SFP

Show Comments
  • Dean

    “We can be pretty sure she isn’t here, Clevin’s leg isn’t gushing blood.”

    • Timothy McLean

      Clevin: “Ha ha h—wait, you’re not serious, right?”

    • thebombzen

      Clevin is a sweetheart, Mary doesn’t cut sweethearts

      • ampg

        Except when she did.

        • Walter

          And, ya know, tried to murder Alison.

          • BGB

            She didn’t exactly try to murder Allison if she knew that her attack could actually hurt Al. She just tried to stop Al from saving Furnace.

          • Walter

            Look, I’ve got as little appetite for reopening ‘The Great Moonshadow Warz’ as the next fan, but don’t 1984 me here. We can just look back and see what happened. Moonshadow slashed her throat, and then afterwards talked about it. She absolutely tried to murder Alison.

          • Todd

            Of course, this all depends on one’s definition of murder . . . .

          • Lisa Izo

            The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

            Y’know, the actual definition. You don’t get to choose your own definition for murder as it suits you.

          • Todd

            So a homeowner killing a burglar s/he finds breaking into his/her house is guilty of murder, QED. Whether or not the homeowner was genuinely afraid for his/her life at the time, the burglar made no directly threatening action, etc.

            Then there’s BGB’s point: Moonshadow knew she couldn’t hurt Alison. It’s kind of like charging a person with attempted murder or destruction of property for firing lead shot from a sling at a tank.

          • Arkone Axon

            “Unlawful premeditated.” Killing a potentially dangerous intruder in your home is generally considered “lawful” as an act of self defense. Try breaking into someone’s house and then telling the court, “I was making no directly threatening action! They had no right to shoot me!” and see how many people in the courtroom manage to keep from laughing at you.

            (Also, BGB’s point is in fact incorrent – Alison appeared to be weakened, and Moonshadow thought “holy crap – I might actually be able to kill her? And then immediately tested to see if she could kill Alison… just because she could)

          • Todd

            I note you say “generally”.

            I’m curious to hear what our technical expert has to say about the legality of killing a burglar for no other reason that the individual had broken in as well as this points’ use in actual case law.

          • Mechwarrior
          • Todd

            Thanks! That’s instructive (and further proof the US is a seriously violent place, especially where the Right can egg it on).

          • Mechwarrior

            Indeed.

          • Arkone Axon

            As… opposed to places like the United Kingdom, where home invasion robberies take place an average of 176 times a day in 2010?

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

            Or perhaps the glorious country of Brazil?

            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-violence-rio-idUSKBN1802K8

            Or perhaps Russia, where domestic violence has been decriminalized?

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decrimiinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

            The United States has its problems… but other countries aren’t perfect either.

          • Well, for a start the UK doesn’t have a crime of Home Invasion, so no such stats exist. The stat you cite is for burglary, which includes entry into unoccupied premises, and entry into occupied premises without contact with the occupants, as well as entry where contact with the occupants occurs unintentionally. Deliberate contact with the occupants is very rare. And if you want to compare stats, you need to know that UK burglary
            cases exceptionally rarely end in serious injury or murder. What would be considered Home Invasion in the US sense – forcible entry with intent to commit violence on the occupants – happens in a tiny minority of cases involving professional armed criminal gangs and high value targets.

            If you want to be taken seriously, don’t cite stats from the Daily Mail, which is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan. The Hate Mail has a record of delberately bending facts, misinterpreting stats and generally doing whatever it want to get a story that pushes its ultra-right agenda. It’s reached the point wikipedia has ruled the Mail can no longer be considered an authoritative source.

            Care to cite comparative murder rates? The UK had 571 murders in 2016. On a population of 65.1m that’s 0.88 per 100,000. The US rate is 5.3 per 100,000 – 6 times as high. 71% of US murders involve firearms. In the UK in 2016 there were 26 firearms related deaths – 0.045%, one a fortnight. I know which country I’m safer in.

          • Make that 4.5%, not 0.045%, forgot to convert to %age, but still far better than 71%.

          • Todd

            Please don’t pick low-hanging fruit to feed me. It’s just this side of insulting.

          • Lisa Izo

            You seem to be taking the concept that the US is not the devil among the world and other nations have many problems as well, equal or greater than the US, as some sort of personal insult. He’s not even saying that the US does NOT have a lot of violence and violent crime. He’s just taking apart your characterization that this is especially the case in the US.

          • Todd

            I hate to break it to you, Counsel, but the US, for all its deserved reputation as a violent global bully, is not the bunghole of Satan.

            I did not in the slightest state that the US is some kind of exception to violence in the world, that it’s absolutely the most violent, that no other country is violent, etc. I know far too much to make such an ignorant error.

            As soon as I spotted Arkone’s post, coming right on the heels of your own, I somehow knew the tack that he would take, and I was right. He blithely assumed I was arguing that the US was somehow an exception to the rule of violence among and within states.

            No. Wrong.

          • Lisa Izo

            Did you misread my post or something? Might want to read it again.

          • Lisa Izo

            Todd posts that the US is a seriously violent place.
            Arkone posts that that’s not a feature unique to the US, and there are other countries as violent or FAR moreso.
            Todd gets bent out of shape, saying he’s insulted by Arkone posting that as ‘low hanging fruit.’
            I ask why he gets so oversensitive when someone says that the US is NOT the devil among the world’s nations and that other nations have the same or more problems with violence than the US ever has.
            Todd comes back with that the US is NOT the devil, as if he was saying that all along, despite what his previous posts clearly said.

            Did you forget what you had written maybe? You seem to make a lot of 180 degree turns while talking as if you think you’re being in any way consistent.

          • Arkone Axon

            Hey, if you’re going to make it that easy, then I don’t need to reach for the high branches.

          • Lisa Izo

            Just so you know, the cities with the highest rates of murder actually are, in order:

            East St. Louis, Illinois (run by Democrats almost across the board)
            Chester, Pennsylvania (run by Democrats almost across the board)
            Gary, Indiana (run by Democrats almost across the board)
            St. Louis, Missouri (run by Democrats completely across the board, for the past 28 years, and if you mean a Republican mayor, that hasnt happened since 1949)
            Baltimore, Maryland (run by Democrats almost across the board… for the past 150 years, and there hasnt been a Republican anywhere in office since 1963, and no Republican mayor since 1939)
            Petersburg, Virginia (democratic stronghold, almost everyone in office there is a democrat and usually the Republicans don’t even bother to nominate anyone)
            Flint, Michigan (almost entirely Democrat across the board, listed in 2006 as the 10th most liberal city in the United States by the non-partisan Bay Area Center for Voting Research)
            Detroit, Michigan (not only run by Democrats across the board completely, but for the last 50 years uncontested)
            New Orleans, Louisiana (majority of the entire government, including the mayor, have been Democrats…. since 1870 – every single election since 1870 – they’ve had a democrat as mayor – and in 1870 a Republican was mayor for one year, to take over for the Democratic mayor who had been suspended from office)
            Camden, NJ (stronghold of the Democratic party, only democratic mayors and almost everyone in the city council is Democrat)

            I can list the next 20 cities as well but…. they’re pretty much going to have the same theme. I’m not even saying it’s a right/left thing, but if you are to bring it up, you have to explain why the statistics don’t meet up with the rhetoric you just made about ‘the US is a seriously violent place, especially where the Right can egg it on.’

            I could also list the cities with the highest numbers of murder, but…. it’s going to be the same thing when it comes to who is running the local governments for most of them.

          • Todd

            “if you are to bring it up, you have to explain why the statistics don’t meet up with the rhetoric you just made about ‘the US is a seriously violent place, especially where the Right can egg it on.”

            You really want to get into this with me? Thread-drift notwithstanding?

          • Lisa Izo

            Yes, I want to get into this with you. I like getting into debates where all the facts are clearly on my side. Go on and look into the research on those cities and let me know if anything I’ve said was in any way false.

            Would you like me to give citations on what I posted? I could 🙂

          • Todd

            Aside from speciously trying to link high rates of murder with a party you happen to oppose (I think I read somewhere you’re a libertarian), what was the point of your list?

          • Lisa Izo

            The point of the list is of the top 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US, 29 are run almost exclusively by Democrats (I just listed the top 10 to keep the length of the post reasonable), usually as stronghold or for decades across the board. This does not mean “if the government is run by the left then the city is automatically more violent” (although an argument can be made by some people) but it does definitely dispute your unfounded claim that the US is adangerously violent place especially when the right eggs them on . Clearly the left is not a pinnacle of peaceful cities when the right is nowhere to be found. In fact, they almost exclusively have the HIGHEST murder rates. Again – doesnt mean the left is inherently responsible (but an argument can be made that it does) … but if there is no Right influence there, it does mean the Right is not egging anything on there.

            And yes I am a Libertarian but you made a Left Right claim about egging on violence which was clearly inaccurate and based on your own biases rather than anything based on facts.

            Now please do try to show anything on the list as false.

          • Todd

            Yes, I’m sure an argument can be made by some people.

            I see no reason why the list has to be false: it takes more than local authorities to create an environment where violence of all kinds can flourish and/or be condoned and/or ignored; state and federal ones can get into the act (not to mention private citizens).

            “Dangerously violent?” Not quite what I wrote, eh? Let’s stick with that.

            It’s a big topic; I’ve been sitting here thinking about how to go about explaining sight to a blind person, and I’m somewhat at a loss as to method.

