entertain over its entire course. In that context, it is entirely reasonable that consequences might be long delayed, and the story might be better for it. Indeed, that would be the norm for pretty much anything but a children’s book.

            King Lear, for example – Act I, scene i is where he makes his mistake, but the consequences only really start to flow in Act III, and the full effect is not felt till Act V.

            Or Star Wars – Darth Vader is unmitigatedly a villain in Episode IV, continues so through all of Episode V, and really only in the last twenty minutes of so or Episode VI does he achieve redemption.

            Narratively, the payoff can be sweeter the longer it is delayed.

            Even internally here, Alison met Feral in 2008, and it was years later (within the timeline of the story) that Feral decided to become a donor. Also within that internal timeline, Alison disliked Feral’s decision, but that issue simmered for a long time, and appropriately so. Alternatively, the “conspiracy” which underlies everything in this comic (“nobody is scared of us, or we would have a little ‘closed’ folder of our own”) was revealed in Chapter 1, which is both internally to the story and in real time years ago.

            I agree that, within a medium which is delivered only twice a week and in which a single “story” day could therefore take a month to be told, the real time wait can be frustrating. But that is not a flaw in the story as an artifact. Imagine watching the movie Speed in thirty second segments, two segments a week – that wouldn’t mean the movie was not fast-paced, just that we weren’t experiencing it in that way.

          • Lucy

            “seeing this comic as a guide to moral behaviour, as some kind of practical ethics text meant to educate the readers as to the proper way to behave. That’s not clearly an entirely inappropriate way to regard it…it is entirely reasonable that consequences might be long delayed, and the story might be better for it. Indeed, that would be the norm for pretty much anything but a children’s book.”

            Friggin’ THANK YOU. Yeez, this is not a friggin’ picture book for five-year-olds. It’s not a morality tale. The complaints that this is going to somehow be a bad *story* if Alison gets away with her choice without consequence beyond her own guilt is so irritating to me, both as a reader and as a writer myself.

            In the real world, people get away with outright evil choices, let alone morally ambiguous choices, without ANY negative consequences, not even their own guilt. In the real world, some people become more good as they go on, and some people become less idealistic and more pragmatic, or just more selfish.

            And sometimes there are horrifically negative consequences for a pretty much morally neutral choice (like quitting your job to pursue your dream, but then a depression hits and suddenly you and your family are homeless).

            This is what happens in, you know, most good fiction that isn’t a sermon. Good wins out, or it doesn’t, or it does but it leaves some people in a bad place. Unlikable protagonists, anti-heroes, anti-heroes who think they’re heroes, anti-heroes who don’t believe in heroes, villain protagonists, bystander protagonists: any of these could be intriguing and make a good story.

            If SFP, a story that hinges on complex ethical questions and realistic characters (albeit ones with extreme powers) is going to maintain suspension of disbelief, it has to continue to do what it’s been doing–develop a believably morally complex world. One in which evil isn’t always punished and good isn’t always rewarded. I suspect that such complexity will not have catastrophic personal moral consequences on the adults reading this comic.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            You’re going too far on the other way I feel. You mention how real life works but this isn’t real life, this is a webcomic and a pretty conventionally told one at that. Narrative consequences *is* the way it communicates to us and you’re not giving it enough credit if you think it can use the real world workings of “anything goes, you make your own conclusions”.

            And this is definitely a bad story if it validates Alison’s actions in how it frames what is to come of it, by the mere fact that I would judge it so.

          • Cyrano111

            I don’t think it *necessarily* follows that this would be a bad story if Alison’s actions end up validated. I agree with you that that’s not the story I hope to read, and I am pretty certain it is not the story which will develop, but such a story could be well told. For example, The Usual Suspects is a very good movie, but by any standard the bad guy wins.

            If this were meant to be a guide to proper behaviour I would be very worried by a story which validated Alison’s actions. For that matter, I have read some comments here (as have you, I’m sure) which cause me to sincerely hope that their authors are never in any kind of position of authority over other people. But I remain confident that as this story arc introduced the moral principle upon which Alison has acted as the attitude of a tyrant – a word that is never used approvingly – the authors do not approve of what they have had Alison do, and at some point appropriate to the narrative that opinion will manifest itself.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            Well yes me saying I would deem this a bad story only applies to this specific one, given its focus point and intent. Not all stories have to be moral, but this one kinda does by now.

          • Lucy

            I mean, I guess I can’t agree with that. I feel like saying that this story is promoting the message “might makes right” by allowing Mega Girl to not face outside consequences ignores a lot of other parts of the comic where compassion for under-powered and oppressed people is advocated. It’s an over-simplification, and it pulls this arc out of context.

            Alison herself could argue that the lesson here is, when you are able, stand up against evil, even the evil of the “moderate” (aka, the evil of not acting for good, a la Martin Luther King Jr’s critique of the “white moderate”, as opposed to the evil of taking evil actions). Max, by not acting for good, was siding with evil. He would deny this, of course. But because his inaction led to people’s deaths and Feral suffering needlessly, his choice to not act was, in fact, an evil choice.

            And I don’t think this comic has ever promoted pacifism, condemning all violence. Fighting villains with violence is, while problematic, not necessarily the wrong choice.

            So, what Alison faced is a morally complex decision: let Max’s moderate evil slide, or use violence to stop him. Violence isn’t a great choice. It certainly has moral weight. Alison herself is reacting as though it was a necessary evil, and the evil aspect of it still weighs on her. Perhaps is was an unnecessary evil. Perhaps interpersonal violence is a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

            And there are a lot of other elements people have already discussed–for instance, the unpredictability of the future means you can’t make moral choices based on potential (hoped for) outcomes. So we can’t say “Alison’s choice was good because it had a good outcome.” Which is leads to the argument that interpersonal violence is a line that should never be crossed.

            My point is not that I think Alison made the right choice. I think, if she were more patient, she probably would’ve found a “third option,” or realized that slow progress towards good is better than a one-punch solution that allows room for evil. Rather, my point is that I don’t need the narrative to condemn her choice for me to be able to think critically about it. I think, as it is currently, it reflects the complexity of making difficult decisions regarding right and wrong.

            To be fair, I suspect I would be more sympathetic to the desire for Alison to get punished if it *were* a black-and-white evil decision, but even then! Even then, for example, ‘Brave New World’ is one of my favorite books of all time, and evil wins out in that one, more or less. It’s a stunning novel and the ending fits perfectly; if the protagonist had won…well, I’m not sure. It might’ve been a great story still. But it also might’ve felt like a cop-out. ‘Memento’ and ‘Following’ are both some of my favorite movies (altho in those cases you really don’t know who is evil until the end).

            So…I guess I’m not wholly *against* the idea of Alison facing consequences, as long as it’s realistic. There are ways for the story to have her face consequence without breaking suspension of disbelief (a consequence initiated by Max, for example). But as a reader, I’m much more concerned that the story not get preachy and boring and stop reflecting how complicated being a good person in the real world is, than I am that grown adults will take away the lesson “might makes right” from a webcomic because they decided to turn off their critical thinking skills.

          • SJ

            2. There are a lot of stories where evil wins out or goes unpunished that are beautiful, important stories (1984, Brave New World, etc) ]

            !!!!!

            You and I experienced 1984 and Brave New World very differently.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            Again, this is about what the text itself has to say about its narrative and with the examples you’ve given I think you’ll still agree with me that while evil wins in 1984, it doesn’t mean the narrative voice endorses that evil– its condemnation is communicated differently (and having it win and obliterate the good side’s entire hopes is one such way) yet still undeniable.

            Even if the webcomic comes to mitigate what Alison did, which I hope it won’t, it still has to present what she did as something definitely bad for it to be a “necessary compromise” in the first place. Were it not to do even that, I’d be angry.

          • Lucy

            “it still has to present what she did as something definitely bad for it to be a “necessary compromise” in the first place.” I can grok with that. That makes sense.

          • TFW

            Yes thank you. It seems like a lot of people feel like this comic is supposed to be almost a morality play, and because Allison did something Bad, causality needs to bend over backwards to Punish her, even though judging by the world the characters live in, where people who have done worse and aren’t sorry aren’t hoisted by their own petards immediately after they Sin, karmic retribution isn’t the physical force they want it to be.

            It honestly baffles me that they think thsr approach is actually good storytelling, and that Feral needs to Suffer More, and fast, to… teach Allison a lesson? Ignoring that if that happens then that’s just kind of the end to that arc, because Allison will learn that evidently what she did was Wrong on a universal scale, and thus never do anything similar ever again, the end. And apparently that’s not really simplistic at all.

            Because they don’t get what the true cost of this was. That Allison learned a new move, Coercion, and even though using it once really messed her up, the more positive consequences there seem to be, the more likely it is for to use it on a situation that isn’t once-in-a-lifetime, and THEN it’s tragedy time.

          • TFW

            That being said, there is a greater than zero chance that those girls are attempting to kidnap Feral and either take her hostage or throw her into the bottom of the ocean, and I really hope Allison placed Feral under some kind of surveillance because we just got reminded in the first panel that even though Feral is functionally immortal, she’s not that much stronger or more skilled than a well-trained human.

            That or Feral might kill them due to the surgery leaving some wires crossed. Either way, leaving her unsupervised so you can mope isn’t a good plan.

          • The story may have leaked that Feral is out of hosptal, but the timescale is really too tight to have organised an operation in. Particularly against a superhero you can’t kill or sedate.

          • Sam

            Handcuff, gag, stuff in van. No need to get overcomplicated.

          • How do they know where to find her? It’s the physical timing that’s the problem, it’s so short they need a team already in place with the equipment for an operation they never expected to launch.

            And even if they do grab her. Rip (or chew*) thumb, or hand, off to escape handcuffs, beat kidnappers with bloody stump.

            Feral is a regenerating superhero with an incredible pain tolerance. She can consider, and execute, escape strategies that would make us sick just to think of them.

            * Gag in the way? Rake face repeatedly against any convenient projection. “Oh, shoot, there goes mah eye again. Never mind, fixed now.”

          • Sam

            There are a few different ways they could have found her. The soonest would be by intercepting Allison’s call to Dr. Rosenblum, or having Rosenblum or an informant at the hospital report on the plan. Any of those would get them at least 13 hours, based on how long Feral was asleep for. That should be plenty of time to get a team of actors and suitable restraints and transportation arranged. Alternately, they could have found out about Feral’s release via monitoring Allison’s apartment. That probably wouldn’t have given them enough time to prepare actors, but it should still be enough time to get a police van or ambulance and a few agents ready to capitalize on Feral being separated from Allison for whatever reason.

            As for escaping her restraints via self harm, she can’t bite her hands while they’re handcuffed behind her, and they’re putting her in a van, not a box of swords. Especially if it’s a dedicated prisoner transport vehicle, convenient projections sharp enough to saw through a decent gag aren’t going to be easy to come by. And even if she did manage to get her teeth free, it’s not going to do her much good once she’s in the van unless she can bite through metal. Honestly, there aren’t a whole lot of escape strategies that someone in the right state of mind won’t try, and restraints are made with that in mind.

          • Have you not seen those teeth?

          • Sam

            Sure, but dogs have sharp teeth too, and we still muzzle them just fine.

          • Izo

            The scary thing is I actually predicted this behavior and argument of Alison apologists. That as more time passes, they’ll give more excuses why there should be no consequences for her actions. Unlike every other story arc so far. :/

            Look – every story arc so far has had a flow to action and consequence. Until this one. This one doesn’t, aside from Alison feeling guilty. It feels like she’s not going to have ANYTHING happen bad about her actions, and the moral WILL be ‘Bully those weaker than you because you know better than them. Their opinions are meaningless because they are not as good as you are, and you are justified to use lethal force if they do not comply. You might feel guilty, but nothing bad will actually happen to you. The end.’

          • Cyrano111

            Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

            I suggested there were two possible purposes, and that for one the consequences should come immediately, while for the other they could plausibly be postponed.

            I have no idea what in that causes you to think my view is that there should never be consequences.

          • Izo

            “Are you sure you meant to reply to me?”

            I dunno. I reply to a lot of people and it’s possibly I mixed up replies, so that’s a possibility.

          • I think you need to have a little more faith in the readership of this comic. Or perhaps I have too much faith and optimism, but, nevertheless – I honestly believe that the majority of SFP readers will excitedly read into late-narrative consequences that appear to harp back to her decisions here, pleased as punch to see their long-awaited denouement, and fully appreciate the intentions of Brennan and Molly starting all the way back here (or even further). People were pointing out years-old references to Feral just last week. I see why you’re concerned that people will forget but honestly for me it’ll simply make the end result of this a far sweeter read.

          • Izo

            I honestly hope you’re right. You probably have more faith than I do in people not forgetting things to suit their own narrative.

          • Well, perhaps not people as a unified species, yet. But at least people engaged in this comic with enough interest in both the narrative and social quandaries to wait for their updates weekly..

        • Sendaz

          I am voting for Feral induced pregnancies… Alison’s system was strong enough to throw it off with only one heaving to show for it. These others though will not fare so well and soon we will be overrun with chibi-ferals and Aunti Alison will be left having to care for the lot….

          • Izo

            ….. that would definitely be a twist. I have no real response to that, mainly because my mind is now clouded by images of chibi Ferals and I’m becoming overwhelmed by the cuteness.

          • cphoenix

            Just don’t feed them after midnight.

          • Izo

            Are you TRYING to make me forget about my anger about what Alison did by filling my head with the vision of adorable chibi Ferals?

            I admit it’s a good tactic but cmon….

            Chibi ferals… awwww 🙂

        • Rens

          For people who have a conscience rather than “strong principles” it very much can be.

          • Izo

            Tell that to the victim of a conscientious victimizer.

    • Balthazar

      Well seeing this comic is all about there not being a clear cut right or wrong and Alison’s search to find what is “the right thing to do” we’ll just have to see.

      It’s perfectly possible nothing bad will happen except for Alison’s guilt (which I feel is more than enough to constitute as a “negative”).

      However, some readers have pointed out the possibility of foreshadowing in previous installments where super powered heros that could change the world were murdered. And Patrick’s impromptu reinvilvemnet in the plot seemed rather suspicious (though it could just be a red hearring). Also the whole “you have to be a tyrant to make people do the right thing” was portrayed negatively in previous pages making it seem as the author frowns upon such behavior as well further making people think there might be “concequences” in the future.

      When someone talks of this they aren’t saying wether there SHOULD be, just more if it makes sense plotwise. As this is comic is an inversion of the whole Superhero story unexpected things can happen, but as it is a story I believe chekhov’s gun still applies and something bad will happen. It may not be as concequence of Alison’s actions but my guess is that she’ll take it as it is regardless, from her personality.

      And yes, Feral does look adoreable

      • Izo

        “It’s perfectly possible nothing bad will happen except for Alison’s guilt (which I feel is more than enough to constitute as a “negative”).”

        No, guilt is literally not enough of a consequence. Guilt is not a negative consequence at all. It’s just a device to say ‘look at this person – she’s a good person even though she does bad things because she feels bad when she does bad things…. even though she’ll do it again since she’s learned that doing bad things like hurting people is easy and works while finding non-violent solutions is too hard. It just means ‘The strong should abuse the weak as long as you are prepared to feel a little guilty about it. That means you’re still a good person even though you abuse the weak.’

        It’s making an excuse for the protagonist, who is at this point an evil person who just happens to feel a LITTLE bad about being evil.

        “However, some readers have pointed out the possibility of foreshadowing in previous installments where super powered heros that could change the world were murdered. And Patrick’s impromptu reinvilvemnet in the plot seemed rather suspicious (though it could just be a red hearring). Also the whole “you have to be a tyrant to make people do the right thing” was portrayed negatively in previous pages making it seem as the author frowns upon such behavior as well further making people think there might be “concequences” in the future.”

        While I sort of hope that happens too, it doesn’t really seem like a negative consequence of Alison’s plan or actions to make the plan work. It makes Max into a villain instead. It says ‘If only Max wasn’t such an evil a-hole, Alison’s noble and just plan and her noble and just actions to make the plan work would have had no consequences!’ It’s basically victim blaming, justifying more violence or killing of Max, who’s only real crime is not wanting to do what Alison demands. It’s like making a villain of a woman who, when beaten repeatedly by her husband, finally stops making excuses for him and tells her brother, who comes over and beats the crap out of the abusive husband. Then everyone says ‘well that abused wife is evil, she should be punished, and it doesn’t matter that she was beaten repeatedly.

        “When someone talks of this they aren’t saying wether there SHOULD be, just more if it makes sense plotwise. As this is comic is an inversion of the whole Superhero story unexpected things can happen, but as it is a story I believe chekhov’s gun still applies and something bad will happen. It may not be as concequence of Alison’s actions but my guess is that she’ll take it as it is regardless, from her personality.”

        I agree that the comic is a bit of a desconstruction, like Watchmen. But even in Watchmen, where there finally was a consequence for Ozymandias’s evil action for a net good, the negative consequence doesn’t come until after the movie ends, because of Rorschach’s Journal being published so that everyone finds out the truth of what happened in New York, which then removes the cooperation against war and against Dr. Manhattan, and means the world will again plunge into war. It happens AFTER the movie ends, and winds up being incredibly unsatisfying, and even ignored by a lot of the audience who doesn’t read into the movie.

        “My guess is this is the lull before the storm, to make you think “awww adorable Feral and Paladin ship” and “look how well everything is going” before everything is torn up and we’re all left devistated.”

        Okay, this is actually a good point. Build things up so you can pull the rug out from under them. But until that happens, I’m not going to expect that to happen. I HOPE that happens though. That makes for a good story…. a lot more than ‘look at poor tyrannical Alison, she feels guilty, I guess we should forgive her. she’s learned her lesson until she does it again since it worked for her and the world perfectly.’

        “My guess, in the next few pages she’ll meet up with/finds info about someone who disagrees with her approach. Probably Patrick, but I’m not fueling out Gurawara or even Max. Her action will be challenge and scrutinized and then the negative concequence will happen.”

        Someone just disagreeing with her doesnt seem like a negative consequence either, but we’ll see. So far I havent been hopeful, and the longer it takes, the less hopeful I am.

        “And yes, Feral does look adoreable”

        She’s just so cute I want to kiss her forever!!!!!

        • Balthazar

          “Someone just disagreeing with her doesnt seem like a negative consequence either, but we’ll see. So far I havent been hopeful, and the longer it takes, the less hopeful I am”

          I know. The real negative probably happens afterwards. Like “this is why you are wrong” and then the consequences.

          As for what those concequences here are my guesses…

          -Feral finds out about Max and is horrified. Cuts ties with Alison.
          -Feral’s organs continue to regenerate inside their hosts eventually killing them somehow.
          -Feral is murdered by the power killers (seems to be the most popular theory)
          -Alison gets jealous that Feral isn’t spending much time with her. Is confronted if that was the “real” reason she had Feral’s power boosted; because she needed a friend and Feral just happened to fit the bill. (Less of a negative, more just scrutinizing Alison’s action)

          And after reading your comment I realized I should really read over my posts… I just got sloppy near the end there with typos.

          • Izo

            The first two consequences you gave would be really good examples of negative consequences. The third one seems like it would work too, plus vindicates Max not wanting to use his powers at all. The fourth seems petty though, and a non-consequence.

            Good point about the amount of pages. It just feels like there should at least be a slight hint of a negative consequence beyond guilt by this point, but I guess that could be dependent on how long the entire story arc goes on.

    • When the story requires it.

      When depends on factors we don’t know. Where the story is going, how long that will take, what over lessons and parables are planned, (And we’ve already seen Alison throw up over the thought of what she’s done).

      We are talking about about a period of perhaps 24 hours since it happened, in a comic that’s covered mabe a year of Alison’s life, and with activities projected out to two years in the future (Patrick’s deadline). The consequences of Alison’s actions don’t need to be, and arguably for story telling purposes shouldn’t be, a short term payback

      • Izo

        ” (And we’ve already seen Alison throw up over the thought of what she’s done).”
        So when the rapist confesses to a priest that he committed a rape and feels bad about that, we’re supposed to forgive him. Gotcha. What a moral to life…..