            We can start with economic violence. Certainly, within the past 40-some-odd years, various “reforms” have been made to make to attack welfare (making it much harder to get), make it easier for owners to dismiss workers, and make it more difficult to unionize. There have also been stigmatizing attitudes towards people on welfare that have been condoned and used by US governments eg Willie Horton ad. Poverty has been slowly becoming criminalized as poorer people, unable to pay fines, appear in court, etc, have been incarcerated (which makes it even harder to get good paying jobs). The political Right has been working on that for even longer than 40 years, but it’s succeeded quite well since then (even managing to convince the Dems it’s something that needed to be done to look “respectable”).

            Racial violence (very often overlapping fairly well with economic violence eg Willie Horton again). Disproportionate imprisonment of darker-skinned men (who are more often than not poorer than average). The legacy of slavery still lives on and has often been used openly or more coded by the Right to stigmatize blacks and maintain white power over them eg . This has morphed recently into violence against Arabic citizenry (stigmatization, police action, etc.). Border vigilantism at the southern border vs Mexicans. Police shootings of blacks.

            Gun violence (used to kill others as well as oneself). Carry laws, “stand-your-ground”, castle defense laws (from MechWarrior’s link). “Gun rights” is almost exclusively a Right project.

            Militias like the Posse Comitatus.

            Homegrown terrorism eg McVeigh, Roof, KKK.

            “War Against Drugs” leading to more police violence that is often racially coded.

            It’s late; that’s all I can think of at the moment.

          • Arkone Axon

            I’m curious to know what your solution to that would be. Vigilante hit squads?

            They’ve already got those in the cities Lisa mentioned. They’re called “street gangs,” usually. Or “biker gangs” or whatever… but it amounts to the same. “We don’t need the law! We take care of our own!” If they decide you’ve committed an offense against them, they respond with violence. They don’t bother with the courts, or cops, they handle it themselves. They take care of their own neighborhoods with good old vigilante justice.

            In other words, Moonshadow’s actions taken to their logical conclusion are what helped make those cities so violent and dangerous in the first place.

            (Also, I’m not going to deny that a large number of the policies of the Right have contributed to the problem – especially the so called “War on Drugs.” But so have a large number of policies of the Left. The Right’s been doing their best to bleed the money out of the poor, but it’s the Left that’s done their best to make sure the poor are too defenseless to protect themselves from victimization. It’s a more complicated issue than you seem to think… but then again, you believe you’re so brilliant and naturally well educated that you’re “explaining sight to a blind person.”)

          • Lisa Izo

            “”Dangerously violent?” Not quite what I wrote, eh? Let’s stick with that.”

            ‘the US is a seriously violent place, especially where the Right can egg it on.’ – your exact words.

            “I’ve been sitting here thinking about how to go about explaining sight to a blind person, and I’m somewhat at a loss as to method.”

            More rhetoric (with a little insult, implying I’m blind) rather than using any sort of facts. Because the facts are not on your side.

            “We can start with economic violence.”

            Economic ‘violence’? Uh… no. You were referring to violence. Don’t try to change the definition again. You tend to do that. You find you’re wrong, so you try to make up a new definition for words. Words that have distinct definitions already, like ‘murder’ or ‘violence.’

            Poverty isn’t ‘economic violence’ by the way. It’s a byproduct of any society that uses money. Which is pretty much every society that exists since any significant civilization began.

            After this, you talk about how it’s HARDER to get welfare. Which it’s not. It’s actually FAR FAR easier, but you don’t bother giving any way to support your argument that it’s harder to get welfare. If anything, the welfare state has massively increased in the past 40 years, as all welfare state schemes do.

            “Poverty has been slowly becoming criminalized as poorer people, unable to pay fines, appear in court, etc, have been incarcerated”

            Actually, what mkes people go to jail is when they commit crimes, not when they’re poor. Your entire argument is false and based on no facts whatsoever, and I notice that you arent even going to TRY to debate my points. Hell, you arent even debating your own single point that you initially made. That the right creates violence by egging it on in the US.

            “The political Right has been working on that for even longer than 40 years, but it’s succeeded quite well since then (even managing to convince the Dems it’s something that needed to be done to look “respectable”).”

            Actually, as the welfare state has increased and people become more dependent on government to take care of them, it’s gotten WORSE for those people. Look at the 10 cities I mentioned. All run by Democrats. All with massive payouts to the poor, all hemmorhaging cash, some more than others like Detroit, which had to declare bankruptcy as an entire CITY. Guess what, it didnt have to do that because of Republicans, because there are no republicans there. And havent been for decades. It’s all under the Left’s rules that its gone down the drain, if you’re so ready to change things from ‘violence’ to ‘poverty’ being the fault of the Right (since you don’t seem to want to stick to your own initial talking point).

            “Racial violence (very often overlapping fairly well with economic violence eg Willie Horton again).”

            Uh… not wanting to make this a racial thing, but you’re bringing this up…. but statistically speaking, 50 percent of all murders are with a PoC perpetrator (while the census population is between 12 and 13 percent), and 95 percent of PoC murder victims are killed by other PoCs.

            “Disproportionate imprisonment of darker-skinned men (who are more often than not poorer than average).”

            Yes. When the Left creates a welfare state, it does hurt the poorest who become dependent on it, and that has especially hurt PoC. If you’d like a chart of the poorest cities in the country, and who runs those cities, and a racial breakdown of that, I can provide that as well. You’ll find a lot of overlap though with the violence cities though, because the one thing you’ve said that’s accurate is that violent crimes and poverty are linked – just not for the reasons you’re claiming (that there’s some Right wing boogyman keeping PoC down, but rather the Left tends to treat PoC as important only during elections then forgets about them afterwards except to throw handouts in the form of government dependence, instead of actual job creation … in cities which they’ve run uncontested for decades).

            “The legacy of slavery still lives on and has often been used openly or more coded by the Right to stigmatize blacks and maintain white power over them”

            …. you do realize that the states that had slavery were overwhelming run by Democrats, right? And that the Republicans were initially created as an anti-slavery party?

            “Border vigilantism at the southern border vs Mexicans.”

            Do you bother with ANY statistics at all in your argument? Anything beyond anecdotal hyperbole?

            “Police shootings of blacks.”

            So you’re claiming now that this massive coincidence of all the cities run exclusively by the Left being also the cities with the highest rates of violent crime is because of police shootings of black people? See… I think the reason for the amount of violent crime in those areas is because of not enough of a police presence to protect the PoC who LIVE there and are victims of murder by (for the overwhelming majority) other PoC. Plus again, I can back it up with stats.

            “Gun violence (used to kill others as well as oneself).”

            Um… almost all the cities I mentioned have significant gun control laws actually, and has been used by the Left and the Right sides of the political spectrum as far back as 1888

            “”stand-your-ground”, castle defense laws (from MechWarrior’s link).”

            Actually the Castle Doctrine goes back to before the US even existed. The 1300s in fact. It was taken by the US in the Commentaries on hte Laws of England, written by Blackstone, which was a cornerstone of our US law and the Constitution .

            Quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium?

            For what is holy, what is fenced round with every form of religion, which they of the house of everybody of our countrymen?

            It’s also the reason for the 4th Amendment and why doors cannot jsut be broken into to execute any civil process, why warrants are needed, why there’s a Right to Assembly in the 1st amendment, and why the army can’t just take over our homes (also written specifically into the Constitution, because of the Castle Doctrine concept).

            A Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877:

            “Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.”

            Btw…. not ‘Right Wing.’ The idea was if someone’s breaking into your place to try to kill you, you don’t have to flee from them and let them do whatever they want. That’s REASONABLE. You know what’s not reasonable? The people trying to break into your house to kill you and/or steal your stuff.

            “”Gun rights” is almost exclusively a Right project.”

            I’d argue gun rights is an exclusively US Constitution 2nd Amendment project, actually.

            “Militias like the Posse Comitatus.”

            Um… posse comitatus, since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, means that the US Army and all other armed forces (except the Coast Guard) cannot be used for internal law enforcement.

            “Homegrown terrorism eg McVeigh”

            So…. wait, all violence in those cities were caused by Timothy McVeigh? What?

            Also… since when is Timothy McVeigh ‘the Right’ ??? He was a registered Democrat, and HATED the US government.

            “KKK.”

            Um… hate to break it to you but the KKK was almost exclusively Democrats, supported by Democrats, formed by Democrats, and in order to get elected in most Democratic districts as late as the 50s, Democrats actually sought the KKK’s support. Some of whom remained in office until 2010, like Robert Byrd.

            Plus the KKK is pretty much dead today, with less than 4000 members left I believe. They’re thankfully going the way of the dodo.

            “”War Against Drugs” leading to more police violence that is often racially coded.”

            Citation needed. Actually no, it doesn’t. It leads to arresting drug users and dealers, although honestly it should have focused exclusively on dealers, not people simply holding onto more than x amount of drugs. As for the ‘police arrest people for crack, but not as many for cocaine, because cocaine users are more likely white while crack users are more likely black, that’s actually because of wealth, not because of race. If you look in the poor white areas, where meth was the drug of choice (because it was cheaper, easily transferred, easier to make in a potent form, and more addictive), the arrest rates are identical to that of black users of crack-cocaine (because it was cheaper, easily transferred, eaier to make in a potent form, and more addictive).

            “It’s late; that’s all I can think of at the moment.”

            Then you’ve literally thought of nothing and have disputed nothing :/

          • Todd

            Yes, “seriously violent” does not equal “dangerously violent”. Overlap? Sure. Synonymous? No.

            Facts aren’t always the problem, Counsel: interpretation matters, too (which is the crux of our arguments).

            Re. blindness: Yes, from what I can tell by our interplay, you’re quite ideologically blind. As is proven by the fixed ideas you harbor for such notions as “violence” or “murder”.