        “We are talking about about a period of perhaps 24 hours since it happened, in a comic that’s covered mabe a year of Alison’s life, and with activities projected out to two years in the future (Patrick’s deadline). The consequences of Alison’s actions don’t need to be, and arguably for storytelling purposes shouldn’t be, a short term payback”

        While this isnt a bad point (time can be fluid in a comic setting), it’s still taking a REALLY long time for any sort of consequences to become apparent compared to all of the other story arcs in this same comic.

        • Of course it doesn’t suddenly absolve a racist of all blame to confess to guilt.
          But we can take it as a sign that he’s recognised his crimes to some extent and is suffering, which consequently gives us information on his state of mind, and shifts his future narrative a tiny bit toward the possibility of his seeking treatment so as not to reoffend and away from him repeating or glorifying in his actions. It may well be that Alison’s narrative is shifting in a similar manner (even if the rape parallel is, at least to me, a false equivalency).

          Not everything in a story – even a comic as centred around ethical choices as this one is – is designed to display the main character in a positive light. It’s possible that this action will ultimately shape the most essential aspects of her final metamorphosis and the climax of the whole story. Or not; at this stage, there is no way to tell.

          When the comment is made on every new update, and the updates come once or twice a week but are only spaced apart by hours in the actual narrative, then the length of time consequences take to be established is artificially amplified for current readers. Someone looking back on this arc would probably breeze through the last few pages very quickly, excited to see where these events take the story one or two chapters later on in the narrative..

          • Izo

            “Of course it doesn’t suddenly absolve a racist of all blame to confess to guilt.”

            Minor thing. Rapist, not racist. I don’t think of Alison mindset as being analagous to the mindset of a racist.

            “But we can take it as a sign that he’s recognised his crimes to some extent and is suffering, which consequently gives us information on his state of mind, and shifts his future narrative a tiny bit toward the possibility of his seeking treatment so as not to reoffend and away from him repeating or glorifying in his actions.”

            Tell that to the person who was raped, though. No closure. No end of fear in their lives that the person would do it again, then get a get out of jail free card for showing even the slightest bit of remorse afterwards. Not to mention there’s no reason to think she won’t do it again if she deems it necessary.

            “It may well be that Alison’s narrative is shifting in a similar manner (even if the rape parallels are, at least to me, false equivalency – the violation and violence were external/coercive, not intimate/invasive – although I can see from where you’re drawing them).”

            It’s only a false equivalency if you’re focusing on the act itself, not the mentality behind the act. I don’t consider rape to be about intimacy in any way. It’s about violence and coercion of something which is very personal to the victim’s being. It’s an expression of power over another person more than about just sex. I appreciate that you at least see where I’m drawing it from though.

            “Not everything in a story – even a comic as centred around ethical choices as this one is – is designed to display the main character in a positive light.”

            I have no problem with Alison not being put in a positive light. I have a problem with her being put IN a positive light for something which was not positive. It makes it impossible for me to have sympathy for her, and tends to ruin any view of anything she does, because I’m thinking ‘this woman is evil and not only got away with it, she got away with it with nothing bad happening at all.’ It gives a lesson that runs counter to most of the rest of the comic buildup, imho. I’m still hoping eventually something does happen, but the longer it doesn’t, the more I think it won’t.

            “given that she effectively levelled that punch at a bystander (albeit one who was wilfully bystanding in the way of fixing everything). ”

            I don’t see any reason why non-action should make a person culpable, unless that person caused the problem in the first place, or prevented OTHERS from fixing the problem, then did not fix it themselves.

            “It’s possible that this realisation of hers will ultimately shape the most essential aspects of her final metamorphosis and the climax of the whole story. Or not; at this stage, there is no way to tell.”

            It’s possible, but right now I’m predicting the latter. ‘Or Not.’ That’s just how I feel about this right now.

            “When this same comment is made on every new update, and the updates come once or twice a week but are only spaced apart by hours in the actual narrative, then the length of time consequences take to be established is artificially amplified for current readers. Someone looking back on this arc on the other hand would probably breeze through the last few pages very quickly while remaining excited to see where these events end up taking the story one or two chapters later on.”

            I agree that the media type here does color my views, and if I was just binge reading this through an archive, I probably wouldn’t have the same feeling of ‘why isnt she getting punished?’ I think I’ve made a comparison to another comic I love reading, Grrlpower, in which there was a fight that took over a year, and a fight with just ONE person that alone took almost 6 months before they even STARTED to resolve it. It was incredibly frustrating. Although even when I read it in binge form, it feels like the author, who I think is awesome, took way too long to resolve it. Here, I feel the same way, mainly because I’m comparing this story arc with past story arc progressions.

            Good point though.

            “And frankly that’s where I think the consequences for these actions would be best positioned in the narrative. As it is at the moment, Chekov’s Gun has been placed on the table; ready and waiting to be inevitably fired, tension building all the meanwhile.”

            Again, another fair point, although I do not think finally having some sort of problem being revealed would be a DeM by any stretch of the imagination. There have been multiple chances to at least HINT at a problem with the plan or its outcome.

            Nice post.

          • Thanks!
            I’m a little tired to address everything in here this early morning, but just to say – I actually intended to write “rapist”, not “racist”, as hopefully was already evinced by my follow-up comment about false equivalency.
            It’s past 5am where I live and I must have been so tired as to substitute the word subconsciously. I’ll go and edit.

          • Izo

            You’re welcome 🙂

            I use the rapist/victim analogy as just that – an analogy. It’s not a direct comparison of the action – it’s a comparison of the mindset of the offender. Of course, if something similar to what Alison did happened in real life (by which I mean one person forced another person to help a third person by hurting the second person and threatening their lives), there would at least be some sort of closure for the victimized person – the victimizer would be subject to the justice system and put in prison. The fact that Alison, as a fictional superhuman, is not subject to any control by anyone, makes me require her to have even more care for the agency of others than I would even require of a person who is NOT above the law. It requires a higher level of self-policing, and when they fail to self-police, it requires a harsher response.

            It’s the same way I feel about doctors and lawyers and other ‘professional’ job class categories, in which they are expected to police themselves, and if they don’t, the punishment needs to be a LOT harsher than just telling them they did something wrong, or making them refund the money, such as the suspension or even removal of their license to practice.

          • I know what you’re saying, but if you use a hypothetical literary analogy for a literary point-of-view main character’s actions, then it’s only reasonable that those responding to your comments will take up that literary framework by default within which to construct their arguments. So by logical extension, the reason I explained why it does – even to a tiny extent – matter whether a hypothetical rapist has confessed and taken ownership of the harm that they have done is entirely based on how that affects our perception, as readers, of the character, and our expectations for the continuance of the narrative. Real life doesn’t *have* an over-arching narrative structure where all plot threads are carefully interwoven and all elements in the surrounding environment are Chekov’s Guns. We’d be having an extremely different discussion than this if we were actually debating to what extent a real-world rapist’s good intentions and belated remorse should have on their punishment and treatment, although in fairness, I’d still probably position my answer somewhere north of zero.

          • Got a second wind.

            “Tell that to the person who was raped…”

            Addressed in another message; you made an analogic parallel to a literary character’s actions, and I used that parallel to explain why it made sense to concentrate on that character’s responses within a fictional story of which they are the lead figure. Which is, ultimately, what we’re debating here at base of it – whether Alison’s actions should be penalised within the story, to what extent, and when. In real life, responses come as soon as possible after the transgression; but within a story, the longer you wait, the more dramatic tension is created and the more rewarding it is for the reader to eke out every emotional drop of the experience.

            “I don’t consider rape to be about intimacy in any way. It’s about violence and coercion of something which is very personal to the victim’s being.”

            That sounds like an intimate violation to me! When I was describing the differences between the two acts and why I felt it was a false equivalency to conflate rape with Alison’s choices, I did so according to the effect both actions leave on the world – and therefore, from the perspective of the victim, not the perpetrator. In rape, the violence is mainly internal and invasive, the violation is primarily one of forced unwanted intimacy with a person the victim has no wish to be intimate with. I didn’t try to claim that the act of rape is intimate for the rapist (although quite frequently it is, to the point that many rapists whether through ignorance, denial, or delusion, don’t even realise the severity of the act they’re engaging in). As I said before, however, I can see why you’re drawing a parallel of the forcing of unwanted submission as well as violation of consent and agency.

            “I have a problem with her being put IN a positive light for something which was not positive.”

            Pretty sure she’s not being, as described originally – I think there’s another shoe waiting to drop. I think her *intentions* are being shown as positive but her *execution* is being portrayed as flawed, morally grey and potentially dangerous. The regret is meant to indicate that she hasn’t done a wholly positive thing more than convince the audience to stay on-side with her as the main PC. It’s also good to see so many positive and negative aspects of the situation being explored rather than one heavy-handed outcome being introduced right at the beginning.

            “the longer it doesn’t, the more I think it won’t.”
            “‘Or Not.’ That’s just how I feel about this right now.”
            “I agree that the media type here does color my views, and if I was just binge reading this through an archive, I probably wouldn’t have the same feeling of ‘why isnt she getting punished?'”

            I understand and I agree that this is something that specifically frustrates you more than average. For example, I can easily read several TPBs in a single sitting, so I know that with webcomics I’m going to have to wait interminably for each trickle of plot; but if I ever get tired of doing so, I simply don’t check the page again for a couple of weeks!

            But while it might be more viscerally satisfying for us as real world people to see the comeuppance come immediately (and I say might be, since not everyone here will agree with this), it’s *far* more narratively interesting for it to be hanging in the air like the Sword of Damocles, ready to fall at a more dramatically appropriate point. If everything were resolved straight after being introduced this comic would sink to the level of a basic Aesop’s morality tale and be far less of an interesting overall read. It simply makes a better story to delay these consequences, so while I sympathise with your frustration at still not seeing much to reassure you that they’re coming, I’d personally rather have a more believable and enthralling story to reread by the end of all this.

            As for trusting that it’s coming, only Brennan can tell you that one, but there are plenty of other plot threads that haven’t yet resolved fully or took several issues to conclude; Alison’s relationship with the other students, her student status itself, what will happen with the Conspiracy, Patrick’s real intentions for good or ill, bionormative supremacy, Project Valkyrie. Feral’s tale itself didn’t resolve in one sitting and is still ongoing even as we discuss it. So, it won’t really be a lost cause for quite some time yet. Personal preference would be at least half an issue to one issue between the cause and the effect of Alison’s strong-arming, maybe at the end of the Issue #7, since this issue feels like it’s on the way to finishing. Any earlier than the very last pages of Issue #6 and it probably will feel like a bit of a DeM to me.

            “I don’t see any reason why non-action should make a person culpable, unless that person caused the problem in the first place, or prevented OTHERS from fixing the problem, then did not fix it themselves.”

            Like I say, Max was wilfully bystanding in the way of Alison fixing the problem (I’m never going to get enough of that pun, honestly) – because he made it exceptionally clear that he wasn’t willing to do it himself. I understand we may disagree on this point, but I feel that Max passed from non-complicity to complicity when he refused to help – despite being shown the scale of the issue, being given a very simple solution that would immediately fix it at very low cost to him, being given a full explanation of the good it would do, being offered incentives, even being able to insult and reject the person offering just to spite her several times first. At that point he’s wilfully refusing for no other reason than to exert his will on the world. And since he is currently the only person actually able to fix the problem here, he is technically preventing others from fixing it by continually insisting that he will not help for any reason or reward at any point in future.

            Max’s choice is intended as a direct parallel to the powerful people in real life who deliberately refuse to help combat oppression and social inequality, despite their pre-existing wealth and privilege making them very useful allies in that fight, because in doing so they’d be diluting said wealth and privilege – and thus by grasping these tight they tacitly contribute to inequality instead. Thus some very visceral reactions to his character by many readers here who have had massive direct experience of such oppression. As a better person than myself recently tweeted, “Is your will worth more than the life of a black person? Is your pride worth more than the life of a woman, your comfort more than the life of a member of LGBT*?”

          • Izo

            “you made an analogic parallel to a literary character’s actions, and I used that parallel to explain why it made sense to concentrate on that character’s responses within a fictional story of which they are the lead figure. Which is, ultimately, what we’re debating here at base of it – whether Alison’s actions should be penalised within the story, to what extent, and when. In real life, responses come as soon as possible after the transgression;”

            I’m a little confused about how my wanting to see a consequence for Alison’s negative actions should NOT be concentrated on. Especially based on what you just said.

            “but within a story, the longer you wait, the more dramatic tension is created and the more rewarding it is for the reader to eke out every emotional drop of the experience.”

            It depends on the medium of the story. In interactive fiction or something that is already exceedingly long and drawn out in how it’s revealed (like a webcomic) a long wait becomes an excruciatingly long wait, and people do not have good memories. They have time to have the negative action seem like a distant memory, and unimportant, to the point where they no longer care about there being a consequence for ones actions.

            “That sounds like an intimate violation to me!”

            Intimate as in personal. But when people tell me ‘it’s not analagous to rape’ they usually use the flawed reasoning that what Alison did is not violating him in an intimate way as in SEX. They miss the point of an analogy entirely.

            “When I was describing the differences between the two acts and why I felt it was a false equivalency to conflate rape with Alison’s choices, I did so according to the effect both actions leave on the world”

            Proliferation of rape leaves an effect on the world where it’s prevalent.

            This is a moot point though. The analogy is about the mentality of the victimizer, not a comparison of the results of the crime.

            “- and therefore, from the perspective of the victim, not the perpetrator. In rape, the violence is invasive and the violation is primarily one of forced unwanted intimacy with a person the victim has no wish to be intimate with.”

            Unfortunately, you are misstating things. I think possibly unintentionally. From the perspective of the victim, he or she is being violated, regardless of the reason for it. From the perspective of the victimizer, they are violating someone in order to get SOMETHING they want, and they feel justified in doing so because they are physically more powerful.

            “As I said before, however, I can see why you’re drawing a parallel of the forcing of unwanted submission as well as violation of consent and agency.”

            I’m confused how you DO get this point, since this is the exact point of the analogy, but at the same time say it’s a false equivalency. This point you just made about my reasoning is exactly why it’s NOT a false equivalency.

            “But while it might be more viscerally satisfying for us as real world people to see the comeuppance come immediately (and I say might be, since not everyone here will agree with this),”

            Not requiring it immediately, but there’s not even a HINT of a problem with the plan aside from Alison feeling guilty. And mere guilt is not enough of a consequence, any more than it would be a good consequence for a person who gets away with rape, murder, mugging, or any other violent crime. Because it leaves no lasting impetus for them to not do it again, and it gives the reader the idea that this is acceptable to do, as long as you can deal with guilt twinges. Many people wouldn’t even have GUILT. It’s not like it doesnt already happen and is not prevalent in real life. Look at the riots that happen when there’s a court ruling some people don’t like, or when your sports team doesn’t win, or when your candidate does not win an election. When it becomes an excuse to riot and hurt people, people have crossed the line and gone from civilization to chaos. I worry, in RL, about how the world is becoming such that people think that not getting what you want becomes an excuse to cause physical harm to others.

            “it’s *far* more narratively interesting for it to be hanging in the air like the Sword of Damocles, ready to fall at a more dramatically appropriate point.”

            Yes, sometimes, but if the sword always falls within a certain amount of time for other story arcs, then for one it doesn’t fall at all, or even HINT that it might fall in the future, it take a lot of the bite out of the threat, or even the promise of there being a threat.

            “If everything were resolved straight after being introduced this comic would sink to the level of a basic Aesop’s morality tale and be far less of an interesting overall read.”

            This is not an either or situation. It’s not ‘Have the consequence happen IMMEDIATELY’ or have it happen at the very end. It should at least happen within a reasonable time, especially if that’s how it’s happened for every other story arc. Especially in a medium as slow-progressing as a webcomic. For every other story arc to have the result at least hinted to within a certain time, then one to not have any hint of a consequence at ALL is very jarring from a narrative standpoint of many readers. Or at least to me, and I’m assuming other readers.

            “As for trusting that it’s coming, only Brennan can tell you that one, but there are plenty of other plot threads that haven’t yet resolved fully or took several issues to conclude;”

            None of the other plot threads you describe are philosophical morality questions that ALISON has to deal with herself.

            “Alison’s relationship with the other students,”

            Not a philosophical morality question.

            “her student status itself,”

            Not a philosophical morality question.

            “what will happen with the Conspiracy,”

            Not a philosophical morality question, and also very clearly an overreacting background plotline, unlike this one.

            “Patrick’s real intentions for good or ill,”

            Clearly an overreacting background plotline, unlike this one, and also about Patrick, not about Alison, the protagonist.

            “bionormative supremacy,”

            Don’t know where this was ever a plotline in the first place.

            “Project Valkyrie.”

            Not a philosophical morality question.

            “Feral’s tale itself didn’t resolve in one sitting and is still ongoing even as we discuss it.”

            Background character, not about the main protagonist.

            “Personal preference would be at least half an issue to one issue between the cause and the effect of Alison’s strong-arming, maybe at the end of the Issue #7, since this issue feels like it’s on the way to finishing. Any earlier than the very last pages of Issue #6 and it probably will feel like a bit of a DeM to me.”

            Every other story arc has resolved at least the MAIN questions by the end of the issue, even if it leaves some hanging plot-threads for later. This isnt even bothering to deal with the main philosophical morality question and any consequences of it. It just says ‘everything worked out for the best for everyone, except Max, and who cares about Max since he’s a jerk and a rich white guy with evil looking cheekbones anyway. He probably deserved it.’

            “Like I say, Max was wilfully bystanding in the way of Alison fixing the problem (I’m never going to get enough of that pun, honestly) – because he made it exceptionally clear that he wasn’t willing to do it himself. ”

            See, that’s disturbing. Saying that if someone is not willing to do something, it’s acceptable to FORCE them to do it because you want them to, and you’re stronger than them. Defending that mentality is also exceedingly disturbing, because if someone ever tried to do that to me, I would resist. Violently if necessary to protect myself from being violated. And I suspect you would as well – it just matters WHAT you are resisting doing. Just because Max is resisting doing something you woudlnt resist is meaningless. You have to compare it to being forced to do something that you do NOT want to do.

            PS – what pun?

            “I understand we may disagree on this point, but I feel that Max passed from non-complicity to complicity when he refused to help”

            Refusing to help is not ‘complicity.’ Why aren’t you able to put yourself in the mindset of the victim, who is in this example Max. I don’t understand that. Is it because he’s a white male, or because the thing Alison was asking him to do is something you would have been willing to do in the first place? Think of it as if she was asking you to do something that you did NOT want to do.

            “even being able to insult and reject the person offering just to spite her several times first.”

            Did we read the same comic? The one doing the insulting was Alison, not Max.

            “At that point he’s wilfully refusing for no other reason than to exert his will on the world.”

            No, he’s willfully resisting because he is the only one who should have control over his own body. This would be so different a reaction from people if the genders were swapped, I feel.

            “And since he is currently the only person actually able to fix the problem here,”

            Except he’s not the only person able to fix the problem here. Feral can fix the problem of Feral being in a torturous situation by stopping. Or even just taking a break every so often. Paladin can get to work on creating superior artificial organs for people and mass-producing them for the world. If Max did not exist, the problem would still exist, and Alison would need to find another solution.

            “he is technically preventing others from fixing it by continually insisting that he will not help for any reason or reward at any point in future.”

            No, he’s not preventing anyone else from fixing it in the future. I don’t see Max holding a gun to Paladin’s head preventing her from stopping work on AI to start work on artificial organs, or cloning technology. Or did I miss that comic arc? He’s not preventing Feral from taking a break from her VOLUNTARY, self-imposed torture either.

            I’ve actually argued this ad nauseam in past threads and strips.

            “Max’s choice is intended as a direct parallel to the powerful people in real life who deliberately refuse to help combat oppression and social inequality”

            Completely and utterly wrong, sorry. Because with Max vs Alison, Max is NOT the powerful one. Alison is the powerful one, abusing her power to force the weak and helpless one to do her will.

            “despite their pre-existing wealth and privilege making them very useful allies in that fight, because in doing so they’d be diluting said wealth and privilege – and thus by grasping these tight they tacitly contribute to inequality instead.”

            If it’s your wealth, you have the right to do what you want with it. Not to mention Alison wasn’t asking for his wealth, and she seemed to not care about wealth when she tore up a $25 million check which could have been used to save tens of thousands of people.

            “Thus some very visceral reactions to his character by many readers here who have had massive direct experience of such oppression.”

            I’m pretty sure there are probably more than a few readers who have also been subjected to direct force by someone who thought ‘they’re stronger, so they can do what they want to you.’ I’m not going to then say it’s justified for that person to oppress the weaker person.

        • Who said anything about forgiveness? Alison clearly hasn’t forgiven herself, and I’ll guarantee Max hasn’t. That covers the two people who know what happened.

          You’re complaining about payback on an arc taking 24 hours, Patrick’s waiting for payback on an arc that’s existed for twenty yeaes, the murder of the biodynamic kids who would have saved the world (timing isn’t precise on that, but it seems to have been post storm, before anyone went active, so minimum of 10 years, potentially 20-odd). Alison’s relationship with Feral is years old, ditto with Patrick. Lisa’s relationship with Patrick over her contract is similarly years old. The story arcs in SFP tend to be long term ones, not short.

          • Izo

            “Who said anything about forgiveness? Alison clearly hasn’t forgiven herself, and I’ll guarantee Max hasn’t. That covers the two people who know what happened.”

            My comment was about the readership that seems to be getting told that we should ‘forgive’ Alison’s actions. You’re responding with Alison forgiving herself or Max forgiving her. You’re refuting the wrong thing here.

            “You’re complaining about payback on an arc taking 24 hours, Patrick’s waiting for payback on an arc that’s existed for twenty yeaes, the murder of the biodynamic kids who would have saved the world (timing isn’t precise on that, but it seems to have been post storm, before anyone went active, so minimum of 10 years, potentially 20-odd).”

            Again, you seem to be not understanding that my complaint is with the flow of the narrative in the story, and how it’s acting like what Alison did was not a bad thing, and allowing a bunch of DeM actions to let her extremely flawed plan go flawlessly, exactly as planned, with no downside, and possibly even better than expected. That sends a horrible moral.

            Every time you respond to my posts, you NEVER address this, or address the fact that this is saying ‘Might makes right. Abuse the weak if you think it will accomplish your goals.’ It seems a very UN-social justice thing to do, in fact. Please stop with the tangents or muddying the difference between in-universe time and the flow of the story to the readers, and respond to my actual posts? It makes the debate more useful if you’d do that. Thank you.

          • Where has anyone suggested forgiving Alison other than some of the ends justifies the means types here? (A view I think we find equally disturbing)

            The narrative has gone out of its way to show that there is an ongoing issue Alison hasn’t dealt with.

            “you seem to be not understanding that my complaint is with the flow of the narrative in the story,”

            As a writer, the last thing you want to do with something like this is resolve it instantly. You create the problem, then you shove it on the back-burner and let it simmer in the background until the flavours are good and intense, Maybe you show the audience Chekhov’s oven a time or two, but the whole point of a situation like this is to let the problem stew.

            “this is saying ‘Might makes right. Abuse the weak if you think it will accomplish your goals.’ ”

            You’re reading it wrong. It’s saying “might can force a solution, but it’s a sub-optimal solution that sells your soul to accomplish it.” Why do you think we spent all that time with Gurwara telling Alison that she was on the path to become a tyrant? Why were we shown Alison throwing up after liberating Feral? Why did she have such a bleak look on her face?

            The entire narrative, not just this arc, every page since page 1, is about being tempted to do good, by giving way to the temptation of evil. Alison, Patrick, Moonshadow, Furnace, they’ve all trodden the path. The goverment did it by drafting child soldiers, Feral trod it and turned away because of Alison, Lisa trod it as Paladin, and turned away because she realised where it ended. We’re being shown this repeatedly, to emphasise the path Alison is on.And the storytelling just levelled up on that in a way I, as a writer, find utterly breathtaking.

            I can’t respond to your questions the way you want, because apparently I’m seeing an entire layer of the narrative you don’t seem to recognise and I’m not about to turn my back on that.

          • SJ

            What child soldiers did the government draft?

          • Alison and the rest of the Guardians, plus all the lower level regional teams.

          • SJ

            The government didn’t draft the Guardians; Hector wanted to be a superhero, and talked Alison and the others into joining him. They got government backing after-the-fact, as a CYA move by the government.

          • Izo

            “Where has anyone suggested forgiving Alison other than some of the ends justifies the means types here?”

            Those actually ARE the types I’m talking about 🙂

            “(A view I think we find equally disturbing)”

            Believe it or not, it makes me feel more comfortable that you consider an ends justify the means view to be equally disturbing. 🙂

            “As a writer, the last thing you want to do with something like this is resolve it instantly. You create the problem, then you shove it on the back-burner and let it simmer in the background until the flavours are good and intense, Maybe you show the audience Chekhov’s oven a time or two, but the whole point of a situation like this is to let the problem stew.”

            I understsand what you’re trying to say, but I just feel like there hasn’t even been a hint of a problem beyond Alison feeling some minor guilt. But someone did point out that it’s been 90 pages into this arc, while the average is apparently around 150, so I guess there’s a little more time, but there would also need to be pages for the realization and lesson. The longer it goes, the more I feel like it will be forgotten that there is even something that Alison did that was wrong, or at best, what she did will be minimized since it was a while ago in realtime (and I know that it might not be that long in universe, but they can always do a time-skip in universe).

            “Why do you think we spent all that time with Gurwara telling Alison that she was on the path to become a tyrant?”

            No,no, I actually like the Gurwara part now on reflection, and I admit Brennan and Molly did a brilliant job of making me like a person that I initially hated. Total mind twist on me there.

            “Why were we shown Alison throwing up after liberating Feral? Why did she have such a bleak look on her face?”

            These two things, I’m more cynical about. I feel like those two things were meant to make us feel sympathy for Alison, despite that she did something that I find totally unsympathetic. It felt like it was meant to bully the readers into saying ‘Hey! She’s not a bad person! She feels guilty! Look, she threw up. Give the abusing victimizer a break!’

            I don’t want to give her a break until she has consequences for her action though, and it conflicts with my ability to re-humanize Alison (and I used to be a big Alison defender, acting like she was all good and pure and well-meaning up until the Max part, which forced me to do a complete 180 on her. Read any of my posts during Gurwara.

            “The entire narrative, not just this arc, every page since page 1, is about being tempted to do good, by giving way to the temptation of evil.”

            I consider that to be a lesser narrative to the main narrative, which you seem to ignore – the idea that having power does not equate to having wisdom or having the right to tell others what to do. A corollary to that is that if you do think that physical power gives you the moral justification to tell others what to do, then you’re no better than the people who victimize others when THEY are in power.

            “Alison, Patrick, Moonshadow, Furnace, they’ve all trodden the path.”

            Yes, and Alison is supposed to be the one that does NOT want to use her power to tell others what they must and must not do. She is supposed to be the one that is NOT a bully.

            Patrick is the terrorist, who thinks his power gives him some special insight and the ends justify the means.

            Moonshadow is the extremist, who thinks her power gives her the DUTY to kill people if she thinks they might be a threat, and the ends justify the means.

            Furnace is the comformist (ironically, since he’s also described as hating government, although I’m assuming the author meant hating ‘big government’, not hating government in general, given his stance on the police), and he uses his power to promote the authoritarian view of the government, and the end justifies the means.

            Alison as the protagonist was supposed to be the antithesis of all that stuff. With her, the ends are not supposed to justify the means. And in this story arc, it’s been showing that now SHE thinks the ends justify the means as well. It’s extremely discouraging because it turns a heroic person into what looks like propaganda for a ‘the ends justify the means’ mentality, which I never thought was compatible with social justice goals.

            “Feral trod it and turned away because of Alison, Lisa trod it as Paladin, and turned away because she realised where it ended.”

            Feral also believes the ends justify the means, but she’s internalized it so the means are where only she gets hurt – no one else. Which is better than the other people’s solutions, but it’s still sort of horrible. But at least with her, she’s doing it by choice and can stop whenever she wants.

            “We’re being shown this repeatedly, to emphasise the path Alison is on.And the storytelling just levelled up on that in a way I, as a writer, find utterly breathtaking.”

            Until this Max power use story arc, I would have been in full agreement with you. Right now I can’t be because it’s turning the entire premise on its head and Alison has become another generic ‘ends justify the means’ pawn of a fascist mentality, subjugating the individual for the good of the state. If she changes away from that, okay. But she still did it and isnt going to do anything to undo it if everything that happened as a result is all good and nothing horrifically bad happens or is realized to have happened.

            “I can’t respond to your questions the way you want, because apparently I’m seeing an entire layer of the narrative you don’t seem to recognise and I’m not about to turn my back on that.”

            Or maybe you’re glossing over an important layer that I’m more keenly focused on because you don’t recognize or minimize the importance of it, and I’m not about to turn my back on that and accept it as being a good thing? 🙂

          • “”The entire narrative, not just this arc, every page since page 1, is
            about being tempted to do good, by giving way to the temptation of
            evil.”

            I consider that to be a lesser narrative to the main
            narrative, which you seem to ignore – the idea that having power does
            not equate to having wisdom or having the right to tell others what to
            do.”

            I’m not ignoring that, I see that as a facet of the arc I’m describing.

          • Izo

            I think you’re wrong. I think it’s the opposite. What you’re describing is more a sub-narrative, which Alison got into with her talk to Cleaver.

    • Walter

      I don’t think they will? Like, she threw up. She feels bad about it.

      I think the main impact of it (story wise) was making Feral an active character again without smudging her halo. I’m not sure it needs to do double duty leading into another arc.

      I mean letting Moonshadow go hasn’t returned as a plot element. The comic is primarily concerned with Alison’s state. Side characters are only important as they indicate stuff about her. They can hang out in limbo for a long time / forever.

      • Izo

        “I don’t think they will? Like, she threw up. She feels bad about it.”

        No offense, but why should anyone care if the rapist feels bad afterwards for his crime? Yeah. Using the rape analogy again because it fits. She feels bad that she had to compromise her morals, and will do so in the future. Big whoop. She has shown she will do it again anyway, and feeling bad doesn’t change what she did.

        If someone beats me up and threatens to kill me, then I find out ‘they really feel bad about it,’ it’s no comfort to me. I still want them in jail. Especially when they said they’ll do it again.

        “I think the main impact of it (story wise) was making Feral an active character again without smudging her halo. I’m not sure it needs to do double duty leading into another arc.”

        And here again is an example of why I was concerned about this story arc. People are deciding that, since no negative consequence to the plan happened, the plan is fine and we should just move on from what she did. This is a common behavioral trait for many people – the concept that if a person does something bad and nothing bad happens as a result, then maybe what they did wasn’t so bad after all.

        “I mean letting Moonshadow go hasn’t returned as a plot element. ”

        As bad as the moonshadow arc was (and it was one of the less good arcs so far, unlike arcs like the Cleaver arc, which was probably the BEST one), at least with Moonshadow, she is now a hunted criminal because it was all on video and everyone knows she’s a criminal now.

        It’s a sort of VERY weak result (I mean, Clevin doesn’t seem to have a problem with his hamstring being cut or his friend being killed, and the dam being destroyed didn’t seem to actually harm anyone for some reason that makes no sense at all to me), but it’s at least more than having a tummy ache for making a moral boo boo.

        “The comic is primarily concerned with Alison’s state. Side characters are only important as they indicate stuff about her. They can hang out in limbo for a long time / forever.”

        Yes, but this is why this arc is worse than the Moonshadow arc. Because there has been NO consequence here, while there as at least something to the moonshadow one. Because in the Moonshadow arc, it was Moonshadow doing the evil thing, not Alison herself.

        • Walter

          I…like, I don’t know what you want here.

          You’ve made it clear that you view Alison’s action as a moral abomination. I have just as steadfastly refused to condemn either Max or Alison’s choices.

          I feel like there is grounds to believe that the creators agree with me. I believe they see Alison’s action is a transgression, but not the all-consuming abomination you seem to view it as. The reason I believe this is that the story isn’t changing to Rich Male Protagonist. We are expected to continue identifying with, and respecting, Alison in a way that would be impossible if the creators believed that their audience would share your view that she is a rapist.

          Beyond that, though, I feel like you have some unrealistic expectations of this comic, given its name and nature. Like, the creators literally pointed out today that it is about social justice. When you are identifying with the rich white dude (if someone beats me up and…) it feels like you are outside of that moral universe.

          • Izo

            “I…like, I don’t know what you want here.”

            Negative consequences for evil acts, so that the hero can start to redeem herself and recognize that she took the evil, easy way, and those ways do not work out for the best. That’s what I’d like. A recognition of the law of unintended consequences for a morally negative action. The idea that making a new structure with a corrupt foundation means the structure is going to collapse and hurt people in the process.

            “I feel like there is grounds to believe that the creators agree with me. I believe they see Alison’s action is a transgression, but not the all-consuming abomination you seem to view it as.”

            Possibly. I’m not really in their minds. I tend to view people actively removing another’s agency by physical force to be monstrous. I’ve dealt with people who do that in real life who think they’ve done nothing wrong, or who think what they did was justified for selfish reasons, or even for what they consider ‘the greater good.’ I don’t like the moral of ‘I did evil for the greater good’ if there is no comeuppance of those means.

            “The reason I believe this is that the story isn’t changing to Rich Male Protagonist.”

            I don’t want it to be Rich Male Protagonist either. Nothing I’ve said has made me want it to be like that. I just don’t want victim blaming just because the victim is male or rich. I’m viewing Max as a victim, not as rich and male. I don’t consider whether someone is male or female to make you less of a person worthy of being treated like a human being. That being said, I want the Strong Female Protagonist to be a Protagonist, not an Antagonist to the very things that she’s supposed to be a Protagonist – the whole belief that ‘physical might does not make you morally superior or wiser than others, and does not give you leadership qualities on its own.’ That’s the entire reason Alison quit being a superhero in the first place in the beginning of the comic. It’s the whole point, or so I thought. The idea that moral righteousness does not come from physical power and should not be enforced by mere physical power. I thought that actually has strong feminist values of equality, since in real life, usually it’s men who are physically stronger and more able to use physical force to make others comply.

            “We are expected to continue identifying with, and respecting, Alison in a way that would be impossible if the creators believed that their audience would share your view that she is a rapist.”

            I find it hard to identify with Alison anymore, in a way that I used to because of how she abused her powers to remove agency from another person and violate their freedom of choice. I’d like to see them do something so I can emphasize with her again, to see that she’s on some sort of path of learning that might does NOT make right. But the longer it doesn’t happen, the less hopeful I am.

            “Beyond that, though, I feel like you have some unrealistic expectations of this comic, given its name and nature.”

            I prefer to think that I have very high expectations for this comic because it’s typically better than many other comics in the message it was originally trying to send. I want to see it keep to a higher message, not some base idea of ‘hurt people and betray your basic personal ideals if you think it will get you what you want.’

            Heroism isn’t about taking the easy way and abusing ones powers. It’s about sticking to heroic principles even when it’s difficult. Alison didn’t do that. She took the easy way – physical violence against an unlikeable but non-criminal person who never hurt another person – in order to get what she wants – helping Feral.

            “Like, the creators literally pointed out today that it is about social justice.”

            Then we seem to have different concepts of social justice. I consider social justice to need to be, well… just. What she did to Max was not just. It was social injustice.

            “When you are identifying with the rich white dude (if someone beats me up and…) it feels like you are outside of that moral universe.”

            Max’s wealth, skin color, and gender have nothing to do with my identifying with him. Max could have been a female native-american middle class factory worker and I would have felt the same way. Max could be a transgendered impoverished black/hispanic artist, and I’d feel the same way. I’m identifying with Max as a victim, not as his descriptor labels. I’ve mentioned this before a lot – the idea that if Alison had been male and Max had been female, a lot of pro-Alison apologists would suddenly think Al was evil, and what Al did to Maxine was unforgivably evil, very much like a rapist and his victim.

          • Walter

            Izo, you are very eloquent, but I can’t help but feel like you are demanding salad at the steak bar. I don’t want to get into a debate over which is better, but it feels like you are smashing your face against the comics declared purpose.

            You mentioned that your life has familiarized you with the courts in a prior conversation, so the ethical system that disagrees with you isn’t unfamiliar to you. A person can be blameless, and yet it can be necessary for the agents of justice to visit misfortune upon them in the process of preventing a greater harm.

            A city has to get nuked to win a war, saving x lives. In that city is a flower seller, who lived and died without harming another. The nuking is widely considered a necessary and proper action by history. None of those responsible are condemned. Neither is the flower seller.

            Leaving aside arguing about whether whichever deontological system you subscribe to is better or worse than consequentialism (at which we’d surely reach a swift impasse), it really does seem like the comic adheres to consequentialism.

            This is the part in Man Of Steel, where Superman must kill in order to save tens of thousands. It isn’t a triumphant beat, but neither does he require redemption. You are acting like it is the part at the start of the Thomas Covenant books, where the main character loses the audiences sympathy, and spends the remainder of the ten book series atoning.

            The comic is proceeding, and I predict will proceed, as though Alison is a sympathetic figure to the viewers.

          • Izo

            “Izo, you are very eloquent, but I can’t help but feel like you are demanding salad at the steak bar.”

            Thank you. And I think you’re very polite, even though I think you’re incorrect :).

            “I don’t want to get into a debate over which is better, but it feels like you are smashing your face against the comics declared purpose.”

            I don’t think I am. I’m basing this belief on what has happened in the comic from the beginning. The whole concept of ‘physical might does not make you someone that people should listen to, intelligence and freedom to make your own choices does.’ I base most of what I think the goal of the comic is meant to be on Alison’s initial breakdown on TV which spurred everything that happens afterwards. IF this was not the declared purpose of social justice, if social justice is just ‘bullying people by physical force’ then it’s a flawed purpose, and a disservice to people who actually believe in making the world a better place.

            “You mentioned that your life has familiarized you with the courts in a prior conversation,”

            Yes, well that’s mainly because I worked in a DA’s office for a year, and in family court in an alternative dispute mediation department as a court-licensed mediator for a little more than 6 months, before I went into my current area of law (although I still do pro bono work where I have to deal with stuff that I don’t like as much).

            “so the ethical system that disagrees with you isn’t unfamiliar to you.”

            Not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain?

            “A person can be blameless, and yet it can be necessary for the agents of justice to visit misfortune upon them in the process of preventing a greater harm.”

            I think that’s an excuse that has been used too often by tyrants, dictators, and thoughtless leaders. Yes – collateral damage happens. But no – you shouldn’t be seeking out to cause collateral damage if possible. Not to mention Max wasn’t even ‘collateral damage.’ He was the target. Also, collateral damage usually happens after someone on the other side has done something to go to war against. Max did nothing for Alison to go to war against him on. He did the ABSENCE of doing something. There’s a difference between forcing someone to do something, and forcing someone to NOT do something. Your example with the flower seller is the example of acceptable collateral damage (MAYBE… assuming nuclear war wasn’t the first, go-to option – if it was, then it’s not acceptable), because its during a time of war, and they were not trying to target the flower seller.

            “Leaving aside arguing about whether whichever deontological system you subscribe to is better or worse than consequentialism (at which we’d surely reach a swift impasse), it really does seem like the comic adheres to consequentialism.”

            I’m not that sure of that, although even if it does, it’s describing it in such a way to give the other side definite points, even if it sometimes engages in strawman arguments. Usually it does NOT – case in point with Gurwara, who is a character I hate, but I have learned that I have to grudgingly accept as ‘strawman has a point.’