            “Then you’ve literally thought of nothing and have disputed nothing :/”

            Well, you go right ahead and think that, Counsel. Like I’ve said before, you’re just one more person who’s wrong on the Internet, and I’m tired of devoting so much time to you. Maybe later . . . .

          • Lisa Izo

            “Yes, “seriously violent” does not equal “dangerously violent”. Overlap? Sure. Synonymous? No.”

            Oh for the love of god. Five times I wrote down exactly what you wrote. Seriously violent. Once I write down dangerously violent, which means the same thing in the CONTEXT of how you were talking (see, that’s how you actually use the word context in a sentence) and now you’re trying (BADLY) to argue semantics which doesnt even change what you said in the first place.

            Arguing with you is rather annoying because you don’t bother actually reading what the other person writes at all, then use one word sentences when you can’t think out a coherent argument, which is often. And most of the rest of the time your posts make no sense until it’s been read and re-read 3-4 times, usually dripping with insults and ad hominem attacks because you can’t seem to stay on point of the thread.

            “Facts aren’t always the problem, Counsel: interpretation matters, too (which is the crux of our arguments).”

            Yes I’ve come to realize that for you, facts don’t seem to measure into an argument very much, if at all. And your interpretation seems to have no coherence except your feelings, fake anecdotes, and a Hollywood TV show understanding of the law and justice. And by the way, what the courts do IS interpret the law. That’s literally what the judicial branch of government is for. Interpreting the law. But you have to use some semblance of logic and consistency when interpreting it, which I do use, and you don’t.

            “Re. blindness: Yes, from what I can tell by our interplay, you’re quite ideologically blind.”

            This is sort of hilarious that you’d be calling me ideologically blind, when I base my opinions on the law and you base yours on pure ideology and shifting emotional opinions based on anecdotes that you or others have made up.

            “As is proven by the fixed ideas you harbor for such notions as “violence” or “murder”.”

            …. understanding the actual definitions of words is ideologically blind? To quote Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujVMIYzYXg

          • There’s a famous British case in which the killing of a burglar was judged both premeditated and unlawful. Someone who had been repeatedly burgled lay in wait with a shotgun and then shot the burglar in the back as he was leaving the house (he turned out to be a kid). UK law allows self-defence in extremis, but not if there are other options, and certainly not if there is no threat, so he was prosecuted and convicted.

            And I can think of a couple of cases in the US in which people have sought help at a house and been shot dead.

          • Lisa Izo

            That’s called the springloaded shotgun (spring-gun) example. It’s taught to everyone in criminal law in law school. The case most often cited for this nowadays is Katko v Briney, but there are many others which go back as far as 1775 in the US.

            I’m assuming that the UK case that you’re referring to, btw, is Bird v Holbrook which happened in 1825 (a man set up a spring-gun in his garden to protect it from birds and it wound up shooting a person instead).

          • The UK case is much more recent, 90s?, and involved the homeowner deliberately shooting the burglar in the back as he left the house.

          • Lisa Izo

            I’m not British but I’m passingly familiar with british cases – although most of the cases I’m familiar with tend to be from longer ago (since most of the cases in English law are ones which the colonies had adopted when forming US law). Also the UK has different laws when it comes to self-defense, defense of others, diminished capacity, etc. so I wouldn’t want to debate this as any sort of authority on the subject in modern UK law.

          • On checking, the British case was the shooting of Freddie Barras by Tony Martin in 2000, he was convicted of murder, which was reduced to murder on the grounds of diminished responsibility on appeal.

            And the US cases I was thinking of are also more recent and directly intentional, the murder of Renisha McBride in Detroit in 2013, and the murder of British tourist Andrew De Vres in Texas in 1975, both of whom had banged on doors in the middle of the night while seeking help and were shot by the homeowners. I finally found the de Vries case on the wiki page for the murder of Yoshhiro Hattori, who had simply knocked on the wrong door for a Halloween party, having waded through an appalling number of people shot dead in similar circumstances.

          • Correction: _manslaughter_ on the grounds of diminished responsibility

          • Lisa Izo

            Okay. I assumed you were referring to the earliest cases on the books. Spring-Gun cases are one of the first things you learn during learning cases where there was NOT an affirmative defense for a homeowner or business owner.

          • Lisa Izo

            *sigh* UNLAWFUL …. PREMEDITATED killing.

            Not just any killing. Unlawful is the first damn word in the definition (not taking into account that self-defense is an affirmative defense against the charge, an affirmative defense doesn’t erase the definition, just like it wouldn’t if Moonshadow were legally insane – she’d still be a murderer).

            Also Moonshadow outright stated that she wasn’t sure if she could kill Alison but it couldnt hurt to try. That means BGB’s point is incorrect since she thought there was a chance that she could. She thought there was a chance she could kill Alison (maybe Alison’s being weakened would make her vulnerable – Alison’s been injured before, maybe Moonshadow thought that Alison’s invulnerability is based on knowing that an attack is coming), and so she tried to kill her. That’s attempted murder and more likely attempted felony murder since it was done during the commission of a violent or enumerated crime.

          • Todd

            So it IS lawful for a homeowner to murder a burglar no matter what the circumstances?

            Getting back to Alison, I think your statement that Moonshadow not being sure is the correct one; it feels right (I’ll check later).

            In the past, I’ve agreed that calling what Moonshadow’s done is murder or at least haven’t objected to that point. What made me reply to Walter’s assertion was, I think, my mistaken idea that she didn’t really believe she could kill Allison, which is different from not being sure she could and, as our technical expert has pointed out, it’s legally the same as attempted murder.

          • Lisa Izo

            “So it IS lawful for a homeowner to murder a burglar no matter what the circumstances?”

            I need to explain briefly what an affirmative defense is,since I think that this is the point where you’re getting confused. An affirmative defense is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct. Self Defense and Defense of Others are affirmative defenses, so if a burglar broke into your house and you kill them because you fear for your life or the life of others in the house, that is an affirmative defense against a charge of murder. Protection of property is NOT an affirmative defense against a charge of murder though, so if you set a springloaded shotgun and you were not even home, so that when someone breaks into your house they get shot in the face, then yes, the homeowner would be guilty of murder, because they’d have no affirmative defense.

            The very fact that you are IN the house when a burglar breaks in creates the grounds for using self defense as your defense. Which means the killing is not unlawful, where it otherwise would have been. Does this clear things up for you? Moonshadow never had ANY affirmative defenses for her killings, and what she did was murder every single time – both to the people who were actually rapists, the people who she thought were rapists but had no proof, the people who she thought may beat their wives but she had no proof, the people who she thought might be rapists in the future, the mercenaries, Furnace, and the attempted murder of Alison and the attack on Klevin, which could have been seen as an attempted murder as well given that the femoral artery is near where she slashed Klevin, which can cause death within minutes from blood loss.

          • Todd

            MechWarrior’s link to the Wikipedia entry on The Castle Doctrine was very instructive in answering my question.

            Your carefully overzealous characterizing of Moonshadow’s victims is hilarious (“She thought . . . She thought . . . She thought”). Wrong but still hilarious.

          • Lisa Izo

            I’ve read over this post three times and still have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

          • Arkone Axon

            I believe I can translate Todd’s post for you.

            http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToRidicule

          • Todd

            Nope, ‘fraid not.

          • Lisa Izo

            Seems like an ‘appeal to ridicule’ actually, yes. The second and third sentences are definitely you doing that trope.

          • Retrikaethan

            who then went out of his way to commit suicide quite explosively.

          • Mechwarrior

            He was drugged and disoriented. What happened to Furnace was murder, not suicide.

          • Arkone Axon

            THANK YOU. We’ve had our disagreements on other threads, but it’s a relief to finally find someone else in the comments section for this comic who understands the concept of “negligent homicide.”

          • Mechwarrior

            Actually, given that she strapped an explosive device to him and had intent to kill him, I’m pretty sure that his death would legally be considered 1st Degree premeditated homicide.

          • Happyroach

            I’m sure her defense lawyer would try to get a plea bargain for negligent homicide. But if I were the DA I’d be pushing for Murder 1, as well as kidnapping, unlawful restraint, assault and battery (drugging) and depending on the state, violating any statute prohibiting the introduction of a controlled substance into another person’s body without their knowledge and consent. Also, likely a dozen or more crimes related to the destruction of the dam.

          • Lisa Izo

            At the very least it’s felony murder, actually. In other words, if an offender causes the death of another person in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (such as kidnapping, for example), then that person is also guilty of murder.

          • Mechwarrior

            She strapped a bomb to his chest. Negligent homicide applies to deaths caused by, well, negligence, like if she kidnapped him but didn’t feed him and he went into a diabetic coma. If she’d kept him prisoner and next door to his room were improperly stored explosives that he accidentally triggered while attempting escape, she *might* get negligent homicide. But it would take one hell of an attorney.

          • Stephanie

            Clarification: Furnace did not die from the bomb. Moonshadow cut it off him and threw it away, and it exploded in the air, harming no one. Then he blew up the dam with his power, which is what killed him.

            Not defending her, just saying that people are recalling the sequence of events incorrectly.

          • Mechwarrior

            It’s not important because of its contribution to his death, it’s important because after doing something like that you can’t play the “I didn’t actually mean to kill him” card.

          • Stephanie

            I mean, she literally didn’t mean to kill him at that point. She risked her life to get the explosives belt off him specifically so he wouldn’t die. We can acknowledge that she’s a murderer and that her actions led to Furnace’s death, while still also acknowledging that at the time he actually died, she didn’t want him to die.

          • Mechwarrior

            As I said before, the fact that she changed her mind fails to make a difference for the same reason it makes him less dead. She kidnapped and drugged him, then he died trying to (from his perspective) defend himself.

          • Stephanie

            Whether it makes a difference depends on what question you’re asking. Is she at fault in his death? Yes. Was killing him acceptable according to her principles, once she knew he wasn’t a rapist? Demonstrably, no.

          • Mechwarrior

            Do her principles actually matter in the discussion of whether or not she murdered him? No.

            I decided to check, and it appears that in most of the US, if you commit a felony and a death occurs as a result of that felony, it’s automatically considered murder. So legally, at least, there’s no wiggle room.

          • Stephanie

            I’m not disputing the legal situation. I just think it’s an important distinction that he was not, in fact, blown up by the bomb she strapped onto him. And if you want to talk about the legal aspect, the bomb really has nothing to do with that. The kidnapping alone makes it felony murder, the bomb that didn’t even actually harm him is completely irrelevant. Whereas if you want to talk intention, like you were before, “she can’t say she didn’t intend to kill him since she put a bomb on him earlier” doesn’t make any sense since she in fact saved him from that very same bomb. In other words, whether you want to talk in terms of her legal culpability or her intentions, the bomb doesn’t matter one bit.

          • Arkone Axon

            She violently assaulted and injured him, placed him in the situation, drugged him, was probably going to use the same knife she attempted to use against Alison… the bomb not being the actual method by which she murdered him is a rather trivial and irrelevant detail…

          • Todd

            I missed this one: where do you get the intent to kill?

          • Mechwarrior

            From the whole kidnapping him, strapping a bomb to his chest, and putting him through a mock-trial. Any competent DA would have an easy time convincing a jury that her actions demonstrated a premeditated decision to kill him. The fact that she changed her mind doesn’t make her less culpable anymore than it makes him less dead.

          • Todd

            So it doesn’t matter if the intention was actually there or not. A plain kidnapper could be charged with intent to kill simply because it was possible that murder was intended.

            Yes, she kidnapped him and strapped a bomb on him, then used a drug on him to “finish her research” into his guilt (finding him not guilty to her own satisfaction; there was no mock-trial I recall). What I’m finding strange is this notion that, while threat-to-kill was certainly there, intent to kill wasn’t; that particular point hinged on whether or not she found him guilty to her satisfaction.

          • Mechwarrior

            She had the intent when she stuck a bomb on him. Legally, no, the fact that she changed her mind wouldn’t matter. From a moral standpoint, it also doesn’t matter because “oops, I didn’t actually *intend* to kill him after drugging him and putting him in a highly dangerous situation where his death was a likely outcome” isn’t a defense.

          • Todd

            Wow. And people here call Moonshadow crazy . . . .

            Disagree about your characterization of the moral standpoint.

          • Mechwarrior

            The only way Moonshadow could morally not be responsible for Furnace’s death is if she hadn’t realized she was strapping a bomb to him in the first place. She knew it was a bomb, it was *intended* to be lethal to him, she put him into the situation and the location, every single event leading up to his death was because of actions she took. Morally, the fact that he’s dead rests entirely on her.

          • Todd

            She knew it was a bomb, it was intended to make him pause long enough to re-consider activating his power, she put him in the situation and location, and apparently expected him to act rationally rather than just try to kill anyone around him, apparently out of outrage for his wounded pride.

            She then risked her life (no doubt reluctantly) to save him, but even that wasn’t enough to make him pause; he still had to kill her for making him look bad and apparently was too incensed to really care that Alison was there, too, and that he was risking his own neck for no other reason than to kill someone who’d humiliated him.

            I can understand calling her a proximate cause, even a strong proximate cause, but entirely? Nope. He wanted to be the macho man and punish the woman who had done the dirty to him; he at least shares the blame for his own death.

          • Arkone Axon

            Note: Lisa Izo, the attorney whose profession you’re assuming to be inherently suspect (and if you demand “where did I say that?” I won’t even answer, because you just made another comment in a different thread about exactly that) can tell you exactly how incorrect your argument is. Hell, she already has in other posts.

            Setting aside the fact that you’re insisting “it’s his fault because he should have acted rationally after waking up while still feeling the effects of drugs and violence (at the very least, she gave him a concussion when she knocked him out at the grave he was visiting), and confronted by two people who he knew to be hostile towards him and one of whom had attacked him,” you’re ignoring the fact that she put a murder weapon on him (the bomb) and even if she reconsidered, that’s like aiming a gun at a victim, changing your mind… and then having an accidental discharge. You’re still guilty of murder.

            But… I’m guessing you’re going to ignore that and continue to blame the victim?

          • Todd

            Um, no. I don’t inherently suspect Lisa of anything to do with her profession. She said she was a lawyer; I don’t recall her writing anything to make me disbelieve her and plenty to make me believe.

            Re. guilt (and I assume you mean legal guilt), see my comment to MechWarrior above.

          • Lisa Izo

            As opposed to what, guilt by association? Guilt by accusation?

          • Mechwarrior

            From a legal perspective, what he was doing was self defense. I don’t know if you’ve ever been anesthetized, but when they give you general anesthetic that renders you unconscious, it takes a while after you wake up for your brain to start working clearly. He didn’t have the capacity to think straight and wouldn’t have for an hour or two. Since she gave him the drugs that rendered him like that, that puts the burden on her.

            The thing that makes it seem ambiguous was how much of an a-hole Furnace was, but if you try imagining the scenario running with a more sympathetic victim, it’s more obvious that it was self-defense. Furnace had a reasonable expectation that Moonshadow meant him harm regardless of her words to the contrary, especially given that her powers meant that she could, in fact, disguise an attack to look like a harmless action.

          • Todd

            Please don’t give me the quotes on legality. There’s no question there. You divided your statement into legal point and a moral point, and I disagree with you on the moral point, ceding the legal point.

            I’m not arguing that Moonshadow is utterly blameless. I’m pointing out that Furnace wasn’t either.

            Your first para points out that he was still drugged; let’s take that as given. He, therefore, couldn’t have been capable of, at the very least, clear reasoning. No clear reasoning, the first thing I would expect would be panic, most likely to run away. He didn’t look panicked in the slightest; he looked supremely pissed, maybe like an angry drunk, looking for an ass to kick. You can bet that anger wouldn’t be from a vacuum; it would come from his character (it seems reasonable enough to assume an angry-drunk bigot would lash out towards some racial minority or make some bigoted remark instead of just some random act that has nothing to do with his character instead ie in vino veritas.

            If he had been clear-headed enough (ie being able to come to a reasonable conclusion), why didn’t he recognize the spot he was in and, at the very least, wait for a better opportunity to cut loose? Because his character (which we’ve already seen), not his will or his sense of self-preservation, demanded that he act the macho man and annihilate the woman (the WOMAN!) who had humiliated him.

            We don’t normally hold drunks blameless for attacking someone; we can look at the circumstances and go from there with a (moral) judgement. The legality of it all is a bit simpler.

          • Mechwarrior

            Drunks become intoxicated because they voluntarily drink. We hold them accountable because they made the decision to drink back when they were clear headed and sober. Furnace didn’t choose to be drugged.

          • Todd

            No, he didn’t choose to be drugged. Yes, we hold drunks accountable (sometimes this is good eg a drunk starting a fight; sometimes this is bad eg a drunk woman getting raped). My point was that, if he was still drugged, in vino veritas; if he wasn’t, he allowed his macho pride to get the better of him.

          • Lisa Izo

            So… if a man is drugged against his will, it is partially his fault somehow because of macho pride… but if a woman is drugged against her will, it is not her fault at all? Odd … I would expect, for consistency sake, that it is never the fault of the person drugged against their will or without their knowledge, regardless of gender.

          • Arkone Axon

            Now that you mention it, isn’t that the same double standard that Alison applied when she was throttling that guy at the party? “Well, they’re both drunk and therefore she’s not culpable but he’s obviously a rapist?”

          • Todd

            Context.

            Had Furnace managed to overcome his machismo and power down, I suspect everyone would have gotten out alive. Moonshadow would have still been pretty easily found guilty of various crimes had she been arrested, and he wouldn’t have been partially responsible for his death.

            As for a drugged woman, let’s assume Furnace had been a woman and the same sequence of events had happened. Your legal charges against Moonshadow would still have stuck, but the female Furnace would still have been partially at fault for her demise.

          • Lisa Izo

            You don’t seem to recognize the hypocrisy of saying that a man who is drugged against his will should be held partially responsible, but a woman who gets drugged against her will should not be.

            As for the drugged woman… lets take it a DIFFERENT way. A male character slips a mickey into a woman’s drink. She gets knocked out and he takes he attempts to rape her (but is stopped because she comes to in time to fight back). She dies in the ensuing struggle.

            According to you, based on your flawed logic, she’s partially at fault for her death because she fought back.

          • Todd

            You missed the word, “context”.

            How does the woman die? Does she die because she manifests some super power to take revenge on the man, ends up overpowering and kills herself like Furnace did? Does she die because the man gets more violent at her fighting him and kills her? Does she die because she has, say, a sudden embolism that has nothing directly to do with what’s going on? Does she die because, fighting back, she slips, falls, and breaks her own neck?

            Context.

          • Arkone Axon

            Context: She died because she woke up and tried to defend herself from an unprovoked assault.

          • Lisa Izo

            Uh… it doesnt matter HOW she died if she died while struggling to not be raped if the situation she was in was one that she would not be in if NOT for having to struggle in the first place! Are you seriously arguing it’s partially her fault? Are you seriously trying to say my example was about ‘a sudden embolism?’ You know it isn’t.