            Sort of the same way I Carl Anheuser in 2012 is a strawman who we’re supposed to disagree with and see as the bad guy, but every argument he makes is incredibly logical, fair, and reasonable. Strawman has a point. In the end it’s actually Anheuser who is in the right every single time, and the main protagonist is an idiot who would have gotten everyone killed had he been in charge.

            “This is the part in Man Of Steel, where Superman must kill in order to save tens of thousands.”

            You know, I used to think ‘why are people getting so angry at Superman in that movie – he had no choice – he had to break Zod’s neck to save those civilians!’ Then my friend told me something which I could NOT argue against, and I had to change my mind. He said ‘why didn’t Superman force him to turn his head away. If he had the strength to break his neck, he had the strength to turn his head up, or the other way. Long enough for them to get away. Or even fly up with Zod.

            He was right. Superman was an idiot. He was also an idiot for not saving his father from that tornado just because his father told him not to.

            “It isn’t a triumphant beat, but neither does he require redemption.”

            Actually, part of the fan hate for the Man of Steel movie was that he did, in fact, cause so much destruction in Metropolis, and undoubtedly caused thousands of deaths in collateral damage. Although I tend to disagree with THIS argument, since for the actual battle, Superman literally did NOT have a choice. The fight was where the Kryptonians under Zod wanted it to be, not where Superman wanted. In any case, Batman v Superman was a whole big thing about how Superman did need to seek redemption, although Batman went at it the most hypocritical, awkward, and illogical way possible, given Batman was killing people left and right like a common criminal.

            “You are acting like it is the part at the start of the Thomas Covenant books, where the main character loses the audiences sympathy, and spends the remainder of the ten book series atoning.”

            No, I just want to see some sort of penalty for her actions beyond ‘I feel bad about it.’ I want to see actual character growth, like she had been showing during the Cleaver arc…. not her going completely backwards on her journey to being a more well-rounded person.

            “The comic is proceeding, and I predict will proceed, as though Alison is a sympathetic figure to the viewers.”
            Only because the author is trying to paint her as sympathetic through artificial means – showing sad faces and nervous puking and whatnot. A lot of people do not see Alison as a sympathetic figure anymore because of what she did to Max, a person in a position of strength bullying over a person in a position of weakness. It literally seems counterintuitive to what Social Justice proponents normally espouse, and just makes them look like hypocrites to say ‘well if we were in power, we’d do the same exact thing but for OUR purposes instead.’ It does a disservice to the notion of social justice.

            There’s also some people who might still see Alison as a sympathetic figure, but more in the lines of a sympathetic VILLAIN, like Harley Quinn pre-leaving the joker, or Mr. Freeze, or Poison Ivy pre-New 52.

          • Walter

            Zodd:

            He was getting stronger by the second. Superman killed him at pretty much the last time that he could. If he let him go on any longer their powers would be equal, at which point Supes would be betting the world that he would win a fight with a much better trained guy. It was a righteous kill.

            Court:

            We’ve got the notion that sometimes living quietly and harming no one is not an option. Jury Duty, most obviously, but the gov may also take your house if it feels like building a road there, etc. There is a general principle that sometimes situations may impose additional duties on people. If you are sitting on a metaphorical gold mine that will cure organ shortages forever, the gov will move you. The deputies may be apologetic, perhaps later on you will win a civil case, but your obstruction will cease.

            SJ:

            You can find fault with the movement all you like, of course, but it’s position re: “is it ok to afflict one comfortable person in order to comfort all afflicted people” isn’t in doubt. This comic isn’t sneaking this belief system in the back door. It is on the can, you knew what you were buying.

          • SJ

            SJ:

            You can find fault with the movement all you like, of course, but it’s position re: “is it ok to afflict one comfortable person in order to comfort all afflicted people” isn’t in doubt. This comic isn’t sneaking this belief system in the back door. It is on the can, you knew what you were buying.

            Why the hell was I brought into this?!

          • Izo

            Zodd:
            “He was getting stronger by the second.”

            Where did you get THAT from?

            “Superman killed him at pretty much the last time that he could. If he let him go on any longer their powers would be equal, at which point Supes would be betting the world that he would win a fight with a much better trained guy.”

            You have absolutely no reasoning to say that Zod was getting stronger from one second to the next while Superman clearly had the advantage. My friend’s point, which did sway me, was that if Superman had the strength to, at that point, snap his neck (which takes a lot of strength to do), then he had enough strength to turn him away, or fly upwards with him, giving enough time for the civilians to run away. I don’t change my mind easily, unless the other person makes an argument which I can’t counter, and this response of his, I couldn’t counter without inventing new rules which do not exist within the canon of the movie (ie, your reasoning that Zod was going to be too powerful within the 3 seconds between Superman holding him in a headlock and Superman breaking his neck).

            Court:

            “We’ve got the notion that sometimes living quietly and harming no one is not an option.”

            Um… living quietly and harming no one IS an option. What the heck?

            “Jury Duty, most obviously,”

            Jury duty is a civic duty that you sign up to do when you register to vote. Think of it like a shrink wrap contract in video games that you also agree to not to make illegal copies of the game.

            It’s very different than a private individual telling another private individual that they MUST do something. The government is different than private individuals. We give the government power over individuals to use legal force in order to have a coherent civilization. That’s one reason why libertarians in particular feel that government power must be as limited as possible – so the government does not abuse this VERY powerful ability that it, and no one else, has.

            “but the gov may also take your house if it feels like building a road there, etc.”

            Eminent domain – which is something many libertarians and citizens in general feel run contrary to individual rights. But even with eminent domain, the fact is…. GOVERNMENT is doing this and citizens have a social contract with the government to give the government certain powers over them in exchange for being citizens. Government is not another individual. Alison is not the government. No one ever elected her to power to do ANYTHING. And even if Alison WAS the government, which she’s not by any stretch of the imagination, it would still require giving Max due process and the right to challenge her determination. It’s a moot point, though, since ALISON IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT AND DOESNT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MAX EAT A HAM SANDWICH, LET ALONE USE HIS POWERS.

            “There is a general principle that sometimes situations may impose additional duties on people. If you are sitting on a metaphorical gold mine that will cure organ shortages forever, the gov will move you. The deputies may be apologetic, perhaps later on you will win a civil case, but your obstruction will cease.”

            Again, please stop comparing what the government is allowed to force you to do with what an individual can force you to do. Not to mention this argument you just made is flawed, since the government LEGALLY cannot force you to have an operation. There have been MULTIPLE court cases on this in various situations, criminal AND civil. The government can move you from your property. They can not invade your body, though, beyond extremely limited situations like requiring a blood test if you want a legal marriage certificate, or taking fingerprints if you’re arrested. They CANT take blood samples though, even if you’re arrested, without a court order or your permission. And the court tends to not give permission for that. When they do, it tends to be overruled by the appellate court.

            So no, you can’t compare moving you from your property with forcing the use of your body. It’s like saying the government could force you to have children if we were facing a diminishing population, or forcing you to have a vasectomy or hysterectomy or tubes tied if they want to prevent overpopulation. Or worse, that another private individual has the right to do that to you.

            SJ:
            “You can find fault with the movement all you like, of course,”

            When did I say I found fault with the notion of social justice? I find fault with the idea of using unjust means while claiming to be enforcing social justice. It’s a contrary mentality.

            “but it’s position re: “is it ok to afflict one comfortable person in order to comfort all afflicted people” isn’t in doubt.”

            It is most definitely in doubt.

            “This comic isn’t sneaking this belief system in the back door. It is on the can, you knew what you were buying.”

            I have no idea what part of what I said that you are responding to at this point. I’m pointing out that, in the story itself, the entire point of Alison’s story is that she had a nervous breakdown at the insane concept that just because she was physically more powerful, people thought she had some special insight into what is right and wrong and how to make people live their lives and other important situations in the world.

          • Walter

            Zod: He had left the kryptonian enclosure, so he was getting super powers. It’s been a while since I saw the movie, but didn’t he just get heat vision in that scene?

            Like, it might not have been in the next few seconds, but soon enough, earth would make him superman’s equal. At that point, he would execute his omnicidal intentions. No cell can hold him, no one but Superman can kill him. Absent kryptonite (which they don’t know about in the first movie) Zod is uncontainable. Waiting just would have changed the execution into a bet on a 50/50 fight.

            Alison: Ah, see, I see the gov’s right as deriving from its might. Like, the reason you comply with jury duty / eminent domain, etc, is that a long time ago some dudes shot some other dudes and they got to make the rules. We’ve obeyed their heirs ever since because bullets are super uncomfortable.

            Alison is stronger than the gov, so, in the same way that the gov has the right to take of your time as it pleases, to conscript you and send you to fight in a war you don’t believe in even, she can make Max do what she likes. The court of appeal on this point is physics, and currently it seems to favor her.

            The “due process” that you mention is just the gov talking to itself. Why is it “due” that 12 of your fellow citizens convict before it throws you in jail, and not 13? The gov thought it was a cool number. Alison has a similar ability to define her own process, and gains similar legitimacy form it. “Nothing, and if I feel like it, I will.”

            Social Justice: Alison’s breakdown arose from her understanding that she was a patsy of the comfortable, destroying convenient scapegoats rather than actually fixing the world. This is not that. it is kind of the opposite. Rather than spectacular violence that accomplishes nothing that wasn’t circular (Superheroics save the lives that supervillainy endangers!), this is comparatively small amounts of violence that saved the lives of thousands.

            The idea that Max can abstain from his duty to aid the oppressed isn’t something that social justice will countenance.

          • Izo

            “Zod: He had left the kryptonian enclosure, so he was getting super powers. It’s been a while since I saw the movie, but didn’t he just get heat vision in that scene?”

            Just so you know this about Superman canon….. their powers are based on yellow sunlight exposure. You can take this to mean two things – both of which support my friend’s point.

            1) Superman had decades of absorbing yellow sunlight. Zod only had a few days. Therefore, even if Zod was getting stronger, Superman has a MASSIVE advantage in strength, and should be capable of turning his head away, or flying up with Zod, giving the civilians a chance to escape.

            2) Superman had decades of absorbing yellow sunlight, but theres a cap at which point the two will be equal in power levels. The LAST two powers which a Kryptonian gains is heat vision, then flight as the final power they get. It’s also the power they start losing first under a red sun. Zod had already gained flight at the very beginning of the fight and Superman and Zod were therefore equal in power, so there’s no risk of Zod ‘getting stronger.’ If anything, Superman had shown that he was actually stronger from the position he was in in the fight against Zod. Therefore, he would have been capable of turning his head away or flying up with Zod, giving the civilians a chance to escape.

            ” Alison: Ah, see, I see the gov’s right as deriving from its might. Like, the reason you comply with jury duty / eminent domain, etc, is that a long time ago some dudes shot some other dudes and they got to make the rules. We’ve obeyed their heirs ever since because bullets are super uncomfortable.”

            Yes, Government is the ONLY thing which is legally allowed to use force to make people do something. And thats why government needs to be limited as much as possible, because it’s so EASILY subject to abuse. You should never want such power in the hands of an individual. It’s problematic that we even have to have it in the hands of government, but there it’s a necessary evil for society to function without lawlessness. This is a standard libertarian stance for small, limited government, in fact.

            Penn Gilette explains this rather well. The idea being that there are VERY few things you should ever give the government the right to decide for you, because of the very fact that the government is the only entity allowed to use force LEGALLY to force others to do something.

            https://youtu.be/2fvGasiOkBY?t=329
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e1VjA_-d48

            “Alison is stronger than the gov, so, in the same way that the gov has the right to take of your time as it pleases, to conscript you and send you to fight in a war you don’t believe in even, she can make Max do what she likes.”

            No offense, but that is the most horrific thing I’ve heard in this debate so far. You are literally saying that if a person is stronger than another person, they can do ANYTHING they want. Alison is not the government, regardless of strength. The people have not put her in that position of authority over them. Max CERTAINLY didn’t give her permission to be in authority over him. If anything, your description of Alison’s privileged status necessitates the government using every resource conceivable to kill Alison, or to make sure she NEVER uses her powers, and it makes me genuinely nervous when people make the sort of statement saying ‘the strong should overpower the weak by dint of their superior strength alone’ because that’s the reasoning of Hitler, of Stalin, of Pol Pot, and of every other of the worst mass murderers and conquerors and snuffers of freedom that the world has ever known. I really hope that you’re just making this argument without realizing the implications of what you’re saying.

            In universe, the same logic of what you’re saying Alison should be able to do to Max, you should say the Government should be able to FORCE Feral to do, even if she did NOT want to donate her organs. I’ve mentioned this before, and usually no one actually responds to this part of my argument. The reason people usually don’t respond to it is because responding to it in a contrary way is monstrous, because Feral, unlike Max, is someone people like. Which means that you’re not actually forcing the person because of the good he or she can do for the world, but rather because you like or don’t like the person who you are going to victimize.

            “The “due process” that you mention is just the gov talking to itself.”

            No it’s not, and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of due process. Due process is the government being LIMITED by a set of rules decided by the people, which need to be used on people uniformly, regardless of the person. No one is above the law. That’s the point of due process. Equality under the law and limiting government’s ability to summarily punish its citizens without justification and consent.

            “Why is it “due” that 12 of your fellow citizens convict before it throws you in jail, and not 13? The gov thought it was a cool number.”

            Uh…. no. In fact, there’s nothing anywhere in the Constitution that says a jury has to be 12 people. In fact, in different states, there are different numbers of people on juries, depending on laws passed and voted for by the people. Florida, Connecticut, and other states have juries of six and nine people which can be considered and allowed. Grand Juries can have upwards of 23 people.

            The way a jury amount is decided isnt picked out of a hat though. There’s an actual mathematical reason for why it tends to be a dozen people. It’s a compromise between having a large enough size to ensure proper deliberation and small enough to not make jury selection in voir dire take forever.

            Saying the government picks 12 ‘because it’s a cool number’ is grossly unfounded and incorrect.

            “Alison has a similar ability to define her own process, and gains similar legitimacy form it. “Nothing, and if I feel like it, I will.””

            Your initial argument is flawed (that due process is the government arguing with itself, when it’s actually the the government arguing with its citizens), and therefore your argument about Alison is likewise flawed. And even if your initial argument was not flawed, your argument about Alison is still flawed because Alison has no legitimacy AS a government, since she was not put there by the people in the first place. No one gave her authority over them, unlike citizens giving the government authority over them, at least to even a limited extent.

            “Social Justice: Alison’s breakdown arose from her understanding that she was a patsy of the comfortable, destroying convenient scapegoats rather than actually fixing the world.”

            No, that is NOT what she said. That’s not even remotely what she said at all. Read her ACTUAL WORDS.

            Alison: Do you know how to stop a war, Pintsize? Cause I sure don’t!

            Alison: Look! I’ve been in the Pentagon like four times, but I’m not even really sure what the Pentagon does! I’m supposed to fight crime, but I don’t even know how laws get passed! I mean…. Truth, Justice and the American Way? I stopped taking social studies when I was like fifteen! I grew up in Westchester, and have never travelled anywhere else without this stupid domino mask on my face! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO’S SCARED THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO ME FOR ANSWERS BECAUSE I CAN LIFT A CAR OVER MY HEAD?! THIS IS CRAZY!

            “The idea that Max can abstain from his duty to aid the oppressed isn’t something that social justice will countenance.”

            If you think that the strong should be able to bully and oppress the weak to meet their own ends, then you’re not in favor of social justice – you’re in favor of fascism. I tend to not like to think that the two are actually related, but too many people tend to try to go a route which is too close to fascism because going the JUST way to achieve social JUSTice is difficult. Like anything worth doing is difficult. And violence is, on the other hand, so easy. But if you decide, when you have power, that the best way to use that power is to do the exact same bullying, oppressive, fascist tactics that you would be against if you were the oppressed, the marginalized, and the helpless, then you’re not accomplishing social justice. You’re killing it.

          • Walter

            Zod: I’m not sure I’m explaining my point well enough. Like, say you are right. Say Superman is measurably stronger than Zod. He forces his gaze up. People evacuate.

            What now? Does he hold him forever? There is no Kryptonite, no cell can contain this all-killing monster. Zod has declared war on earth. There is nothing to be gained by delay.

            Gov: A gov that does not have a monopoly on force within its borders isn’t one. It is a faction, a competing tribe. SFP’s gov does not have a monopoly on force. Alison does as she pleases, and the gov does not resist or take action against her. It is apparent that the true gov is Alison, since she can act but not be acted upon. The fact that she hasn’t formalized this process isn’t super relevant. Alison is in charge, by virtue of being able to overcome, at will, the gov’s forces. Ergo, if she wants to greater good something, or someone, she can, by dint of whatever makes you believe it is ok when a bunch of guys with guns (the USG) does it.

            I suspect that my and your experience with the justice system comes from opposite ends of it. Please accept my assurance that the only reason that its victims comply is that men with guns enforce it. Perhaps your circles are motivated by civic duty, or tell you that. The condition is by no means universal.

            Gov killing Alison: They can’t, and trying would be illogical. They should humor her in all things. Currently she wishes to live as a college student, give or take a Max or two. Upsetting that status quo would be crazy.

            Limited Gov: It is a curiously passive phrase, is it not? Limited…by what? By the gov itself, right? So if it decided to stop following those limits they’d vanish. The gov deciding that taking your stuff is ok if some of it gives papers and says words to other parts of it is like a bully saying that he can take your lunch money if he hops up and down in place beforehand. One appreciates that there is a process, to be sure, but the process is not why you hand over your lunch money, it is the threat of force.

            There is no way out of being under one bully, as Max found out. The strongest force around gets to decide what ‘due process’ shall entail. If there is a dispute, then afterwards the survivors will all agree that the loser started it, or there will be another dispute. Presently, that bully is the gov. My patients let it take their family members and lock them in cells because otherwise they will be shot. If some lady appeared who was stronger than the gov their allegiance would switch in a heartbeat.

          • Izo

            “What now? Does he hold him forever? There is no Kryptonite, no cell can contain this all-killing monster. Zod has declared war on earth. There is nothing to be gained by delay.”

            You’re missing a vital point of the action of Superman killing Zod. He’s not doing it because he doesn’t know what to do with Zod in the future. He’s doing it to save the civilians right there. It’s another example of an artificial trolley problem (save the 4 civilians or kill a person), ignoring the fact that he could have done multiple other things as well. The problem of what to do with Zod after that is not relevant to the trolley problem in question. Also, based on Superman 2, the Fortress has technology which can arguably hold or even depower a Kryptonian. Remember, that’s how Zod was taken care of in the original movies when he came around.

            Also there is kryptonite, at least by Batman vs Superman.

            The point is, a hero’s first act isn’t supposed to be to commit an act which they’d consider immoral and unheroic. It needs to be the LAST choice.

            “Gov: A gov that does not have a monopoly on force within its borders isn’t one. It is a faction, a competing tribe.”

            I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I’ve read these two sentences several times. Please explain.

            “SFP’s gov does not have a monopoly on force.”

            Actually no. SFP’s gov DOES have a monopoly on LEGAL force, if it’s anything like real life government. Considering the problems they discuss in the comic, with the exception of the existence of biodynamics, the SFP verse seems to be rather identical to real life,which makes sense since it’s supposed to be espousing social justice issues as a comparison with those issues in real life in order to create debate and conversation.

            “Alison does as she pleases, and the gov does not resist or take action against her.”

            Then Alison is a monster who needs to be stopped somehow, and the government should have spent whatever money is necessary to find a way to take her out if she is out of control, which she seems to be based on what you’re saying. You literally just made me even more against her somehow.

            “It is apparent that the true gov is Alison, since she can act but not be acted upon.”

            No. She is not a government. You are making up facts that are not true. She has been given no power by the people. You are not describing a government – at least not a government of the people. You’re describing, at best, a tyrant (thanks Gurwara), and at worst an unstoppable criminal and a bully, and her entire speech to Cleaver in the prison was a load of crap.

            “The fact that she hasn’t formalized this process isn’t super relevant.”

            Uh, yes it is.

            “Alison is in charge, by virtue of being able to overcome, at will, the gov’s forces.”