            How about use another term in the law – the eggshell skull rule. Or in other words, you take your victim as they are. If you try to mug a person, and you bonk them on the head with a blackjack, but unbeknownst to you, they had a very thin ‘eggshell-like’ skull, and your bonk, which was supposed to just knock them out, instead kills them… guess what, it’s YOUR FAULT still. It’s ENTIRELY your fault. It’s not the other person’s fault at all for having an eggshell skull, or for walking down a particular street at a particular time.

          • She couldn’t legally expect him to act rationally. This is Furnace we’re talking about, who has a demonstrated history of irrationally aggressive behaviour. And Furnace going Flame On! the moment he regained consciousness and knew he was under threat but before realizing the bomb was there would actually be rational.

            Nothing Furnace does matters, it’s whether Moonshadow created the situation that led to his death.

          • Todd

            Again, forget about the legal stuff.

            Are you trying to expand the definition of rationality so as to include irrationality? Or that each person has his/her own personal definition of rational behaviour that only applies to him-/herself?

          • I was using ‘rationally’ to imply ‘meeting Moonshadow’s threat in the way she clearly expected’. Which is sloppy as Furnace going immediately flame-on would have been rational from his point of view, just not wise.

          • Todd

            How close do you think the terms “irrational” and “just not wise” are in this context? Because they seem almost interchangeable to me.

          • Irrational is a term I try to avoid, because I think it tends to be used in a way that reinforces stigma around MH. For clarity here, I’d draw the distinction that irrational can involve considered thought that happens to include factors that may be at variance with physical reality, while ‘not wise’ only deals with physical reality, but decisions may be flawed by lack of appropriate experience.

          • Todd

            OK, so are you saying that Moonshadow should have known that Furnace would have gone berserk because he hadn’t ever been beaten (figuratively if not literally) by a woman before? Therefore, he had no hand in his own death?

          • No. Simply that Furnace’s observed behavior was violence first, think later, no matter the circumstances. And Moonshadow’s plan relied on the opposite. Not wise.

          • Todd

            Mmm. Not sure. We’ve seen how violent Furnace could be, but we’ve also seen that he had some kind of common sense and decency eg the storming of that compound where he freed prisoners and ended up locking horns with a government agent (and God knows how much Moonshadow found out about his personality in her research). And I think it’s not beyond the realm of common sense to assume that someone who could reasonably be assumed to have some sense of professionalism in tight spots would react more cautiously than precipitously. Furnace surprised everyone (except himself), I think.

            However, I still don’t believe there is good (non-legal) evidence Furnace is utterly (non-legally) innocent in his own death.

          • Wow, you’re citing that? It’s a clear example of Furnace getting his flame off (cf MI:2 and ‘getting your gun off’) no matter the immediate risk to the people he should have been protecting. Pretty much every appearance of Furnace was him looking for a fight and being told he’s an aggressive idiot who endangers more people than he protects.

          • Lisa Izo

            Why are you calling Mechwarrior crazy? He’s right.

          • Todd

            My comment to MechWarrior was concerning the logic of the legality of intent (or at least how he explained it), not his mental state.

            (Sorry if you thought that, MechWarrior!)

            Why are you trying to egg on a fight between me and MechWarrior?

          • Lisa Izo

            Uh…. I’m not trying to egg on a fight.

            You said “Wow. And people here call Moonshadow crazy . . . Disagree about your characterization of the moral standpoint.” in response to what he said.

            “And people here call Moonshadow crazy.” It just clearly infers that you think he’s crazy for what he said. If you didn’t mean it that way, great. But the fact that many people could read that as you calling him crazy doesnt mean I’m trying to egg on a fight between the two of you.

          • Todd

            I’m sorry you made the mistake of assuming this was clear to you.

          • Lisa Izo

            Not my fault if you don’t write clearly worded posts.

          • Lisa Izo

            Todd. It’s very clearly felony murder (first degree murder).

            At BEST, it might get pled down to 2nd degree murder (ie, murder without premeditation, if you ignore that she kidnapped him in the first place).

          • Lisa Izo

            “A plain kidnapper could be charged with intent to kill simply because it was possible that murder was intended.”

            Actually a plain kidnapper WOULD be charged with murder. It’s Felony Murder, which is Murder in the 1st degree when a person is killed as a result of a violent felony or a list of certain enumerated crimes, of which kidnapping is one such crime.

            “What I’m finding strange is this notion that, while threat-to-kill was certainly there, intent to kill wasn’t;”

            Actually, intent to kill was there. Threat to kill becomes intent once you put the victim in a deadly situation.

          • Todd

            Well, know what, Counsel? You can quote law all you like; I can’t really argue against it because, well, you know, it’s there. If the legal definition of murder is X, there’s no point in arguing against it. However, that does not mean the argument is axiomatically ended and no further discussion is permitted.

            I do not believe that Moonshadow had to intent to kill for the reasons I gave above.

          • Lisa Izo

            “Well, know what, Counsel? You can quote law all you like;”

            Uh… okay? I will then? Since, in order to decide of something is legal or not legal, it’s good to know what the law says. It’s a lot better than using wikipedia or saying ‘I want proof,but not legal proof.’

            ” However, that does not mean the argument is axiomatically ended and no further discussion is permitted.”

            No, it deosnt mean the argument is ended, but it does mean that if you can’t refute what I’m saying, the argument is tilted in my favor. Feel free to try to refute what I’m saying. I admit it would be hard to do so, since I’m just quoting how the law actually works (rather than what you might see on a legal TV or movie drama) and the actual definitions for words that you and others are throwing around.

            “I do not believe that Moonshadow had to intent to kill for the reasons I gave above.”

            And I explained why she did, and you didn’t bother to refute my reasoning. You just doubled down on saying the same thing again.

          • Arkone Axon

            You know what, non-counsel? You can be as arrogant and condescending as you like, using patronizing forms of address to mock the people you’re arguing with for having eight years of schooling as a prelude to passing the Bar exam, but it doesn’t make you any less incorrect. However, that does not mean the argument is ended because you have clearly decided that your opinion is just as valid as facts.

            Unfortunately for you… the rest of the universe disagrees.

          • Todd

            I’m as arrogant and condescending towards those who show it towards me first. I don’t see why I have to take crap from someone regardless of how long they’ve been in school or whether or not they’ve passed their Bar.

            Once again, you elide the notion that I’m talking about (legal) facts when, in fact, I’m not. It’s like you can’t argue any other way.

            And, no, the rest of the universe doesn’t disagree, both because an examination of my being upvoted shows there are people here who agree with me on some points I’ve brought up (not to mention those who made basically the same arguments I have) and the fact that the rest of the universe hasn’t weighed in yet.

          • Lisa Izo

            Actually you’ve been arrogant and condescending from the beginning. I just tend to not care about people calling me names or being rude. Doesn’t stop me from making my argument. I don’t really care if you keep calling me Counsel, which it seems like you’re doing in a mocking way (don’t care, doesn’t bother me).

          • Arkone Axon

            The reason why you have to “take crap from someone” isn’t just because they’ve had more schooling. It’s because they’re knowledgeable and informed on a subject… and you’re not.

            When my father (with a Master’s in Engineering and a lifetime of experience in all aspects of construction) speaks about structural integrity or electrical circuit design, he is the expert and no matter how strong your opinions are about the aesthetics of a building design or how right and true and how it NEEDS to be this way, you’re still wrong – and if you argue with him as if your opinion were of equal validity to his own… you’re being a moron.

            Now, when my father starts speaking about business matters and how Trump is a brilliant businessman, that’s another story – a different subject about which he is uninformed. But when it comes to a given subject and someone is noticeably more informed and experienced regarding said subject, then the moment you get arrogant and condescending, all you do is confirm your idiocy. Not because you’re uninformed, but because you’re PROUDLY uninformed. Because you that talking about JUSTICE and emphasizing that fact somehow makes all the carefully devised laws,literally THOUSANDS of years of legal precedent and refinements to legal systems that began with Hammurabi and Leviticus and moved on through the Magna Carta and on to the current system, trivial and foolish next to your opinion.

            I’d say “that doesn’t work unless your name is King Solomon,” but even Solomon would have taken the time to brush up on the two and a half millenia of advancements in legal theory since his reign before he started proclaiming “this person is justified in dismissing the laws that bind other, lesser mortals.”

          • Todd

            Yes, you repeat the point ad nauseam: you know more about The Law than probably anyone here. Unfortunately, you apparently can’t see beyond that. Play to your strengths, right?

            Ah. I think you’ve just revealed the issue: worship. You couldn’t care less why or how a law comes into being; all you know is that Law Must Be Obeyed. I’m sure you’ll do well if you happen to run into the Kochs. You certainly would’ve done well in the Antebellum South.

          • Arkone Axon

            Actually, I’d like to think I would have done quite well as a contributor to the Underground Railroad. Beyond that, I’d point out (again) how my position is not “The Law Must Be Obeyed” but rather “claiming to be the final arbiter of right and wrong and beyond the checks and restrictions developed to protect the rights of both accused and accuser over millenia is both arrogant, foolish, and stupid,” except you’re going to continue with the “Argument to Ridicule.” You’ve made that clear.

            I could even point out how your beliefs would sweep away the protections originally set in place after the Salem Witch trials (in which both men and women alike were executed by a kangaroo court of people seeking JUSTICE), except I’m getting the impression you’ll scoff because “this isn’t about falsely accused witches, it’s about rightly accused rapists.” (Hell, you accuse me of claiming to “know the law better than anyone else” in a response to me pointing at Lisa Izo and saying “this person who is neither you nor me is an attorney and therefore an expert on legal matters.”)

            But please, do keep on with the attack. Tell me again how you don’t think I’m evil for disagreeing with you about the need to let vigilantes slice the throats of those they deem deserving?

          • Todd

            Oh! I thought you were Counsel; you sound so much alike (you just don’t quote chapter and verse as Holy Writ like she does), and I was pretty tired.