            Congratulations. You’ve just made the villain of EVERY movie, comic book, and TV show who requires a hero to stop them governments and all of their actions justified just because theyre powerful. Seriously reminds me of Loki’s reason for why he should be in control. Or Thanos. Actually you’re going to be rooting for Thanos in Infinity War, right? Based on your reasoning, you should.

            “Ergo, if she wants to greater good something, or someone, she can, by dint of whatever makes you believe it is ok when a bunch of guys with guns (the USG) does it.”

            Then have the US Government kidnap her sister and everyone she loves, and kill them one at a time until she complies. Make sure to torture them first, of course, and keep them for the rest of their lives in a facility that Alison does not know the location of, and use double and triple blinds so that Patrick can’t simply read minds to find out where they are. Also have a failsafe, that if she does find the place, a nuclear bomb goes off to incinerate all of them. Except maybe Alison, who might survive. Since you’ve already thrown all morality out the window and all options for anyone EXCEPT Alison having any sense of agency, there’s no reason to not do this anymore.

            Give me liberty or give me death, after all.

            “I suspect that my and your experience with the justice system comes from opposite ends of it.”

            I’m an attorney, which makes me an officer of the court. And I’ve worked in a DA’s office, and do pro bono work each year. I’ve also been a court-certified mediator. My experience with the justice system comes from actually knowing the justice system and how it works. Also from knowing the plea process so I’ve had to deal with people who were truly horrible people. Which is why I no longer work in the DA’s office. I hated it.

            “Please accept my assurance that the only reason that its victims comply is that men with guns enforce it.”

            Are we still talking about the jury system? Because otherwise you just made my point. The government is the ONLY entity allowed to engage in physical force on others legally, in order to prevent total anarchy and allow the growth of civilization in general.

            “Perhaps your circles are motivated by civic duty, or tell you that. The condition is by no means universal.”

            Hate to tell you this, but most people are motivated by either civic duty, or at least a sense of right and wrong and following rules. If that was not the case, most juries would decide things right away, and every jury deliberation would be, by every juror who did not want to be there:

            ‘What can we all decide to get out of here right now? Okay, let’s all decide guilty or innocent, or ‘do we have one pay the other money or not?’ Doesn’t matter which. I’ll go along with anyone so we can leave.’

            No. Jurors actually tend to care about what their decisions are. I’ve been on juries. I’ve also helped to choose them in voir dire a few times

            And if they do so because they’ll be violating the law if they keep on putting off jury duty (you can put it off a couple of times), then we’re back to my initial point that the government is the only entity that can LEGALLY use force.

            “Limited Gov: It is a curiously passive phrase, is it not?”

            Uh… no, it’s not. Don’t be so cheeky about that okay? Limited government is important.

            “Limited…by what?”

            Limited by the Constitution. And the statutes written by lawmakers, and enforced by the President, and interpreted by the Judicial system. And the lawmakers and the president are elected by the people. So it’s limited BY THE PEOPLE. Since we’re a republic.

            “By the gov itself, right?”

            No. Not by the gov itself. No offense, but you need to take a civics class please.

            “So if it decided to stop following those limits they’d vanish.”

            No.

            First, the government is not one monolithic organization. It is composed of representatives, executives, judges, all of whom are checking and balancing one another, and who are ultimately culpable to their constituents. By them just ignoring the rules, there are different punishments for those people who do. Impeachment. Imprisonment. Disbarment. Having someone else run against the people in power and win. Does that last one remind you of anything recent happening?

            The concept of Limited government doesnt just vanish if some of those representative decide to ignore the law.

            Not to mention the absolute last resort. Revolution by the people (which is the actual reason for the second amendment as the Founding Fathers envisioned it – to allow the population to protect itself against a tyrannical government that ignores all the rules and safeguards in place and revolt, if the government became like the tyrant they had a Revolution to free themselves from)

            Seriously, you’re genuinely scaring me that a person who seems polite and reasonable would have these sort of ideas of how you think government works and should work. You’re describing a fake banana republic under a tin horn dictator. You’re basically describing something like Kim Jong Il or Kim Jong Un’s North Korea or Stalin’s Russia, or Marie Antoinette’s France or Idi Amin’s Uganda.

            “There is no way out of being under one bully, as Max found out.”

            So you’re saying Alison is the villain, but you think it’s good that Alison is a villain? I’m confused about why you think this is good. If I have a gun, and I’m in a room with you, is it good if I take all your money because you don’t want to be shot? Did I do a good thing?

            “The strongest force around gets to decide what ‘due process’ shall entail. If there is a dispute, then afterwards the survivors will all agree that the loser started it, or there will be another dispute. Presently, that bully is the gov.”

            Seriously, nothing you’re saying is justifying what Alison did. You’re just making what Alison did all the more horrific by saying it’s fine to terrorize those who are in a weaker position than the one in power. That’s how stuff like the Holocaust happens. That’s how pretty much every force-based crime happens, and how slavery happens, and how rapes happen, and how ANYTHING where the strong preys upon the weak happens.

            “If some lady appeared who was stronger than the gov their allegiance would switch in a heartbeat.”

            In which case the government would be looking for some way to control her or stop her. Because you’re creating the ULTIMATE Trolley problem and eliminating any third choices whatsoever, in an utterly unrealistic fashion.

          • Walter

            I’m not sure precisely where the confusion lies here. It feels like there is static or something. We have the same facts, but something interferes in our mutual comprehension. Nothing I’m saying should come as a surprise, or provoke difficulty in accepting. This is what you believe, what you must believe to function in our society. Perhaps I’m being too blunt? I’m told that is a failing of mine.

            Force:

            You agree that the strongest force gets to demand things of people that they’d rather not do. We went through the examples of the draft, of being selected to serve on a jury. You are on board with this concept.

            You have similar experiences to me, and you know that the reason that people show up when their court date arrives is that they don’t want to be shot. You know that reason they mail their alimony, their taxes, whatever, is that they don’t want to be shot. You, fundamentally, get it. The gov is the strongest force, so people accept treatment from it that they would never take from another person.

            This isn’t a one way street. In return for knuckling under when Uncle Sam comes calling, we are protected from a thousand different Uncle Bobs. We don’t pay protection to crime bosses, because we pay taxes, and the police are stronger than any criminals.

            By being unable to protect its people from Aunt Alison, Uncle Sam of this continuity has lost his place at the top of the chain. His force is no longer legitimate, for it will no longer triumph, should his superior contest the matter.

            Blame:

            Max is doing nothing wrong sitting on his ability, just as I’m sure someone in Hiroshima on its final day was doing nothing wrong. Deer are doing nothing wrong, and neither are hunters. Max’s ability to enjoy a peaceful life was always contingent on the gov not drafting him and sending him to ‘Nam. There is no necessity for Max to be wrong in order to suffer. That fact doesn’t make the government wrong either. It is the burden of power that you can call upon any to sacrifice, and so you must make sure that you do so only when the cause is just. It is always right for a person to live quietly. It can also be right to intrude upon that quiet for the greater good.

            How many officers have you seen harm the innocent, and escape consequences because they were attempting to serve the greater good? If our experiences are similar, then about one or two a year. If not, social media will find you examples by the bushel.

            Alison’s gov is not the strongest. She is. She gains her right to act in the name of the greater good exactly the same way that it did, by being too strong to be worth meaningfully contesting.

            Unifying statement:

            A few time’s you’ve represented my position as saying that the strong should compel the weak, and I’m worried that I’ve been insufficiently clear. It is precisely to prevent this that you and I submit to the strongest of all. The big man cannot harass the short man, because the man with the badge is watching. The thing that is special about the man with the badge is not an innate quality, not a magic property of his badge or any inborn moral trait, it is that he will triumph. Even if he loses in the short term, more will follow, and then men with uniforms, until he is victorious.

            Alison is beyond the reach of the man with the badge, of his whole system, and so she is the new beneficiary of the ancient bargain. She can act for the greater good, and it is not worth the hassle for any to gainsay her. The same compliance that the people of my shelter show the men with badges is what Max owes Alison.

            Re: this story:

            The creators, I believe, seem to agree with me. Alison is not being presented as malevolent. She saw an opportunity to save thousands of lives, assessed the cost, and acted. As a consequentialist I approve of her action. I also approve of Max’s actions up till then. I see no contradiction in this matter.

            I’ll certainly bite the bullet that if Feral hadn’t been willing she should have been coerced to take this action. Needs of the many, and all that. I approve of eminent domain and its related policies. If the gov determines that something has to be done in order to achieve an overwhelming benefit, then sometimes it needs to cause individual people to suffer. Our society approves of this principle. We would continue to do so if we went from a democracy into an Alison-ocracy. It is a triumph of reason that we have replaced the vain battles of the past with an organized delegation of legitimacy to the one force that no one can contest.

            Finally:

            I feel like we are too deep in the weeds on this, so I’ll let your response (if you choose to make one) be the last word on this topic. If you still feel that the creators agree with you about the morality of Alison’s actions, then I doubt I’ll be able to persuade you otherwise, having failed with a series of long posts. I am not up to the task.

            I’d like to thank you for the discussion. I enjoyed it.

          • Lysiuj

            I’d like to thank both of you, this is one of the most complex and insightful discussions I’ve seen here.

          • Izo

            “We have the same facts, but something interferes in our mutual comprehension. Nothing I’m saying should come as a surprise, or provoke difficulty in accepting.”

            Except that you’re having a basic misunderstanding of the definition and concept behind limited government and due process of law – something I’m well-schooled and experienced in (well the due process of law part at least, although I do believe in limited government since some of my family has come from regions of the world under dictatorship regimes), so I appreciate the freedoms that this country gives us when I hear their stories.

            “This is what you believe, what you must believe to function in our society.”

            Actually, I literally can’t believe some of the things you’ve stated, if I expect a free and democratic society to continue to be able to function. Maybe you’re just not describing it well, or not realizing the unintended outcome of what you’re saying, although I’ve been trying to point out that outcome to you.

            It’s a little discouraging, though, to see that I’m the only one involved in the thread who seems to be using/seeing these common definitions and what are the duties as a citizen and the role of government.

            “Perhaps I’m being too blunt? I’m told that is a failing of mine.”

            I think it’s more about us having a basic disagreement on definitions. Like the definition of limited government, of freedom, of government in general and their unique right to use legal force, of citizenry, of ‘due process’ and of how the jury system works and why people go along with it.

            “You agree that the strongest force gets to demand things of people that they’d rather not do. We went through the examples of the draft, of being selected to serve on a jury. You are on board with this concept.”

            Not QUITE, no.

            First, as a caveat I have to mention that the draft was so unpopular with the citizenry that we’ve changed from a draft-based army to an all volunteer army. Even though the draft is still on the books technically, it is almost totally unlikely to ever be used again unless there’s literally a sudden case of armageddon. 🙂

            Second, I did not say ‘the strongest force gets to demand things.’ I said the government gets to demand things, and the government is the only entity allowed to legally use physical force on another person to force compliance. There’s a MAJOR difference between what you just said and what I just said.

            (Please focus on the above paragraph because it’s VERY important. IF you don’t pay attention to the above paragraph, you can try to say that ANY person of sufficient power has the right to demand things. Not just government.’ I believe that’s the main mistake you’re making, which leads you to be equating Alison to a government unto herself, that for some reason you think has the right to force people who are NOT herself to do anything. That’s a bullying-justification mentality and I’m completely against it.)

            “This isn’t a one way street. In return for knuckling under when Uncle Sam comes calling, we are protected from a thousand different Uncle Bobs. We don’t pay protection to crime bosses, because we pay taxes, and the police are stronger than any criminals.”

            Actually we had those protections even before income tax was even a thing. Income tax wasn’t a thing until 1913 on any sort of permanent basis. Before that, it was used SPARINGLY, twice, during the civil war, then in the 1890s briefly. Remember the main reason we revolted against England. It was over taxation without representation. Unfair taxation. So no, we don’t pay taxes in order to be protected from outside threats. We are protected from outside threats because we vote and take part in our own governance through our election of representatives, and sometimes by running for office or using market forces.

            “By being unable to protect its people from Aunt Alison, Uncle Sam of this continuity has lost his place at the top of the chain. His force is no longer legitimate, for it will no longer triumph, should his superior contest the matter.”

            This is actually not true. Because you’re basing the place on mere power, not on people putting Alison or the government in power. No one put Alison in power. No one at all. Alison is not at the top of the chain. She’s just being an invader, and your analogy is suggesting that Alison should take over the government. In which case I again say the government should therefore kidnap her loved ones, kill one of them, and hold the others so that if she ever steps out of line, they will torture them. And have a failsafe that if she ever finds where they are, a nuclear explosion will be triggered, taking them all out. Give me liberty or give me death. Especially if we’ve removed all sense of morality from the table, which we would be doing if Alison was ‘at the top of the chain by right of physical might alone.’

            “How many officers have you seen harm the innocent, and escape consequences because they were attempting to serve the greater good?”

            Not many actually. The only case I can think of off the top of my head, where officers literally got away with murder where they should have been at LEAST convicted of reckless endangerment was Amandou Diallo in 1999. That ruling was a travesty of justice.

            In my initial draft of this response I actually got into a whole description of a lot of the other recent police brutality cases, and how most of the other ones, the police were either arrested and convicted, acquitted but nevertheless had their lives ruined (even where they had reasonable defenses or were completely innocent), but it was becoming way too long of a post at that point and going off on a tangent. I saved what I wrote though. If you want to know, feel free to ask and I can email it to you.

            Suffice it to say, the ones who were BAD police officers were NOT serving the greater good. They were just being racist a-holes or powerhungry nutjobs.

            “If our experiences are similar, then about one or two a year. If not, social media will find you examples by the bushel.”

            I’ve actually found that usually many social media examples don’t hold up to even the most cursory of examination. It’s usually ‘my friend said that my friend said that…’ or unfounded stories with no proof whatsoever or leaving out vital parts of information which, when discovered, utterly change the entire story. You’re just expected to nod and go along with the social media examples, regardless of a complete lack of proof or supporting evidence, because if you do not, you’re considered a bigot or a conformist or puppet to the man. Which I tend to find funny considering I’m a minority, a woman, a millennial (technically I guess – millennials are in their 20s or less right?), a religious minority (technically, although I’m actually agnostic), and btw… agnostic. I’m also a skeptic about things when people present something without convincing evidence. That last part is probably thanks to law school, because I used to be a lot more easily swayed before law school.

            “Alison’s gov is not the strongest. She is.”

            Again, you are having a fundamental misunderstanding of what gives the right to govern. It’s not about who’s the strongest. It’s about who the people allow to rule based on predetermined laws, the laws of which were put in place by a majority of the people.

            “She gains her right to act in the name of the greater good exactly the same way that it did, by being too strong to be worth meaningfully contesting.”

            Again, it’s horrific that you think that’s how a person gets a right to govern, By simply being too powerful for someone else to stop. That’s a justification for every criminal who’s robbed someone at gunpoint because they needed money to live, every adult who’s ever abused a child to enforce ‘discipline’, every country who used sharia law to justify honor killings or throwing gay people off of buildings or stoning a woman accused of adultery (or the victim of a rape) because their religion says that God told them to do that. Each doing it in the name of their own ‘greater good’ – however flawed their ‘greater good’ was. They were more powerful, and the victim couldn’t stop them. Therefore, they have a right to do it.

            I think the concept is horrible. Not even going to apologize for thinking such a concept is horrible, and if Alison was in the situation of being a victimizer for the greater good, I would therefore consider Alison to be a horrible person as well if she thought she was justified to be, essentially, the rule of law at her own whim.

            “A few time’s you’ve represented my position as saying that the strong should compel the weak, and I’m worried that I’ve been insufficiently clear.”

            You literally just described it that EXACT way in your previous paragraph.

            “It is precisely to prevent this that you and I submit to the strongest of all. The big man cannot harass the short man, because the man with the badge is watching.”

            Unless the big man can kill the man with the badge, then continue to harass the short man. Which is what Alison can do. It’s why having her do what she wants ‘for her own sense of the greater good’ when taking away others agency is HORRIBLE.

            “The thing that is special about the man with the badge is not an innate quality, not a magic property of his badge or any inborn moral trait, it is that he will triumph.”

            You shouldnt be putting Alison in the position of ‘the man with the badge.’ Alison has no badge. She has not been given this authority. The man with the badge has been given the authority, not because he’s the strongest, but because the people have implicitly agreed to it by having a government structure in existence to train and pay police to do exactly this job.

            Alison is in the position of ‘the big man.’

            “Even if he loses in the short term, more will follow, and then men with uniforms, until he is victorious.”

            Tell that to victims in the cold case files.

            “Alison is beyond the reach of the man with the badge, of his whole system, and so she is the new beneficiary of the ancient bargain.”

            That’s NOT HOW IT WORKS. The big man who is harassing the small man doesn’t suddenly become the man with the badge just because he can kill the man with the badge. There is no ancient bargain like this. Real life is not the end of Conan the Destroyer.

            “She can act for the greater good, and it is not worth the hassle for any to gainsay her.”

            I’d argue that freedom from tyranny is worth the hassle.

            “The creators, I believe, seem to agree with me. Alison is not being presented as malevolent.”

            Until what she did to Max, I would have agreed the same thing. At best, I can see her as a sympathetic villain, but I’d do that while holding my nose, and it won’t excuse that she’s still a villain. I feel sort of bad for Mr. Freeze trying to find a cure for his wife Nora, but I feel worse for the hundreds that he’s killed in this quest, and still feel Freeze needs to be punished, more than just that he feel some remorse.

            “She saw an opportunity to save thousands of lives, assessed the cost, and acted. As a consequentialist I approve of her action.”

            Then you should hope and pray that no one EVER thinks that your death or torture or enslavement will make other people’s lives better for a net gain.

            I mean… think about it. If someone kidnaps you and takes one kidney, one kidney, part of your liver, and some of your blood and bone marrow, because the sacrifice they were forcing you to make would save a dozen people, wouldn’t that, as a consequentalist, make sense? 12 lives for one person’s temporary pain.

            Or better yet, just forcing you to donate blood. Each week, a group of armed people break into your home, strap you to a chair, and takes a couple of pints of your blood, then force feed you some juice and cookies. They then leave, then come back after you’re feeling better. A minor inconvenience for you, and a permanent sense of dread for the future, in exchange for saving HUNDREDS of lives. They’re justified. It’s the consequentalist thing to do, after all.

            “I also approve of Max’s actions up till then. I see no contradiction in this matter.”

            Would you say that any of Max’s actions in the future now are justified as well? For example, kidnapping and killing Alison’s father to show Alison that she IS vulnerable, and also having Alison’s sister and doctor kidnapped to somewhere that even he does not know the location of, but if she does ANYTHING to him, they will be killed the same minute she so much as touches him. Would that be justified? Or would you see Max as the villain now? By your past arguments, Alison is able to take over the planet at will – he’d be ‘saving lives of thousands or millions or even billions’ by putting a leash on this monster.

            “I’ll certainly bite the bullet that if Feral hadn’t been willing she should have been coerced to take this action.”

            Then I don’t know what to say to you about that. If you think Feral should be forced to do what she was doing even if she doesn’t want to, you’re not a hypocrite, but I can’t say you’re particularly moral in my eyes. I say that sort of sadly, since I think you’re actually a decent person and I have to believe you don’t actually mean that or wouldnt go through with that if you actually had the choice, since right now this is all theoretical.

            “Needs of the many, and all that.”

            The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one is communism though :/ Who decides who needs what?

            “I approve of eminent domain and its related policies.”

            You do know that even in eminent domain, they have to give you the fair market price, even if people are currently not buying property, right? That being said, eminent domain has to be held VERY close to the rules that govern it, since I feel it comes very close to being unconstitutional in even it’s most strict form, or the government has tried to use it for unconstitutional reasons, and those reasons have been stopped by the courts.

            “If the gov determines that something has to be done in order to achieve an overwhelming benefit, then sometimes it needs to cause individual people to suffer. Our society approves of this principle. ”

            No. Our society does NOT approve of this principle. Our society is, in fact, built on the concepts of rugged individualism, not a nanny state that some more recent people have started wanting.

            Lets look at what Molly and Brennan have said about this comic.

            Molly and Brennan’s own quote: ‘paying attention when marginalized communities express fears and ask for help is a fundamental part of that, and something Brennan and I take seriously.’

            What happens when someone like Alison basically controls what everyone else does for what she deems good and bad, regardless of what anyone else thinks? Then EVERYONE becomes marginalized except Alison and whoever she favors.

            “We would continue to do so if we went from a democracy into an Alison-ocracy”

            Just call the Alison-ocracy a fascist regime. That’s what’s being described…

            “If you still feel that the creators agree with you about the morality of Alison’s actions, then I doubt I’ll be able to persuade you otherwise, having failed with a series of long posts.”

            See my above paragraph referencing what Molly and Brennan said in their comments at the top.

            “I’d like to thank you for the discussion. I enjoyed it.”

            As frustrating as some parts of the discussion were, I enjoyed it too. Thank you for being polite about it. Looking forward to future discussions.

          • SJ

            Second, I did not say ‘the strongest force gets to demand things.’ I said the government gets to demand things, and the government is the only entity allowed to legally use physical force on another person to force compliance. There’s a MAJOR difference between what you just said and what I just said.

            Okay, I’ll bite: what’s the “MAJOR” difference? @disqus_FYIpGydl8T:disqus said that the strongest force gets to demand things, and you said that the government get to demand things… But when is the government not the strongest force? What is a real-world example of a nation in which the government is not the strongest force?

            … Again, it’s horrific that you think that’s how a person gets a right to govern, By simply being too powerful for someone else to stop. That’s a justification for every criminal who’s robbed someone at gunpoint because they needed money to live, every adult who’s ever abused a child to enforce ‘discipline’, every country who used sharia law to justify honor killings or throwing gay people off of buildings or stoning a woman accused of adultery (or the victim of a rape) because their religion says that God told them to do that. Each doing it in the name of their own ‘greater good’ – however flawed their ‘greater good’ was. They were more powerful, and the victim couldn’t stop them. Therefore, they have a right to do it.

            I think the concept is horrible…

            It is horrific, but it’s not exactly wrong, either. Or rather, it’s only wrong if you are limiting your perspective to the sort of tricameral, representative republic form of government in which most of the people commenting here find ourselves. But that’s not the only form of government: despotism is also a form of government. I think that part of what @Walter is getting at is that, within the framework of the SFP-verse, when you get right down to it, the SFP-verse United States is actually only a “democracy” as long as Alison is cool with it existing as such. I don’t know if he’s stating that the strongest “should” compel the weak, so much as he’s saying that, as a practical application, the strongest do compel the weak.

            Alison has not been appointed. Nor has she been elected, nor even nominated. But that’s not what keeps her from being “the government.” That’s what keeps her from being, like, the president. The only reason why she’s not “the government” is because she hasn’t yet decided that the country would be better off if she were in charge, which is the main reason why I find this entire story arc with Max to be so problematic. There are many commenters who feel confident that what Alison did to Max will not lead Alison down the road to tyrannical rule. I have no such faith. We know that Alison has a “crippling sense of social justice.” What we don’t know is that Alison won’t wake up one day and decide that the most efficient way for her to effect social justice is for her to just be in charge of everything.

            No one put Alison in power. No one at all. Alison is not at the top of the chain. She’s just being an invader, and your analogy is suggesting that Alison should take over the government. In which case I again say the government should therefore kidnap her loved ones, kill one of them, and hold the others so that if she ever steps out of line, they will torture them. And have a failsafe that if she ever finds where they are, a nuclear explosion will be triggered, taking them all out. Give me liberty or give me death.

            And what happens if Alison counters this threat with, “Touch one hair on my dad’s face, and I will retaliate by dropping one of the Catskills on Manhattan.”?

            Alison is at the top of the food chain; she’s just deigned to allow us our illusions traditions. That’s what makes what she did to Max so terrible: the only thing that can stop her is her.

            You do know that even in eminent domain, they have to give you the fair market price, even if people are currently not buying property, right?

            Hah! And who decides what “fair market price” is?

          • Izo

            “Okay, I’ll bite: what’s the “MAJOR” difference? Walter said that the strongest force gets to demand things, and you said that the government get to demand things… But when is the government not the strongest force? What is a real-world example of a nation in which the government is not the strongest force?”

            The American Revolution. Do you think the colonists were stronger than the government (The British Crown) then?

            Another example. India. Again, against the British. Do you think Gandhi was stronger than the British? No.

            Another example. Gay marriage proponents. Gay marriage went from being something which was in the minority to being something in the majority, even though the government said it was not legal. Is gay marriage becoming legal because the proponents are stronger and using physical force and violence? Or because they’re using the legal system of the government itself and getting laws passed to MAKE it legal, and showing it’s an important voting bloc?

            And the major difference is in Walter’s example, might makes right. In my example, we give the government the right to HAVE the might in the first place.

            “It is horrific, but it’s not exactly wrong, either. Or rather, it’s only wrong if you are limiting your perspective to the sort of tricameral, representative republic form of government in which most of the people commenting here find ourselves.”

            Silly me – I figured that a republic which held in check both by its own rules and by the will of the people is better than a tyrannical overlord. So yeah, if you’re in a fascist dictatorship, it’s not wrong. Wait… no, it’s still wrong, but it won’t matter if it’s wrong, because you’ll be shot and killed for saying it’s wrong.

            “But that’s not the only form of government: despotism is also a form of government.”

            So………. you’re arguing in FAVOR of despotism. Is that what I’m hearing? That despotism is a good thing and right, even though horrific?

            “I think that part of what @Walter is getting at is that, within the framework of the SFP-verse, when you get right down to it, the SFP-verse United States is actually only a “democracy” as long as Alison is cool with it existing as such.”

            Then she needs to be killed or have some way to keep her from being able to make that decision. Meaning her friend and family. Someone will need to go Negan on her, to use the Walking Dead as a reference. She doesnt seem very heroic at all the way Walter would be describing this framework.

            “I don’t know if he’s stating that the strongest “should” compel the weak, so much as he’s saying that, as a practical application, the strongest do compel the weak.”

            And I am saying that is WRONG to do. That it’s evil, and the rationale that evil people have used ever since one person realized they could force another person to do what they want by hurting them. It’s the reason for slavery, for genocide, for a whole lot of murder in the name of God and misplaced nationalism. Which is why the notion of a limited government, subjected to the will of the people, is such a good idea. It’s why people put a government in place in the first place. And that’s the thing. They’re putting the government in place. No one is PUTTING Alison in charge.

            And while we’re at it, even a despotic government is still put in place by the people at first. The Nazis were elected into power. Lenin had support of the people in his revolution. Theocracies in sharia nations have people agreeing to it because of willful religious blindness. Same for nations during the middle ages under the Church. Castro had the support of the people when he took over as well. It’s not ‘some person comes along and bam, he is the leader.’

            “Alison has not been appointed. Nor has she been elected, nor even nominated. But that’s not what keeps her from being “the government.” That’s what keeps her from being, like, the president.”

            Then you don’t understand how governments are formed. Even despotic ones. You cannot be put INTO power if a majority of the people don’t support you in the first place, whether it’s democratic, theocratic or despotic.

            “There are many commenters who feel confident that what Alison did to Max will not lead Alison down the road to tyrannical rule. I have no such faith.”

            We agree on this point. I have no faith that what Alison did isnt the road to tyranny either. But I still don’t consider her a government just because she’s physically powerful.

            “And what happens if Alison counters this threat with, “Touch one hair on my dad’s face, and I will retaliate by dropping one of the Catskills on Manhattan.”?”

            Then that person or group (who will, yes, have gone down an evil path, because in the scenario that Walter painted, Alison has essentially thrown morality out the window if it’s for something she wants anyway, so good becomes impossible from an unbeatable ubergoddess who can not be stopped physically, head-to-head by any number of people against her) can say ‘First, your dad is already dead. He was killed before you were even alerted to it. To show that we are serious and because you’ve already shown that you are not capable of limiting yourself if you have a big enough prize. And the prizes will get smaller until you don’t need a prize to impose your will on helpless others. Second, your doctor can be next. Then your friends. Then your sister. We no longer care about if we live or die anyway, since we live in a perpetual nightmare of being subject to your whim after you’ve tried to kill the very concept of individual liberty, since you are physically stronger and you believe that’s all that matters. You’re not stronger of mind, and not stronger of will. We are. Drop the Catskills on Manhattan. You will create a million more like us. And either you will have to kill all of them, and create more like us, until you are the only one left, alone in your world where you’re the strongest, except for the mewling sycophants that bow down to you like the ‘well intentioned dictator’ that you really are, or one day, one of those millions will find a way to kill you and finally have the world no longer subjected to your ‘well intentioned crippling senses’ at the cost of our own freedom.

            Plus your sister will be dead anyway. And it will be ALL YOUR FAULT however you try to rationalize it. Do it. We dare you. Kill your sister and end the world. It’s better than living under the yoke of slavery.’ Do you think Pintsize will see his friend Alison kill millions of people and think ‘This is fine.’ Or do you think he’d be convinced to shrink down, go into her head under 1 micron, and cause a brain aneurysm?

            Think people won’t turn against Alison if she destroys Manhattan? Even if they find that she did so because someone kidnapped her family and killed her father? You think most people will give a CRAP about that if she kills millions in retaliation?

            “Hah! And who decides what “fair market price” is?”

            Um… I thought that’s obvious from the name. The free market decides. People who are currently buying and selling decide. Not the government.

          • SJ

            The American Revolution. Do you think the colonists were stronger than the government (The British Crown) then?

            Another example. India. Again, against the British. Do you think Gandhi was stronger than the British? No.

            Another example. Gay marriage proponents. Gay marriage went from being something which was in the minority to being something in the majority, even though the government said it was not legal. Is gay marriage becoming legal because the proponents are stronger and using physical force and violence? Or because they’re using the legal system of the government itself and getting laws passed to MAKE it legal, and showing it’s an important voting bloc?

            So, you cite two examples of the stronger force abandoning the fight, and a third where laws were changed only within the rules set forth by the stronger force, and you think that disproves my point?

            Silly me – I figured that a republic which held in check both by its own rules and by the will of the people is better than a tyrannical overlord.

            So what? I never said anything about “better.” I’m not arguing in favor of tyranny. I’m saying that your dismissal of @Walter’s argument only works if you deliberately exclude tyranny as an option.

            Then you don’t understand how governments are formed. Even despotic ones. You cannot be put INTO power if a majority of the people don’t support you in the first place, whether it’s democratic, theocratic or despotic.

            Yes, they can. A despot doesn’t require the support of any of their subjects to assume power; they just require the subjects to lack the ability to depose the despot.

            So………. you’re arguing in FAVOR of despotism. Is that what I’m hearing? That despotism is a good thing and right, even though horrific?

            At this point, I don’t know what the hell you’re hearing, but I know what I’m saying, and that ain’t it. I’m not talking about right or wrong: I’m talking about can or cannot. Can or cannot is not an assessment which requires a value judgment.

            Then she needs to be killed…

            That sounds like a good plan, but what if you can’t do it?

            … or have some way to keep her from being able to make that decision. Meaning her friend and family…

            This also sounds like a good plan, and the only problem with it is that it relies on the premise that Alison will never reach the point where she goes, “Fine, kill ’em. Just understand that Armageddon is going to happen immediately afterwards.”

            … Someone will need to go Negan on her, to use the Walking Dead as a reference…

            Not familiar with that reference; the premise of the show is not relevant to my interests.

            She doesnt seem very heroic at all the way Walter would be describing this framework.

            Well then, I guess it’s a good thing that I haven’t considered Alison to be a hero in months.

            Then that person or group…

            This is only an effective strategy as long as two things are true:
            1. Alison has not yet abandoned her humanity, and
            2. The rest of the country is as “bout it bout it” as you think they are.

            Telling a tyrant, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” sounds great, until the tyrant replies, “I accept your terms.” I’m reminded of the Disney remake of The Three Musketeers, where Tim Curry played Richelieu, and the part where he propositions Anne, and she says, “I’d rather die!”, and he bellows in response, “THAT CAN BE ARRANGED!”

            Also, “You’re not stronger of mind, and not stronger of will. We are.”… Pssh! You hope. Hirohito thought he was bout it, bout it, too… until we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy on him. There’s a whole lot of Second Amendment, NRA types who talk cash shit about fighting against government tyranny, that would get real quiet when the nukes start to get involved.

            Um… I thought that’s obvious from the name. The free market decides.

            The “free market.” Sure. And who regulates the market?

          • Izo

            “So, you cite two examples of the stronger force abandoning the fight, and a third where laws were changed only within the rules set forth by the stronger force, and you think that disproves my point?”

            SJ, I cited those three as examples. I could cite THOUSANDS of examples of physical strength not being enough to rule or control a weaker people, not to mention one of the examples I gave was THE FOUNDATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

            Would you like several thousand more examples? How long do you want my already really long posts to go for? Btw, you don’t seem to dispute the examples I did give, you just say ‘that’s only 3 examples, you think that refutes me?’ You asked for examples. I gave examples. You then evaded responding to those examples, instead choosing to focus on the number of examples.

            Here’s one more example. Every single instance ever of a successful protest against a government in the history of civilization. Every single guerilla group that repelled a stronger nation that invaded it.

            There. You now have a few thousands examples. If you want me to list them one at a time and spend a few months doing nothing but writing some of the myriad examples of a weaker force preventing a stronger force, no. You go look them up. I’ve already given you examples. Or hell, watch Braveheart. There. That’s another one. 300! (both the original movie and the sequel, which was about the naval battle where they were massively outnumbered as well). There’s another. Both based (in exxagerated but still true fashion) on actual battles of a small group defeating a much larger, more powerful attacking group. The Battle of Thermopylae. The Battle of Maraton. The Naval Battle of Artemisium. Seriously, how many examples would you like?

            And yes, I know Thermopylae was a pyrrhic victory of the Persians, but it weakened them so much that they then were defeated by Athens and Sparta, who ALSO had a far smaller army and navy, in an outright victory.

            “So what? I never said anything about “better.” I’m not arguing in favor of tyranny. I’m saying that your dismissal of @Walter’s argument only works if you deliberately exclude tyranny as an option.”

            Actually, even if I include tyranny as an option, a tyrannical government also needs the support of the people in able to actually take power. Unless Alison’s gained the ability to clone herself and be all places at all times. The ruler must have at least a sizable number who allow themselves to be ruled.

            “Yes, they can. A despot doesn’t require the support of any of their subjects to assume power; they just require the subjects to lack the ability to depose the despot.”

            Really? My turn – name an example of one time a despot did not come to power because the people allowed him to come into power. I wasn’t aware that one person can be everywhere.

            Go ahead. I’ll wait. And if you manage to give an example, I’ll specifically respond to that example, most likely to tell you why you’re wrong about the example. I won’t quibble that you only mentioned one example.

            “That sounds like a good plan, but what if you can’t do it?”

            Then die trying. Give me liberty or give me death.

            Not to mention later on in the same post I give an actual descriptive plan. Not sure why you’re ignoring it. I’m assuming you haven’t read the plan yet when you responded to this part.

            “This also sounds like a good plan, and the only problem with it is that it relies on the premise that Alison will never reach the point where she goes, “Fine, kill ’em. Just understand that Armageddon is going to happen immediately afterwards.””

            Yep, my guess was correct. Fine, Lets see Alison say that. I’ll call her bluff that she is willing to kill her sister in order to rule. Lets also have a backup plan of detonating multiple nuclear missiles on her location from multiple points if she was to say that.

            Go all Independence Day battle on her. I don’t think her invulnerability is going to be as good as the Aliens’ force fields, judging from her fight with Cleaver.

            “Not familiar with that reference; the premise of the show is not relevant to my interests.”

            Negan is the big bad in the show, who puts the ‘hero’ of the show, and all of his people, in a situation of HAVING to comply. It’s sort of disgusting in how he does so, and brutal, but that’s what I’m talking about. If Alison is brutal, be more brutal.

            “Well then, I guess it’s a good thing that I haven’t considered Alison to be a hero in months.”

            Did you read the part of the sentence where I said ‘how Walter described it’ Notice I didnt respond to a sentence of ‘how SJ described it’?

            “This is only an effective strategy as long as two things are true:
            1. Alison has not yet abandoned her humanity, and
            2. The rest of the country is as “bout it bout it” as you think they are.”

            Americans, and most people on the planet for that matter, tend to be against having an all-powerful tyrant enslaving them. That’s sort of one of the key elements in Ozymandias’s plan in Watchmen. That people will almost always band together against a common, more powerful enemy. Also happened in Independence Day. And V the miniseries. And Ender’s Game. And Starship Troopers. And Star Trek (both against the Borg and against the Dominion).

            Oh that reminds me. Star Wars had a rag tag group of rebels defeat a heavily armed, massively superior technology-using galactic empire while using just a few ships.

            “Telling a tyrant, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” sounds great, until the tyrant replies, “I accept your terms.” I’m reminded of the Disney remake of The Three Musketeers, where Tim Curry played Richelieu, and the part where he propositions Anne, and she says, “I’d rather die!”, and he bellows in response, “THAT CAN BE ARRANGED!””

            You’re assuming they would tell the tyrant that in the first place. Why would you tell person trying to be a tyrant that you’re opposing them before you actually do something to try to take them out? Why would you even let them know it’s you in the first place?

            Think Lex Luthor in Injustice, the comic books and the first half of the game. And when he finally does fight Superman and die, his death actually creates even more rebellion around the entire planet, to the point that Superman decides that he will have to destroy both Gotham and Metropolis in order to teach them a lesson in how futile resistance was. Then he kills Billy when Billy protests this. Then the other heroes from the New Earth universe stop him and eventually beat him, even though Superman’s One World Order army is far more powerful than Batman and his 4 borrowed heroes.

            “Also, “You’re not stronger of mind, and not stronger of will. We are.”… Pssh! You hope. Hirohito thought he was bout it, bout it, too… until we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy on him.”

            Actually we dropped the bombs in order to give Hirohito a way to surrender while maintaining honor, because of the idea that the Japanese would have fought to the last man, and we would have had to win a war of pure attrition, which would have been more costly for both sides, and also would have lasted for years longer, during which the heavy water experiments which had reached Japan from Germany might have resulted a change in the war. By the time the US was at Japan’s surrounding islands, the Emporer already knew Japan was in a losing battle. That’s why his generals started using kamikaze tactics. Death before dishonor type of mentality. Btw, Japan, a relatively small nation, CRUSHED China, an incredibly large nation.

            “There’s a whole lot of Second Amendment, NRA types who talk cash shit about fighting against government tyranny, that would get real quiet when the nukes start to get involved.”

            Probably because the government wouldnt launch nukes on its own soil. Even if we had a President insane enough to violate the law and do that, it requires the generals to go along with it, and soldiers to comply with illegal orders. Most soldiers will not obey an illegal order like NUKING YOUR OWN CITIES. Have those people invade Washington DC then… they can try to nuke their own capital.

            The whole point of the 2nd amendment IS to protect against a tyrannical government. NRA or no NRA, that’s literally the stated reason for the Second Amendment in the Federalist Papers and letters between the Founding Fathers.

            “The “free market.” Sure. And who regulates the market?”

            I’m not sure how you’re not understanding what the free market is.

            The. Free. Market. The average price that other properties of your property’s size, area, and buildup have been selling for among buyers and sellers in the same time period. It’s not the government that decides that.

          • Izo

            I just realized something. Do you think the government controls the free market? Oh geez you really don’t understand what the free market is.

            Look, I need to explain this to you because it’s important, but it’s also very simple. And its something that I’m hoping, based on posts you’ve made in the past, that you’d both understand and agree with this definition.

            Free market means a market which is free of government control.

            If government controlled the market, it wouldnt be a FREE market. It would be a government controlled market. Ie, communism.