            Well, since you seem to be so close to her, you can forward that stuff.

            Who, besides Counsel, is claiming to be final arbiter of anything? I point out the flies in the ointment is all. When someone keeps misunderstanding me, I keep trying to explain, but my patience wears thin when someone gets mouthy with me.

            My beliefs? Just what, out of curiosity, do you think they are?

          • Arkone Axon

            You’ve made it fairly clear that you believe that justice is a great and wonderful thing (which, in fact… it is) and that the law is nothing more than an impediment to justice, something used by the bad guys to keep the good guys from stopping them.

            Lisa Izo… it’s not like I live with her or anything. And she’s not claiming to be the final arbiter of anything either. What she’s claiming (and I wholeheartedly agree with her on this) is that the law is the tool we used to achieve justice. It doesn’t do so with 100% efficiency… but neither do the tools used in construction. Tools keep getting improved over time, from stone axes to metal axes to chainsaws, and so on. The law isn’t perfect… but it is NOT like it’s shown on TV. If you got your ideas on the law from TV shows and movies, then you got them from the same industry that thinks shooting a car will make it blow up and that two people sitting at the same computer tapping at the keyboard twice as fast will hack things twice as effectively. The laws we have were created to try to achieve justice… again, look at the Salem Witch trials. Ever since then, American courts have gone with a presumption of innocence (and even then, they don’t always do so – which is why there are so many lower income and dark skinned people in prison on drug related convictions. Because back in the 1980s a bunch of people echoed your own words and screamed “THE LAW IS STANDING IN THE WAY OF JUSTICE!!!” Along with the ever popular “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!”)

            Look at a recent court case, that of Bill Cosby’s trial for aggravated assault. He’s already been convicted – by the media, by the general public. Prosecutors are gearing up to try it again… and once again they’ll have to try to find a dozen impartial people who will agree that not merely one, but multiple white women in the 1970s would be afraid of being disbelieved if they accused a black man of raping them (reminder: this was a decade after Martin Luther King Jr was shot and killed and Star Trek’s producers freaked out over an interracial kiss; it was the decade where the TV show “Soap” enraged people by showing an interracial couple and highlighting the racism thrown at them from both sides). And the reason it became a mistrial in the first place is that the case’s evidence boiled down to “he said, she said,” and that alone had a number of jurors declaring “we should believe her because accusations of rape = guilty.” Here’s a CNN article with an accompanying video where the talking head tries to emphasize that yes he’s totally guilty and this was a travesty of justice:

            http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/us/bill-cosby-juror-speak/index.html

            Meanwhile…

            http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-apologizes-to-4-black-men-falsely-accused-of-rape-in-1949-2017-4

            So yes, the law is not perfect… but it’s a lot better than vigilante justice.

          • Todd

            “You’ve made it fairly clear that you believe that justice is a great and wonderful thing (which, in fact… it is) and that the law is nothing more than an impediment to justice”

            Notice I keep repeating over and over the word “context”. I have been clearer, once, where I said I could applaud and agree with much that Lisa has written in the appropriate context eg if there had been argument about the legality of what Moonshadow had done, what laws she had broken, etc. However, there are times where law is an impediment (at least sometimes deliberately created to be one), absent, or the direct opposite of what many if not most people would call “justice”. Sometimes, vigilante justice, loosely defined, can be accepted by enough people as the only alternative to continuing the status quo, and it can help.

            That being said, I think I’ve been arguing the whole time that Moonshadow isn’t some insane killer nor that she’s a flat-out villain; at the very least, I’ve been pointing out flaws in reasoning or showing how, viewed another way, what we know about Moonshadow can be interpreted differently.

            Would I egg Moonshadow on? No. Would I condemn her? No. Would I tell her to turn herself in? Maybe. Egging her on, for all that her continuing might stop a man from otherwise raping or physically assaulting a woman, isn’t, at its most basic, the most efficient way to deal with an entirely societal problem ie the irrational denigration of women by men for being women. Condemning her would simply ignore the problem entirely at best or, at worst, help in making the problem worse. Telling her to turn herself would really depend on what the state of the situation was like.

            I suspect you’ve known Izo longer than I have, so maybe you can remember times when she wrote what you’re attributing to her; since first reading her, I can’t recall her indicating anything about the law being a tool (I know I wrote that).

            As for presumption of innocence, keeping it entirely within the realm of this comic, our information on Moonshadow’s murder victims is admittedly imperfect; however, from the information we have been given in the comic, it is highly unlikely that any of them were, in fact, innocent of rape and/or assault. Maybe, at some future date, the comic’s creators will open up and reveal that, in fact, those victims were all innocent, that the girl and her family we see at the beginning of Ch. 5 were lying, that the wife of the judge was just clumsy and their children were just ungrateful, that what had been said about Clevin’s room-mate was all lies, that the female soldier who had accused the murdered mercs of rape was just lying, etc. It’s entirely possible that things might go this way. I just think it unlikely, given what I know.

        • Bud

          Don’t forget all the innocent people she killed also.

          • Todd

            Proof?

        • thebombzen

          I know, I was just wondering what sort of discussion this would start. Seems I should stop kicking things

          • Todd

            No, no: kick away, really.

            Just be careful or aware about how you do it.

          • Weatherheight

            This is all in good fun, here. Nobody is actually mad or anything. Now of course if you find this boring… 😀

          • Lisa Izo

            Nah, i like legal and morality discussions.

            It worries me a little when people don’t seem to understand that the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a good one (although they sure seem to think so if they’re the ones being accused of a crime), or when people seem to think that being a lawyer is like being a psychotic serial killer, but I like legal discussions in general.

      • Lisa Izo

        Well she did cut his sweet hamstring, does that count? Nah… walk it off, right? No biggie, just tried to cripple him to get away after murdering a classmate and trying to slash Alison’s throat. Definitely no biggie.

    • zarawesome

      Shank ’em if you got ’em, fellas!

  • Dave M

    Ok, this page is drifting away from reality into mind control or dream dimension territory. More proof that Clevin’s biodynamic and evil? Or maybe I’m just overthinking things..

    • Timothy McLean

      What, because of the vague backgrounds?

      • MisterTeatime

        I think it’s more the gap between the attitudes you’d expect these people to have about the topics they’re discussing (Alison on the guy she very spectacularly broke up with despite never actually dating; Alison and Brad and Hector on the old teammate of theirs who was recently outed as a very high-profile serial killer) and the attitudes they’re actually expressing.
        It is a bit unnerving, and if a reality-breaking revelation (“it was all a dream” or another bombshell like the end of chapter 6) comes along, I’ll gladly count this as supporting evidence. But if not, I can believe that this is just what these people felt they needed to say at this point: Alison knows that nobody else in the room knows Menace as anything but a supervillain who vanished years ago, and the Guardians in general could easily be avoiding the painful areas of thinking about Mary and deliberately focusing on the more benign parts of their experiences with her.

        • Arkone Axon

          It looks to me as if they’re making uncomfortable small talk to avoid having to address the fact that one of their teammates is now a known serial killer.

          As for Alison… that second panel is quite telling. The way she’s looking away as she tells a bald faced lie to her best friends. “No, I… I haven’t thought of him in years. No… never did encounter him after I retired, haven’t thought about it…”

          • Zorae42

            Umm, she said “ages” not years. And she used to think about him all the time, and she hasn’t really thought of him since she broke it off with him… And when he sent her that mail. But I imagine that must feel like an enormous amount of time considering what’s happened.

    • Lisa Izo

      No, we’re still actually in Alison’s dream. It’s a very realistic dream.

  • Lysiuj

    Mary, if you are here, I really am very sorry I sat on you. So can we put all this behind us please? It’s not healthy to hold a grudge so long.

    • Lysiuj

      And I kind of love how we don’t actually know which one of them sat on her. (Twist – it was Clevin!).

      • Brandon Quina

        From the context, it seems like it was almost certainly Allison.

      • Lisa Izo

        Going to guess that it was Alison unless they had unisex bathrooms.

        Hopefully someone won’t call me a bigot now for assuming that they did not have unisex bathrooms.

        • palmvos

          I was under the impression that some of Moonshadow’s illusion tricks were new for her. also this happened right as they were starting out- it may have been in a situation where the area around the bathroom and inside were not well lit. my current theory is this was at night and was a collection of cheap portapotties and Lisa either didn’t lock the door, Alison didn’t notice the lock when she needed to go, or the lock was a POS.

          • Lisa Izo

            I’m under the impression that she always had some sort of illusion tricks as part of her general powerset. Also pretty sure there arent porta-potties if this is the new Vanguard headquarters. Also assuming that the doors would be locked or there would at least be SOME security, although I can understand if they were lax on security considering the party is full of ex-superheroes which would make it pretty secure already.

            Although it recently occurred to me that if Max augmented her powers, it might make her illusions more powerful. But I doubt that Max, being a rich cis white hetero male wouldn’t just be seen as a potential rapist by Moonshadow and murdered.

            Definitely going to get people attacking me over that second paragraph, but in any case I don’t think that Max would ever help Moonshadow, and I do think Moonshadow would try to murder Max.

          • palmvos

            if memory serves Alison was surprised by her ability to be invisible and to cast full room scale illusions. remember that this sit -on-her incident happened when they were just getting to know each other at the start of the team formation. so no headquarters building unless we have a biodynamic who can build tall buildings with a single wave. So this probably happened at the camps which means porta-potties at night is a likely time for a sit-on each other incident. I’m no expert on women’s restrooms but usually they are all stalls so its hard to imagine that Lisa would say nothing while Alison walked into her stall and began to adjust clothes for doing the business unless there was a lot of sleepyness all around. and things look different at night. as far as security- both of these girls are inside the cordon so security would not be protecting them from each other.

          • Lisa Izo

            I think she was surprised that Moonshadow had tried to KILL her, not that she could turn invisible.

          • Stephanie

            I believe it was just the illusions that were surprising. Alison thought she could only turn invisible, but then, oh crap, illusions.

    • Arkone Axon

      …And the answer comes in the form of a sharp pointy object… @.@

  • zellgato

    boy he sure looks angry there. Wonder what he thinks and knows of meanace?

    • Lysiuj

      I think that’s more in reaction to them talking about Moonshadow.

    • Irreleverent

      I imagine it was the Moonshadow comment. She did slice open his leg. Then again, maybe he’s reading into Alison’s tone.

      • zellgato

        Felt like it was the latter. Somehow I feel like he’s already accepted the risk of being around her for danger. At least enough for it to not show up on his face.
        But what he has never been shown to handle well is her reaction to other guys. Nothing horrible but something he hasn’t had well

  • Markus

    Kinda ironic that they all used to be thinking of him, considering the graffiti.

  • Run Amok

    I like the reminder that they were all kids, and find it a little odd that they use superhero pseudonyms to refer to people they interacted with a lot.

    • Irreleverent

      Force of habit. They spent the first many years that they knew eachother only using those names in public since actual names would be dangerous for obvious reasons. It’s a hard habit to break once that stops being important.

      • Weatherheight

        I’ve said it before – I have acquaintances who still have no idea what my real name is but they call me by the name of my character in a Supers RPG – 29 years on.

        • MisterTeatime

          … is it Lisa Bradley?

          • Weatherheight

            Heh – Nope, the worst offender’s name is John (Ironic, right?). The others have mostly learned my name (in public, at least). Brontes was the name of the character (which draws stares when John shouts, “Hey, Brontes!”).

            From Wikipedia…
            “In the Theogony by Hesiod, the cyclopes – Brontes (“thunderer”), Steropes (“lightning”) and the “bright” Arges (Greek: Βρόντης, Στερόπης and Ἄργης) – were the primordial sons of Uranus (Sky) and Gaia (Earth) and brothers of the Hekatonkheires and the Titans….”
            “Uranus, fearing their strength, locked them in Tartarus. Cronus, another son of Uranus and Gaia, later freed the cyclopes, along with the Hecatoncheires, after he had overthrown Uranus.”

            Background of the character was being the watered-down bloodline of Brontes and the Hecatoncheires – Six arms, 4 meters tall, lightning/thunder energy-manipulation powers, brutally strong (for the campaign limits), and hard to hurt (for the campaign limits). Grew a third eye in his forehead in hero ID, skin turned reddish (Yes, I had fun with the religious associations).

            For those who have played Champions, had 22 points left over and bought a 24 REC for giggles and to cover the END cost on my various Energy Blasts. Best moment for me was when the GM took me from full up on STUN to Post-Twelve REC only in one round by using all of the one-shot max power weapons the villains had available (barely). The look on his face when I got back up after Post-Twelve was priceless (“What the he.. Oh, yeah. Forgot about that…)”. The rest of the group seemed to enjoy when he summoned lightning around each of his six hands, then blasted his enemies with the bolt of lightning formed from the converging lightning bolts. That and when I walked around the field of battle, collecting unconscious villains until my hands were full, giving each of them a oh-so-gentle squeeze to keep them unconscious.

            “Shut up, Donkey, no one cares aboot your war stories!”

  • Tylikcat

    Don’t you want to be able to hear the background music right about now?

    • Weatherheight

      Hey! New Avatar!
      Yep i do want to hear it – something with a lot of strings, I’d imagine.
      In a Supers game from years ago, we had a character named Tempo. Mostly a martial artist with Danger Sense for her combat powers, her primary gift was being able to hear the background music (actually was a form of precognition, which also explained her Danger Sense and her uncanny ability to hit whatever she aimed at). Great character.

      • Tylikcat

        Thanks! Got bored a bit back and changed most of mine. Still not sure about this one.

        I used to have a character with that skill as well – it was a Wildcards game, and she’d grown up in Hong Kong. Long story, with way too many wuxia movies involved, but background music precog, martial arts, and just enough TK to pull off what looked like some awesome wire-fu. She was a blast to play, but the music thing drove my GM nuts.

        • Todd

          What, GURPS Wildcards?

          • Tylikcat

            I think we were using Champions as the base. This was back in, oh, 1990, and I don’t think an official Wildcards game was even out?

          • Todd

            No, I just checked on Wikipedia: their supplement was out a year earlier. Nice job, that. Although, for super-hero games, I have to say the easiest, least nit-picky one has to be Marvel’s FASERIP rules.

          • Tylikcat

            Anything GURPsy isn’t easy or un-nitpicky, that’s for sure!

          • Weatherheight

            Indeed it is – it’s also the easiest to abuse and easiest to generate wildly unbalanced characters relative to each other.
            Still a hell of a lot of fun, though.

          • Todd

            Oh, I don’t think so. It makes the ref’s job more difficult, yes, trying to set up challenges of a commensurate level (nowhere near as easy as, say, 1st ed AD&D). That’s one advantage GURPS has: really easy to ensure equality between PCs and NPCs.

          • Weatherheight

            The sentence “It makes the ref’s job more difficult, yes, trying to set up challenges of a commensurate level” sort of supports my point. 😀

          • Todd

            No, still don’t see how it’s the easiest to abuse and generate wildly varying stats.

            The definitions for various powers is certainly more “open” than in, say, Champions (maybe later editions fixed this) allowing some interpretations to be discussed by both player and ref, but the Advanced Game power stunts rules sort of deals with PCs getting too powerful at the starts of their careers.

            Yes, it’s pretty much a truism that a ref is needed to prevent abuse where loopholes are possible, but I just don’t see for Marvel the loopholes, generally, as being all that big or pervasive.

            The random table for stat generation and power-level generation for Advanced makes it hard (not impossible, mind) to get wildly varying levels of starting stats or powers. Most PCs will start out better than Typical usually for most of their stats.

            And truth be told, I rather prefer systems with at least some randomness to character generation: they remind me more of reality than those systems where deliberate choice is done (although I can see their appeal).

          • Lisa Izo

            You should definitely try out Aberrant. It’s pretty difficult to abuse the stats in that system from what I’ve noticed, plus it’s not that complicated to use and doesn’t require a lot of books to play, even though it allows for a wide variety of powers.

          • Weatherheight

            Aberrant has, hands down, the very best campaign world ever for a out-of-the-box product. Very Kurt Busiek.

          • Weatherheight

            That explains it then – I don’t care for systems where randomness is a major component of character creation. And I’m guessing that your group was pretty self-regulatory. Not my experience of gamers in general.

            The Saga System for Dragonlance is yet another system where that kind of wild variance is endemic to the system. I watched one set of players draw up random characters; one was sufficiently powerful that the rest of the team was not merely redundant but unnecessary. This happened pretty often in Marvel, as well, when we struck to strict rules.

            I prefer games systems where random dice rolls don’t dictate whether or not a character can ever or usually be effective – and that very much can happen in Marvel, if you stick to the rules. I grant you that the Advanced rules reduces this – but it doesn’t eliminate it. Players should allowed to choose to be awful.

          • Jeremy

            For anyone looking for a P&P supers RPG, may I suggest that anything GURPSy is a mistake, and instead draw to your attention Capes.

            http://www.museoffire.com/Games/

          • Zac Caslar

            btw Champions Online is 6 flavors of not bad at all.

          • Lisa Izo

            I prefer Aberrant. But I’ve always been a fan of the Storyteller system in general.

          • Zac Caslar

            I’ve got general respect for White Wolf.

            Champions Online has the merit of also being an MMO.

          • Lisa Izo

            The only MMOs I’ve ever played to any significant amount was Asheron’s Call, which ended this year after about 18 years of activity (literally played it for more than half of my life) and City of Heroes (which also ended). I tried DCUO as well, but I just couldn’t get into it and didn’t really have the time to put into it. Never tried Champions Online – I usually don’t have time for MMOs anymore given my general workload 🙁

          • Weatherheight

            Asheron’s Call has died, eh? That’s rather sad.
            Enjoyed the heck out of that game for a short while (the game mechanics were pretty revolutionary at the time), but it started feeling like a job way too fast for me. 😀

          • Lisa Izo

            Yeah. Turbine sold its games to some other company (I forget the name), and they gutted Asheron’s Call despite still having a significant player base because they just wanted the server setups and code for other games (they also bought some other games but kept those ones active because Asheron’s Call had gone to a one-time payment instead of a monthly subscription after the 16th year).

          • Tylikcat

            Absolutely the very last thing I need right now, though thanks!

            …and I’ve generally been more of a paper gamer. Once I tie stuff up with my current lab, I’m kind of hoping to see if one of my friends who does bio-hybrid robotics has room in her group. (I really need to optimize any new things for social interaction, as I don’t spend much time with folks in social contexts here, and… okay, I’m busy, but this is a little ridiculous.)

  • Walter

    I feel like we can be sure Moonshadow isn’t here. Nobody is dead.

    • Todd

      She’s hardly an indiscriminate force of nature, y’know . . . .

      • Lisa Izo

        Actually, she seemed pretty indiscriminate in not caring about if the people she murdered or slashed were actually guilty of anything or not.

        • Todd

          Disagree.

          • Lisa Izo

            She literally said to Alison that she doesn’t care if some of the people she kills are actually innocent. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Her own words?