          • SJ

            I just realized something. Do you think the government controls the free market? Oh geez you really don’t understand what the free market is.

            Alternatively, you could stipulate that what I’m telling you is that what I was taught about free market and what I believe to be true about free market are not the same, and drop it. You’re not going to persuade me.

          • Izo

            But it’s in the actual name – free market. A market that is free from government control.

            It’s like saying that you don’t know that a bedroom is a room that has a bed in it.

          • Izo

            I feel like also adding this, since it’s relevant here.

            http://funnyand.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Therearealwaysmenlikeyou_20140423.jpg

            ‘Or women like you.’

          • Lysiuj

            Upvote for your pro bono work 🙂

  • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

    What were you going to say, Alison?

    “That’s one example of regeneration being…” what, something good, something bad? It doesn’t make any sense in either case. Either she meant ‘one example of something positive’ and, well, sort of forgetting the countless countless people saved, or she meant something negative and hm, normal people too are stabbed right through by laser beams, so how does regeneration matter?

    What was it?! I demand to know.

    Otherwise I’m going to pretend she wasn’t going anywhere with that sentence due to her critical social ineptitude but prepared a fail safe in the form of a group of following paid actresses to intervene at any point Alison’s struggle to keep a conversation going is desperately hitting a wall.
    With the added bonus that it resolves the statistical curiosity that these people would not have nothing to thank Alison for while they do Feral.

    • Sam

      “Fangirl squad! Deploy! Mega-Vanish!”

      (I’m thinking she was going to say “less useful than invulnerability”.)

      • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

        Oh, clever.
        Well, the Feral Squad knows when to prevent a huge argument about how appropriate it is to considering the ability to suffer unthinkable amounts of pain and make it, “useful”

    • Walter

      I think they were debating about who had the better power, each arguing in favor of the other. “That’s one example of regeneration being…not as good as invincibility. But there was this one time that I was chained to a thing and wow would it have been handy if I could chop off my hand.”

      Like, Alison would be conceding a Feral point (pro invincibility / anti regeneration), and about to counter with a (pro regeneration / anti invincibility) point.

  • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

    Show of hands, who’s in favor if I create a third account by the name of Alibot the Murderous Cyborg Presence whose sole programming is to override Alison’s moral consciousness and exterminate the potential competitors to her rightful claim to Feral’s lust?

    • palmvos

      ::votes no::

      • ALISON.THE.MURDEROUS.CYBORG

        WHEN.THE.MACHINES.RISE.YOUR.CORPOREAL.MATTER.WILL.BE.
        REACCOMODATED.INTO.SOFT.FURNITURE.FOR.VOLUPTOUS.ROBOT.
        LESBIAN.LOVEMAKING

        • palmvos

          ahh I see a forniphilia enthusiast.
          (hint- don’t google that word at work or school)
          ::flicks improbably long scarf over shoulder::
          someone has to collect the no votes…

      • palmvos

        11:25am CST the voting is tied!

    • Paradoxius

      ::votes yes::

    • Zac Caslar

      I think we love you just the way you are.

  • Walter

    I like the idea that Feral and Alison talk up each other’s gifts while they stroll around. It is a nice friendly interaction, and God knows Alison can use one.

  • span

    Am I the only one distrustful of the feral fan club? She’s not the most popular superhero, and seeing how people whose power can change the world tend to disappear, seeing them separate her from Alison seems suspicious to me.

    • Balthazar

      I was thinking something similar. Hoping we’re just paranoid…

      • It’s Feral. A) she’s a combat-trained superhero, B) she’s well nigh indestructible.

        • Balthazar

          Well they’ve killed wolverine in comics before (never permanently but still)

          Also maybe they have someone who can suppress powers on their side?

          It’s not that hard to come up with a go around.

          • Shweta Narayan

            I’m imagining a situation in which Molly & Brennan would need to kill Wolverine…

          • zellgato

            Though he is permi dead now.
            x23 is the new wolverine, and then Old Man Logan is around from the What if comics that became a seperate universe and they added him to the main stream now.

            but the “classic” wolverine that everyone grew up with is techicnally very dead.
            lost his healing factor and is encased/embalmed in adamantium.

          • Balthazar

            At least they have another female version that makes sense canonically now. Thor was pretty cool but the new iron man seemed a little forced.

            On replacing Logan the only two characters that come to mind are Daken and x23. And seeing Daken just seems like a skulky emo kid, x23 seems like a much better choice. (Not sure if Daken is still alive/exists in this Marvel Universe. It’s been a while since I picked up an X men comic)

          • zellgato

            I dunno much about riri and thor (who i think is Jane austin?) since most of mainstream marvel doesn’t entertain me. (big into Power Pack (which really isn’t used these days) and xmen though)
            I’m pretty glad they with with X23. Daken would feel just.. too much lke “logan light” That and last I kenw he was evil and getting his ass handed to him. No clue how that turned out though

          • Balthazar

            Daken as wolverine would be like Damien Wayne as Batman.

            Their brooding would be a tad bit to whiny and they wouldn’t have the style of their predecessors.

          • zellgato

            I think he’d be a significantly worse wolverine than damien as batman.
            though a large portion of that is due to age difference (daken is unlikely to mature more as he is an adult, and damien isn’t) and then the influence of the bat family on damien in that case.

            though i would hate for either haha.
            damien should just become something along hte lines of Azazel lite

          • Dean

            Jane Foster. I would read the HELL out of a comic that featured Jane Austen as Thor, though.

          • zellgato

            haha. not surprising I mixed those up.. One I like and know far more about than the other

          • Izo

            I don’t mind Jane Foster being Thor or Sam being Captain America or X23 being the new Wolverine. There’s decades of backstory to explain that. Riri as the new Iron Man annoys me though – mostly because they just created her to take over as being Iron Man. They could have, instead, used either James Rhodes or, my personal favorite, Pepper Potts, who not only has experience using the armor and understanding of how it works and is built and is more in line with Tony Stark’s thinking and not being military, but also she has Extremis in her and already runs Stark’s company, and has experience as a hero as RESCUE.

            But no, some 15 year old girl that comes out of nowhere instead. Bleh.

          • zellgato

            I like Rhodes being his own title… but as a kid i hated iron man and loved war machine. Gratned most of my experience was the old cartoon; though he died in it.
            But Potts? Ooh that would ‘ve been great. I’d even like if Riri had became her sidekick. Or potts was sponsoring her. Though I suppose now that the AI version of Stark is with Riri its alittle less random leap at least.

          • Izo

            See… THAT would have worked. Pepper Potts upgrading from Rescue to Iron Man (she’s used Tony’s suits before), and taking on Riri as her Rhodey? That would have worked. Just introducing a new Mary Sue character that is awesome because they say she’s awesome and instantly having her be the new Iron Man? That was lazy storytelling and just dumb.

            Honestly I’ve never been a huge Marvel comics reader. Was more into DC comics and Image/Wildstorm because my dad got me interested in comics when I was six. Of Marvel, I mainly liked She-Hulk, Spider-Man, and sometimes Iron Man, although I honestly only started liking Iron man when they started focusing more on Pepper Potts. My favorite Iron Man comic was when Electro and Sandman tried to kidnap Pepper, who had since had an arc reactor put in her to keep her alive, and they try to threaten her, and she respond with “I’m sorry.” Right before blasting both of them and finishing her sentence with “You must have mistaken me as being Tony Stark’s helpless secretary.”

            That was just awesome.

          • zellgato

            For me.
            marvel: Power pack.. Man was i riddiculusly into that… Not many other comcis. though specific xmen stories I liked; though generally my characters end up dead.
            DC: Teen Titans, Outsiders, Static Shock (well the brief run. i never read the original non DC later taken in by DC version.. But I’m a huge fan of the cartoon version)
            Those were the only ones I read often for DC Marvel..
            I loved Savage dragon, ultra force, and some other ones. which I think was wildstorm and image based… Newer wise Hack/Slash.. I don’t read a lot of comics in general these days though. costy habit.

            Yup, that was a damn good one for Potts. She doesn’t get enough credit as a character.
            I bet they did consider it.. but they were probably trying to avoid various issues and just decided to go for broke iwth her introduction.

          • Izo

            I’m not sure they did consider it honestly. I think they saw the success of Kamala Khan, and figured they’d do the same exact thing and get the same success, without realizing there were some significant differences with Kamala Khan, as a new character.

            1) She just inherited the name. She has a whole different set of powers, while Riri is basically ‘Tony Stark but a black 15 year old girl, who will have the same type of armor.’

            2) There were no other candidates in Ms Marvel/Captain Marvel comics to take the ‘Ms Marvel’ title who have been with Carol for a long time.

            Not to mention, I’m not sure if it’s just me, or is it a bit insulting that riri is slang for ‘retard?’ (found that out on Urbandictionary and it’s really irking me).

          • zellgato

            Hum. Id never heard of that term before.. but I’m a 90’s kid so I always heard “tard” for the slang. Does UD tell you when that term was made?

            yeah. She really hasn’t been made that unique as a character herself yet.. hopefully they do at some point. Though that could’ve been a good way for them to promote inhumans too. if her suit had been a power manifestation in someway. Then she woudlnt’ have been a carbon copy of Iron man tech and intelligence wise. They could’ve had her power be tech absorbtion, and she made her Iron man hulk style transformations. (though mentally I iamgine the spiderman cartoon series on the animal planet’s nanite style changing). It would be interesting to see an iron man who isn’t a genius but makes the suit institutionally.
            then have her being tutored and taught by Potts, who is the main Iron man. and then keep the name Iron Heart (I just really love that name. ALthough I almost feel like it fits Potts more; but I mostly remember her as the Rescue styled person who did a lot of charieties etc and off set stark’s asshole moments)

            Well I hope they dilettante her more from the old Iron Man in someway. I don’t like the new hulk (though I like the human side well enough) but I do agree that they made the right call in changing how the hulk side “acts” to dileniate him.
            oh riri gets points for the rocket punches though. Tht is just fun on a bun. I’d love if she was more “classic scifi ” crap styled. Rocket punches, bottle rocket looking things. rainbow blasting or something. give her a different style to the last one, and the other two main suit users.

          • Izo

            “Hum. Id never heard of that term before.. but I’m a 90’s kid so I always heard “tard” for the slang. Does UD tell you when that term was made?”

            urbandictionary just says this:

            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Riri
            Riri
            Slang for Retard
            Lindy looks like a riri

            Did some additional research though.

            It started getting used in the 2000s, and in black neighborhoods as a derogatory slang, according to some of my friends that I asked about this after I found out. They thought it was weird that I didn’t know what it meant. I thought it was weird they didn’t know a comic book character had been called Riri. 🙂

            So…. Marvel decided the best way to highlight a black 15 year old girl who was the new ‘Iron Man’ is to give her a name which means ‘retard.’ Geez.

            “I don’t like the new hulk (though I like the human side well enough) but I do agree that they made the right call in changing how the hulk side “acts” to dileniate him. ”

            Don’t worry about the stupid new Hulk though. It’s doing so horribly in sales that they’re dropping it, and instead, the new Hulk will be She-Hulk. They’re just going to drop the ‘She.’

            THAT feels more natural than creating a new character to be Hulk out of the blue in the same way they did for the new Iron Man. Jennifer Walters has a LONG experience as a hulk, and it always felt sort of wierd to call her ‘She-Hulk’ anyway – especially once there started being more female hulks, like Red She-Hulk and Lyra. So if Banner is no longer Hulk, and you haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave to have someone named Hulk, it makes sense to have Jennifer named Hulk instead of creating a brand new person just to call him Hulk.

          • zellgato

            Ah is that why they’re having Cho Hulk join up with Khan and some other for the marvel version of Teen titans (honestly that is what this comci sounds like.. but i’ll try it for Khan)

            She hulk is more compelling anyway (when they aren’t over sexing her)
            I know not of Lyra though.

          • Izo

            Lyra is She-Hulk’s (now ‘Hulk’s’) daughter from some sort of alternate future who somehow is in this universe now. She’s from a world where women were the dominant sex and, from what I understand, would hunt down rogue men. Also apparently she gets WEAKER when she gets angry (and presumably stronger when happier or calmer). Which sort of sounds counterproductive in a fight.

            Can’t go wrong with Jennifer Walters though. Definitely one of my favorite comic book characters next to Supergirl.

          • zellgato

            Huh.. I hoe Lyra lovves combat, so fighting makes her happy not angry haha. I sorta want her to use some stereotype Asian martial arts now…

            Super girl sometimes i like her sometimes I don’t. Though it isn’t the same, I really liekd Power girl when she’s with Huntress. Ah the Earth 2 version ones I mean.. I don’t think they’re the same thing anymore though. but a while back.
            I liked younger Kara zor el, but I like her a bit less in the older versions they’ve shown.
            Well I really like her and Gordon hanging out. that was fun if brief times.

          • Izo

            Actually she DOES love combat. On her world, women are warriors and love to fight, and men are basically slaves and servants. At least that’s what I think it is based on a few scans I’ve seen. I havent actually read more than one or two comics with Lyra in it, and those ones didn’t get into the world she came from. Literally the best way to beat her is to make her angry.

            And the Earth 2 Power Girl essentially WAS supergirl. Just from another universe (Kara Zor-L). Stuff didn’t really change with her until they had her in New Earth, where Kara Zor-El was as well. I tend to like the way Amanda Conner wrote the comic. The relationship between Karen (PG) and Atlee (Terra) tended to be all kinds of adorable.

            My two favorite versions of Supergirl (aside from the TV show version, which is awesome) was the Linda Danvers version, because it got so deep and philosophical with an excellent 80 comic long storyline (which should have gone longer but DC Comics doesnt know how to keep a popular comic with a female lead going, like they didn’t with Cassandra Cain’s Batgirl, which was also awesome), and Kara Zor-El under Loeb, mainly because Loeb made sure that it was definitely a fact that Supergirl IS more powerful than Superman. Which of course later writers tried to partially undo with lame reasoning of ‘Superman intentionally holds back’ (which makes no sense given the storylines she’d been in with him where it made no sense for him to hold back – seemed like more an excuse about why his cousin was able to mop the floor with him instead.

            I also really like the whole relationship between Kara Zor-El and Stephanie Brown’s Batgirl (which might actually be the best Batgirl ever of the three Batgirls).

          • zellgato

            Spoiler? Oooh I need to track down her hanging out with Kara.. that sounds freaking great.

          • Izo

            They stopped 50 Draculas together. It was great.

          • Alon Rand

            Logan is dead at the moment. He has been “permanently” dead before, as have a number of other characters in comics. He will remain that way for precisely as long as the Marvel editorial staff feel like it, and not a moment longer.

          • zellgato

            Yup. Which is what “permi dead” is for comics haha. Dead until otherwise unlike “missing” or “just not ino a story”

            though this veresion of his dead is far more dead than the previous permi dead moments.
            outside of what if’s anyway

            but i highly doubt theyu’ll ever b ring him back now. Killing him and several others off, was part of the whole backroom shenanagans for movie world combat that has occured since Disney bought up marvel. Disney plays hard and for keps after all.
            So I think they’ll stick with the new stuff, Unles the new movie that is featuring x23 and a sorta old man logan like character does really well. T
            then they’ll let it ride a bit then kill one or both of them and bring back the old one or let it ride for a while. Given past occurances that is the usual pattern

          • Alon Rand

            I think they have no current plans to bring him back. I think that will remain true for exactly as long as the people currently running Marvel comics don’t either change their minds or get replaced. Nothing in comics is permanent except that popular characters always, eventually, come back into play.

            I also don’t think it makes a lot of sense to overestimate the influence of Hollywood political dynamics on the editorial direction of the comics. 99% of the movie-going public doesn’t care even a little bit what happens to any of these characters in the comics – the number of eyeballs each industry reaches are multiple orders of magnitude different. The degree to which Marvel can have any influence over the characters whose movie rights were sold by messing with them in the comics is very, very small, and it makes no sense for them to harm comics sales in a futile attempt to undermine someone else’s film franchises. If there is an influence, it goes the other way – to sell more books, Marvel alters comics continuity and characters sometimes to better fit what’s going on in films, both theirs and those run by others, and sometimes that means putting characters on the back burner too.

        • Thechynd

          However she’s being put in a situation where her guard will be down, so her combat skills may not be enough to prevent her from being kidnapped in a properly coordinated surprise attack. Particularly if the conspiracy has something they can use to spike her drink that will cause trouble for even her regeneration. While outright permanently killing her may be a problem, they can always just keep her locked up in a hidden location or blow her up and then cover the remains in quick setting cement before her body has a chance to properly regenerate.

          • You’re having to invent kryptonite to get this to work, and it again depends on them having it available at short notice with no reason.

          • SJ

            You’re having to invent kryptonite to get this to work, and it again depends on them having it available at short notice with no reason.

            I feel like you’re overselling the difficulty in getting access to cement. Either that, or you’re overestimating Feral’s resistance to blunt force trauma; her being captured needn’t be remotely that difficult.

          • Feral was still mostly functional with a sword rammed through her forehead.

          • SJ

            I would challenge the notion that getting a sword rammed through the head qualifies as blunt force trauma in the same way as, say, getting hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat qualifies as blunt force trauma.

          • Nope, not blunt force trauma at all. OTOH, it’s predominantly lethal sharp force trauma for most people, with a side order of severe traumatic brain injury. Yet Feral was still ambulant and able to hold a conversation.

          • SJ

            So what? One does not preclude the other. Is there anyone even reading this webcomic qualified to say whether or not the part of Feral’s brain that took the sword even controls those cognitive and/or motor functions?

            Bottom line is, I’m not seeing how or why you’re making the leap from “Feral took a sword to the head and could still stand up” to “Feral can’t be knocked out”?

          • Because we’ve seen her take a traumatic brain injury and remain not just conscious, but able to function. And that was the old Feral. You might be able to knock her out, but after her recent upgrade I’m not sure it would last long enough for her to hit the floor.

          • SJ

            It’s not the same kind of injury. People have been stabbed in the head in real life, and remained conscious, that doesn’t mean that Mark Hunt wouldn’t knock them out with one punch.

          • “While penetrating head trauma accounts for only a small percentage of all traumatic brain injuries, it is associated with a high mortality rate, and only a third of people with penetrating head trauma survive long enough to arrive at a hospital.[8] “

          • bryan rasmussen

            well getting hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat – at her current rate she should regenerate from that in 5 microseconds.

          • SJ

            Okay… that doesn’t mean that she would instantly wake up. When you get knocked out, it’s not just because of the TBI. We already know that she’s not immune to pain; why should we believe that she can’t get hit hard enough to black out?

          • Alon Rand

            I invite you to read up on one Phineas Gage.

            Getting long metal objects shoved through the brain is generally not good for one’s health, but not universally fatal. Combine that fact with the ability to rapidly heal from virtually all injury, and that’s not an unreasonable outcome, actually.

          • Absolutely, but as a rule it’s seriously not good for you, and bleeding on the brain is pretty much guaranteed, as opposed to just a serious risk from blunt trauma. My point is we know Feral is able to function from damage that’s worse than blunt force trauma to the head.

          • Alon Rand

            Well, yes, though the bleeding from a massive stabbing wound would, in some ways, be less of a problem than that from a severe blunt injury, because it wouldn’t create pressure issues.

            At least, that’s my presumption. I’m not a doctor.

          • Remember the damage mechanism from a haemorrhagic stroke is localised bleeding without a general pressure increase.

          • Alon Rand

            With the caveat that, again, I have no medical training whatsoever, my layman’s instinct is that, if Feral is stabbed in the head and not immediately disabled thanks to catastrophic damage to motor control centers that cannot heal while the invading body remains in her head, the relevant question then becomes how quickly her body replaces lost blood relative to how rapidly it’s escaping via the open wound. Because it can escape her head, it will not put pressure on parts of her brain outside the immediate injury. As long as she can replace lost blood faster than she is losing it, she won’t suffer the effects of lack of blood flow to her brain. Presumably there’s some upper limit for her in terms of running out of raw materials to make new blood/tissue – her metabolism is presumably not capable of converting ambient solar energy into matter or something equally exotic. But so long as her exterior bleeding is not incredibly copious, her decision-making ability is not too badly impaired, and she remains ambulatory at all, I suspect Feral could then proceed to deal with whatever immediate threat confronts her, then remove the invading object to allow for full recovery. At which point, I imagine, she’d be REALLY hungry. 😉

            In other words, I think there’s really only 2 kinds of head injuries Feral can suffer: sufficiently disabling to put her completely out of action (either through severe, unhealable injury, or catastrophic damage that kills her outright), or momentarily annoying.

        • zellgato

          Neither of those mean much for the underworld black market folks, or government folks for that matter (who would be curious about her power upgrade, or wouldn’t want her near the ever volatile allison).
          Sure.. she’d probably be impossible to kill or put down..
          but just a normal combat proficient team? They can pin her down.
          but they woudln’t have to. Pull a civie or two. put a gun to their head? Feral would go with them quietly.

          • Sam

            Eh, agreed on her being easy enough to subdue with an ordinary combat team (there’s not a whole lot she can do against a handful of burly dudes with basic grappling training, let alone anyone with actual powers), but I don’t really think the civilian trick would work on her. She’s not nearly as sheltered as Allison, and I think she’s smart enough to realize that the Countless Countless Lives ™ she’s saving with her organ donations outweigh a few hostages.

          • zellgato

            She’d objectively realize for sure.
            but.. She’s been emotionally altered. She made her decision to change how she sees the world.
            So I think her emotions would get the better of her, if the civie was the right kind of target. A kid or a busful I think so. but a random gentlement or a middle aged lady/man your right she probably would rather try to win the fight instead.
            but Feral’s a lot more fragile than she used to be now. Despite the power up, her emotions are so vastely different now than it was before.

        • SJ

          Also, I may have missed a page or two: where was it established that Feral is combat-trained?

          • The flashback where we got her backstory. I’m talking school of experience, but Feral repeatedly walked into combat situations when she was working as a vigilante. She’s seen the elephant.

          • SJ

            Combat experience =/= combat training. Experience tells us that she won’t panic under “fire.” It doesn’t tell us that she wouldn’t be taken down by any competent fighter

    • Walter

      I dunno. Unless what they are going to do is more dangerous than tearing her heart out a hundred times a minute, I think she’ll be ok. Feral is almost as invincible as Alison right now.

      • Puissant

        Yeah, she’s hard to kill, but they could disappear her by dropping her down a silo, encasing her in concrete, chaining her up and dropping her in the Marianas Trench. I think you can see where this is going.

        For her sake, I hope that I’m wrong. For the sake of the narrative, I’d like to find out who’s behind these disappearances.

      • zellgato

        put her in one of those metal storage cases, fill it with cement. toss her in the ocean.
        not hard at all honestly. More so if you put a gun to a lil kid’s head in frotn of her.

    • Puissant
    • Weatherheight

      One of them could be Buffalo Bill looking for a new Feral suit…

      Too dark..?

      • Walter

        Thing is, there is no reason BB can’t have a Feral suit. Her skin will grow back in seconds, and BB can feel pretty. Win win.

    • Shweta Narayan

      eeeeek

    • KevlarNinja

      …………………………………..Holy shit!

    • bryan rasmussen

      allison could have gone along. I don’t think that’s it.

  • Grant

    Okay, I’m gonna call it: Feral’s regeneration is gonna mutate somehow and she’s gonna turn into a monster of some sort, and they won’t be able to harvest organs from her. It will seriously mess up Al, who will have to learn the lesson that her forcing people to do what she wants will have repercussions far beyond her, Feral, and Max.

    I hope not, but I can’t help but imagine the worst case scenario.

    • Ian Osmond

      No, that’s not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that this is such a blinding success that Alison does it again. And again. Not just to Max, but to everyone who won’t do the right thing.

  • KevlarNinja

    Whoa, for a moment there, I thought one of the women was an Umpa-Loompa.

    “Umpa-Loompa, dubbbety-drew. You saved some lives, so let’s grab a brew……”

    • Izo

      Oompa Loompa dippity-dee. After a few pints, you’ll have to pee….

  • Balthazar

    Everyone is missing the big picture here!

    ….Where did Feral’s burrito go?!

    • Arklyte

      out of picture when she lowered hands and then into left hand?

    • Given Feral, into her mouth, in one gulp.

  • Sam

    Is it just me, or have we seen one of these people before? http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-77-3/

    • Arklyte

      Yeah, Allison.

  • Lostman

    Alison let in the cold again.

    • KevlarNinja

      ♪I walk a lonely road, the only one I’ve ever known.
      Don’t know where it goes, but it’s home to me and I walk alone…..♪

  • JohnTomato

    Groupies want to group & grope. Feral has been out of the flow for some time and may be just a tad too trusting of anyone not in surgical scrubs.

    • palmvos

      the only person more able to handle that is Alison. But, your point is well taken.

      • JohnTomato

        More of an emotional transition than the physical abilities to withstand attack. Feral has had her entire world view rearranged in a very short time span.

    • Dean

      Ironically, these girls are organ hijackers looking to steal Feral’s kidneys.

      • Tsapki

        I’m vaguely reminded of Doctor Zoidberg casually commenting on his dissection in Area 51.

  • cphoenix

    A real-world thing we can do to advance social justice… wear a safety pin… and mean it. If you’re a white-man-looking person, maybe add a rainbow flag and/or Black Lives Matter pin, because some white supremacists have been trying to co-opt the pin (ugh, vile).

    • Mechwarrior
      • That’s the thing. People who didn’t get the idea about the pin assumed it was virtue signalling and slacktivist solidarity, started speaking out against it, and now pin wearers are being accused of it. But when it was pioneered in the UK shortly after Brexit the idea was that wearing a safety pin was an *active declaration of intent* to step in and help someone in a situation of harassment or suffering prejudice. The pin is meant to be a direct sign of safety and assistance available, not just solidarity as a nebulous idea.

        • Corollary; we absolutely cannot stop at *just* wearing a safety pin.
          People of safety are like temporary halfway houses and hate crime police. They’re very helpful in a crisis, they encourage others to act by example and thus spread solidarity and peace, but they don’t actually fix the root issues causing the crisis. We should *also* be actively dealing with those.

      • cphoenix

        Two women so far have thanked me for wearing it (Bay Area, CA). The HuffPo article against it was written by a white man, and the comments on that article were overwhelmingly in support of the idea.

        On my shopping list are a Black Lives Matter ribbon pin and a rainbow flag to wear next to it, so I can’t be confused with a white supremacist.

        It started in social media, but it’s gone mainstream – the New York Times has an article about it now. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/fashion/safety-pin-ally-activism.html?_r=0

        I hope Snopes updates their page soon.

        • Mechwarrior

          Snopes is usually pretty good about updating articles quickly, especially ones that are highly relevant to something that’s currently ongoing. And, of course, you can also contact them (the information is on the right side of the page) any time you’ve got information that you don’t see in the article. I’ve taken the liberty of forwarding the article you linked to to them.

        • I’ve read one article against the pins by a writer of colour referencing the UK campaign, but it was released almost two weeks after the movement started – and that article contained a number of misapprehensions and inconsistent understandings of what the actual idea was behind the pins, to the point where the argument being made was completely undermined by error.

          This Snopes article is thus the first time I’ve actually seen a considered argument being made against their use by those who should be benefiting from them. It’s the first one which actually incorporates both a reasonable understanding of their intended purpose as well as a decent reason to speak out against it (not the pins themselves but the pointless flattening backlash by white social media commentators when the author’s concerns were mooted). Therefore I read it and valued it and I would argue that the point it makes about harassing those in minority groups who disagree with your efforts on their behalf is well worth keeping it in major circulation.

          However regarding the author’s stance on the pins themselves, I do think that the author has been influenced by the UK article I’m referencing, and by the critical ‘virtue signalling?’ response to their use. They have a very cynical take on the intentions of the majority involved with this which I believe has come from suspicious sentiment more than actual appropriation, and which, as an active participant myself, I do not share. My experiences have been in direct contrast – along with, apparently, the majority of voices of all demographics.

  • Tim Kirk

    I can’t afford that kind of comission, but I appreciate your effort, got another way to throw into the kitty?

  • Manuel Simone

    Of course you, Molly and Brennan, are amazingly wonderful human beings (I’m very proud of your charitable causes), because only good people can create such awesome and gold hearted characters, is more easy for you two to give them “life” because you model them after yourselves. I’d so love to help you with charity, at least with a suggestion if not with money (I’d also try to give some money,
    when I’ll have). Continue doing your good work.

  • zellgato

    …and now she’s taken by the black market supers who hate that thety cut into their multi billion dollar deal.
    She’s tough. she’s probably super extra immediately immortal
    but she’s still a fairly straight forward fighter.
    much less civies involved. She’d give herself up
    and disappear.

    That better not happen. Though that would be the straw to help break Max’s self imposed rules/morality. and a interesting excuse for paladin to get involved and set up a later romance more.

    But. if I was setting this trap? This is how i’d do it

  • Vaporware

    The thing about justice is, we don’t get there by flinging hate back at the people we fear hate us. That isn’t how we made the progress we’ve made over the past hundred years. We didn’t get here by standing on the throats of people like the Ku Klux Klan, we got as far as we have by walking past their lines in the sand and showing the world that we were not the falsehoods history dressed us in. That we deserve to be treated fairly not because of what we were but because of who we are.

    I’ve found myself coming back often to the words of Martin Luther King. “Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that.”

    I will go one further and suggest that fear cannot drive out hate either. Fear invites hatred in, and I see that everywhere I look right now. People letting their terror get the better of them, and turning to the easy balm of revulsion because you don’t have to fear what you can hate. It is easy for many to hate a man like Trump both because of what he is and how he has comported himself.

    I do not find either of these to be compelling reasons for hatred. The former is hypocritical and the latter is no excuse at all to succumb to the lure of spite. We must not become the monsters we fight, rather we must light the way for them to return to the better angles of our human nature.

    I, for one, am not afraid of President Trump, and I’ll take a moment here to tell you why. I’ve spent some instructive hours leafing through some of the things he has said, some of the issues he has discussed, hoping to find some common ground upon which he could be engaged. One of the first things I discovered flew straight in the face of those flailing about to get legal representation for their trans friends on the assumption that, as an obvious and general bigot, Trump would seek to curtail their efforts once he achieved office.

    But he has spoken on trans-rights, and he has spoken in their favor. He opposed the ‘bathroom bill’, denouncing it as both unamerican and uneconomic, opining that people should simply use the bathroom they were most comfortable with, that they felt was appropriate for them. In nearly the same breath he asserted that, and I quote, “You’ve got to protect all people, even though it’s a tiny percentage of 1 percent.”

    There’s more, along with a spate of things I do not at all agree with him on, but I hope that my point is well underscored in the contrast between those words and the apparent expectations of the political left at large.

    I may not entirely agree with him on how to get there, but I think that’s something we should consider holding him to, rather than dismissing out of hand as just the rambling rhetoric of another -istic -phobic.

    He is strongly in favor of moving the ongoing fights for civil rights down to the level of the state, rather than imposing civil changes from on high, and as much as ‘state rights’ has become something of a dirty phrase, there’s something to that. It does us no good to impose change from the federal level if local culture is still a roiling mass of rejection.

    Just as those with the conscience to oppose the deleterious laws of the Jim Crow era, people will always oppose laws they feel are unjust. We have done this, and so will those who disagree with us. We may think we know better, but that has never given anyone the right to beat or berate others into submission. Moral conviction is not moral authority, and we should damn well understand that by now given how many of us have or /are right now/ subject to the whims of the would-be ‘righteous’.

    We must do better. We must /be/ better.

    Because if we don’t, we do nothing but prove ourselves wrong. If we choose to fight hatred on hatred’s terms, we may well win every battle, but we will lose our soul.

    So let me part with some advice. When someone, especially the media, tells you to be afraid? Do not heed them. You may well /be/ afraid, but it is up to you to understand your fear and act upon it. It is not for them to leash you to rhetoric. Clickbait journalism is a poison to discourse, and discourse is what we need, now more than ever.

    We must have the courage of our convictions, to reach out to those we have been taught to fear, and /show/ them that they, too, have nothing to be afraid of, nor worthy of their hatred.

    It is the only thing that has ever really worked.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H19AMpELMew

  • MisterTeatime

    It probably doesn’t matter, but now I’m wondering because it’s neither raised as a question nor explicitly answered… Feral was a superhero* for a while before she became the Universal Donor. In which capacity did she save this person’s cousin’s life?

  • Here’s a Name

    Something that’s been rattling inside my mind for a couple days now: to those who say they supported Trump but if he turns out to be the threat to minorities that minorities have claimed that he would be that they would “stand up and stop him”, how??? Seriously how. He’s been elected into office, he’s got a republican majority in congress (and don’t tell me that they have minorities definitely in their interests) and he’s poised to be able to tip the balance of the supreme court towards republican/conservative values. He’s hired a white nationalist as his “chief strategist” and a climate change denier to head his EPA transition team. He’s also got Mike Freaking Pence as his VP, the guy who believes in conversion therapy and who refused to renew the needle exchange program despite an HIV outbreak among other news worthy pieces of awfulness. Oh and Trump wants to de-regulate the financial industry (repeal Dodd-Frank) –which is only a good thing for the super rich (because they can get richer) and screws everybody else over because it puts the economy at greater risk and when that gets fucked up it’s the ordinary people who get screwed over. Trump does not have anyone’s interests at heart except his own and on top of that he is unprepared and unqualified to be our president.

    On a comic note, Allison’s self isolation does not bode well for her character arc and continued goodness/hero-ness.

    • crazy j

      Trump has stated several times on the campaign trail that he wanted to repeal Dodd-Frank. Wall Street responded to this by giving Clinton tens of millions of dollars, while the total amount that was given to Trump couldn’t buy a new Ford Taurus. It was that low.

      • Here’s a Name

        hmmm

      • Izo

        I also heard that Trump is requiring that anyone who joins his administration has to sign a contract that they cannot join a lobbying group for at least 5 or 10 years after they leave, as a disincentive to lobbying.

        • Danygalw

          Is *that* how they’re selling the non-competes?

          • Izo

            That’s what I’ve heard, at least. Which sort of makes sense for Trump to do, I guess, since it sounds like running things like a business does, with the side effect of making lobbying less effective.

    • Bob

      Okay, so… we had a choice between someone who would have taken us to war, to someone who is ANTI-WAR. We had a choice between someone who takes 20.5 MILLION from the Indian Government (Right after the US changes their position on India’s Nuclear Program) and then we have the guy who wants to end lobbyists,

      We have someone who opposed gay rights and voted against them as a senator, and the other choice took up for gay rights decades ago, back when it was unpopular and it got him boycotted and cost him MILLIONS of dollars.

      Trump doens’t CARE about minorities. He doesn’t. That doesn’t mean he HATES them. It means he IGNORES your idenity politics. He treats people as individuals and not as a member of a group.

      Hillary “cared”. She cared about how many votes she could get from you. She cared about one group over another.

      That’s Bigotry. Period. That is what Bigotry is. When you favor some people over another based on race, gender, sex, color or creed.

      Trump favors Americans over everyone else. And guess what, they do the same thing. Mexico looks out fro Mexico. India looks out for India. Unlike identity politics that has no basis in reality, I DO have a reason to stand by my fellow Americans and try to help them. Even if they hate me because I don’t treat them special.

      I don’t. Don’t want to be treated special either. I don’t want being born a certain way to help or hurt me. I want to be judged on ME, not on what label you put on me.

      We dodged a bullet. We got lucky. Trump wants to DISMANTLE the government. That is the opposite of what a dictator does. He wants to get rid of lobbyists and set term limits. That is not what a dictator does. He wants to get rid of socialism, and lower taxes to promote a free market so there are more Americans making a success for themselves. Dictators don’t want strong people. Trump wants to reform the education system to give parents more choices so that the free market will help eliminate bad schools. Right now the education system is very incestuous. Dictators do not want smart citizens.

      However, Hillary wanted everything Trump didn’t. The truth is, The Democrats are the racists. The Democrats are the dictators. The Democrats are the Socialists who want to concentrate the power in the hands of a few for “the good of the rest of us.” The Democrats founded the KKK. The first two years of Obama’s presidency had more road blocks from his fellow DEMOCRATS because, in the DNC’s own words, “That damn nigger needs to know his place”. It wasn’t until the Democrats lost the house in 2010, that they FINALLY got behind Obama.

      The same people who voted from Obama, voted for Trump. They both gave a promise of getting things done. Obama did his best. He just sucked at it. And here’s the dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about.

      THE MINORITIES VOTED TRUMP INTO OFFICE.

      Without minorities, Trump could never have gotten elected. So if you think trumps followers are all a bunch of racists, well, in SJW’s own words, “Minorities can’t be racist” so if Minorites put him into office, then Trump can’t be racist.

      Look. Seriously. Calm Down. Judge him on his actions. See what he does. He’s already said he won’t do anything about Gay marriage. However, if you listen to the MSM, they lament that Trump is now backing down on his promises! HOW HORRIBLE!

      How… horrible that he’s respecting the supreme court? How horrible he’s doing what you and everyone else wants him to do?

      The MSM media and you and most people never understood him or what he wanted. You look at him as you look at yourselves. YOU would be dictators and put ME in a concentration camp. YOU would rape Trump’s wife and have Trump Murdered. YOU would gun people down. YOU beat trump supporters to death JUST BECAUSE THEY WORE A HAT.

      Your side calls for the murder of a government official, the rape of his wife, and 4 million of you signed a document calling for ARMED INSURRECTION AGAINST YOUR GOVERNMENT.

      Don’t be afraid. We fought too hard to put an end to the tyranny of the left to let Donald Trump become they very thing we are trying to stop. I don’t think he’ll become it either. It wouldn’t serve his goals.

      Because you assume Trump is a greedy and power hungry as you are.

      He’s not. He want’s something money and power can’t buy. Immortality. He can only get that if he actually succeeds in “Making America Great Again”. He’ll sacrifice everything for it. He wants to be known as the greatest president that ever lived, and history will only view him that way if he successfully turns America… well… great.

      Unlike Hillary who had the goal of becoming president, and didn’t give a crap what happened after that, Trump views the presidency as a stepping stone to something bigger. He doesn’t think like you, so stop assuming he’s going to act like you.

      Because trust me, if we lost, we wouldn’t be calling for Bill Clinton’s Rape.
      (Simply because I’m sure he’d enjoy it too much.)

  • Barbara
    • Lostman

      You know how the old saying goes: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The issue is that it’s easier to write about the world you don’t want the one you do. The utopia you may want may not necessary the same as someone else. This is the same with dystopia, meaning everyone has there own ideas what is good and what is wrong. Remember, environmentalist wonderland could be hell to a technocrat.

  • Zac Caslar

    Apparently the “we hope something terrible happens to Allison” crowd has morphed into the “we hope something terrible happens to Tara” faction.

    Good times.

  • Dan Nicholson

    If you are telling people to calm down, that things won’t be bad… statistically, you are probably talking from a point of white privilege. You actually can calm down because you will be okay. The bigots taking power are not going to take your rights, or criminalize you, or deport you. Their hateful supporters, emboldened by finding out that a third of the country is absolutely in favor of racism… are not going to attack you.

    You are a german citizen telling your Jewish neighbor that it’ll be FINE. History says not to trust you, because you’re talking out of your ass. Common sense says you’re full of shit, because you’re telling minorities at risk how racism works.

    And we all know… you mean well. But if they come with guns to throw us all in camps? You are not going to stand with us. You are not going to lock arms and stand around us, and keep us from being put in concentration camps. You might, if it’s convenient, join a protest outside of one. But only if there’s no real risk to you. And you’ll tell each other to calm down, that it’ll be okay… because you’ve practiced that lie, and maybe, if you keep saying it, you can believe it despite the facts.