          • Todd

            I believe her words were to the effect that she wasn’t concerned about making mistakes, with the corollary that she wasn’t about to stop doing what she was doing just because there was even the smallest chance that she would make a mistake.

            I’m disagreeing with your characterization. If she really did believe as you assert, she would in fact be akin to a force of nature, just moving around randomly killing any man, woman, or child who happened to come within reach.

          • Lisa Izo

            You… just said she wasn’t concerned about making a mistake, then argue that she wasn’t being indiscriminate in her killing and slashing people.

          • Todd

            Yes.

            Is she killing literally anyone who comes near her?

          • Lisa Izo

            She’s NOT just killing people who are definitively guilty. She’s not discriminating between the guilty and those who are not guilty, as long as she gets some guilty people in the process. I’m thinking that you’re trying to be semantic instead of dealing with what the word is used to mean.

            Indiscriminate killing means killing not based on making careful distinctions. You’re using it for a different definition of indiscriminate, meaning unrestrained and wanton, randomly.

          • Todd

            It looks like I’ve already covered this ground with Arkone in the previous page, so you can go look that up if you like.

            I’m thinking you have such a problem with people not obeying The Law that you can’t deal with someone even questioning the bases on which it rests.

          • Arkone Axon

            Actually, she has a problem with people ignoring the law to commit murder and other felonies, and then dismissing the law to justify such crimes because “justice.”

          • Todd

            That’s fine. History’s full of people who’ve held this exact belief about law, and I can, at times, in the proper context, applaud and agree with that.

            However, there are also times when concerns of justice must dismiss concerns of law.

          • Arkone Axon

            I believe Pol Pot and the Khmer Rogue said much the same thing.

          • Todd

            I believe it was Pinochet and, waay behind him, The Mount Pelerin Society, that believed wholeheartedly the opposite.

          • Arkone Axon
          • Todd

            You’re arguing Pinochet and Co. didn’t care more about law than justice?

          • Arkone Axon

            As the link I provided in the post you responded to shows, Pinochet died without facing charges for human rights violations… after having been prosecuted for “embezzlement, tax fraud and for possible commissions levied on arms deals.”

            And if you’d have asked him, his justification would probably have been similar to that used by other officials caught abusing their power – that they were doing it for a greater purpose, the wrong thing for the right reasons, etc. So no, he did not care more about law than justice. Or should I say, JUSTICE. All caps, all emphasized, because then it’s a big glorious ideal that can justify anything. Or as Robespierre (the guy who ran the French Reign of Terror in his quest for JUSTICE) put it: “By sealing our work with our blood, we may see at least the bright dawn of universal happiness.” (“En scellant notre ouvrage de notre sang, nous puissions voir au moins briller l’aurore de la félicité universelle.”)

          • Clevin counts as attacked for being conveniently nearby.

          • Todd

            The attack on Clevin argues that she has no problem with pragmatics, not that she’ll kill anyone who comes near her, like the clichéd wounded, maddened tiger.

          • That’s not a choice I’d use ‘pragmatic’ for. It’s marginally a correct usage, but doesn’t expose the ruthless disregard for Clevin’s innocent ystander status.

          • Todd

            What word would you use? “Ruthless” works (I didn’t think of it at the time I was posting).

            And you’d be surprised (and disgusted) by what pragmatic people are capable of.

          • I’d probably call it terrorism.

            As for surprised by the depths that pragmatism can sink to, weapons system engineer here…

          • Todd

            Mmm. I predate Bush II’s presidential time, so my idea of terrorism involves much more explicit links with politics and a greater polity; Moonshadow hasn’t made any contact (that we’ve been told about) with anything remotely political.

          • Terrorism is a tool. You use it towards an end. Sometimes you use it as part of a movement, sometimes as a lonewolf – cf the attack on Gabby Gifford and the recent shooting at the Senate baseball practise. . Moonshadow’s politics are harsher punishment for rapists and the public nature of her killings is intended to spread terror. Slashing Klevin’s leg was a more immediate application.

        • Zorae42

          You don’t really have any room to talk as a lawyer of a justice system that doesn’t care if it ruins the lives of innocent people.

          • Todd

            C’mon. That’s hardly her fault . . . .

          • Zorae42

            True. But it is her decision to take part in it 😛

          • Todd

            Mmm. Be careful with that whole “willing to take part in it” thing . . . .

          • Zorae42

            I mean that I do agree with you about Moonshadow not being indiscriminate.

            But, Lawyers either put some innocent people away when trying to punish those who aren’t, or let some criminals go free by trying to help the innocent; they’re doing the same thing Moonshadow is. So they can’t really disapprove of what she’s doing because of her potential for error since they take on the same risk.

          • Todd

            Well, I can sort of see some overlap, but ideology, background, context, “what-you’re-used-to”, and stuff like that make things a lot more complicated. And lawyers, generally speaking, don’t have the same risk doing their thing as Moonshadow does: she literally risks life and/or freedom. I think it’s safe to say the vast majority of lawyers don’t.

          • Zorae42

            Oh, I know they’re totally different. And there are tons of valid reasons to disapprove of what she’s doing even as a lawyer (especially if you believe in the sanctity of the law/process of something). And it’s valid to disapprove of her because she may hurt innocents if that’s part of your ideology.

            But that reason can’t be part of your ideology if you’re a lawyer. And, as a lawyer, you really can’t judge her for that reason (there are lots of other bases to do that).

            You can’t be a lawyer and say “she doesn’t care about murdering innocents” without that statement being true of yourself. Since the only basis for that statement is her acceptance of potentially hurting innocent people in her attempts to reduce the number of bad ones. And that is the exact same thing a lawyer has to be willing to do/accept. At least one that isn’t terribly naive.

          • Mechwarrior

            You’re missing that a lawyer (I’m assuming you mean prosecutor) is supposed to operate under the presumption of innocence. Also, the legal system has alternatives to “stab until dead.” If new evidence comes to light that exonerates someone who was sentenced to prison, they can be released. It’s hard to un-murder someone.

          • Zorae42

            True, but you can’t give people the years they spent in prison back either. Or give them back the years they missed with their family. Or give them back the life that was ruined. Or undo all the damage prison life did to them.

            And in States where the death penalty is a thing, they can very much be unable to un-execute them.

          • Mechwarrior

            And all that is *still* not as bad as the illusion-casting serial killer.

          • Zorae42

            Maybe in your opinion. I personally think that driving someone to suicide is much worse than just killing them. Since you know, that’s what a lot of people do in prison and once they get out.

          • Mechwarrior

            100% of wrongfully convicted people do not commit suicide after being released from prison. Anyone committing suicide after being released from prison is bad, but it’s still much better than the 100% of wrongfully murdered people who remain dead.

          • Zorae42

            Kalief Browder.

          • Arkone Axon

            And his case would be an example of one of those “failures of the justice system spurring positive change.” What happened to that poor boy was shameful – hence the drive to change things:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder

          • Lisa Izo

            It was, in short, a violation of the sixth Amendment by the New York Criminal Courts because they kept pushing back his case because of the dockets being MASSIVELY backlogged and the Bronx Courts did not have enough people working in the DA’s office to meet all the cases.

          • Happyroach

            Bottom line, it’s an argument that the justice system is massively dysfunctional, and needs a lot of money and time put into reforming it. Not an argument that picking people out and killing them without due process is justified.

          • Lisa Izo

            More that Bronx needed more attorneys, not less, and if they had more attorneys to go through the dockets in a timely manner, Browder wouldn’t have been kept on the docket without a trial for so long, since the Kalief Browder case is one about not having a Speedy Trial and having a right to a trial before a lengthy imprisonment, not about whether he was guilty or innocent in the first place.

            Alternatively, that the courts are too filled with crimes which should better be put in ADR than the criminal court system (Alternative dispute resolution). Definitely don’t think it means that lawyers are murderers.

          • Happyroach

            I agree. I mean, it’s both. there’s a lot of areas for improvement, especially the part about ADR.

          • Weatherheight

            And, at some level, that backlog was created by a society unwilling to put its money where its mouth is vis-a-vis its stated ideals of what a justice system should be and the practical limits of what current funding levels will support.

            Downside of a republic? Everyone gets their say, regardless of the thought put into that position.

          • Lisa Izo

            Actually the backlog was caused because of a lot of crimes being put before the courts that should have instead been put through some form of alternative dispute resolution instead of clogging up the docket, and waaaay too much of a willingness on the part of judges to keep allowing adjournments to later dates without the clerks letting the judges know how long the defendant has been waiting. It was more ignorance and unrestrained bureaucracy (it’s New York, and major a major metropolis is at risk of out-of-control bureaucracy, one of the reasons I’m a Libertarian is that I despise bureaucracy) than malice or hypocrisy of the stated ideals. It was tragic though.

            I agree with the second paragraph you wrote 🙂 But like Churchill said (I’m paraphrasing), “Our legal system is the worst type of legal system, except for all the others.”

          • Arkone Axon

            That would be why so many people are opposed to the death penalty.

            (Including myself, for multiple reasons. Not only has it been shown that a disturbing number of the convicted were innocent, but it actually costs MORE to execute someone than it does to maintain them in prison for the duration of their lives. “Life without parole” is actually cheaper, which means even the argument “save the public the cost of giving them “three hots and a cot” for life” doesn’t hold up)

          • Happyroach

            And to an extent, compensation can be given to someone who was falsely imprisoned. and if our prisons were actually modern in design philosophy, instead of an industrial slave labor complex, the effects on prisoners would be less traumatic.

            But really, imprisonment still gives the chance for mistakes to be corrected. To argue that Moonshadow’s actions are just is to also to argue that police officers should be able to arbitrarily execute people they encounter,

          • Todd

            Except that the evidence we’re given is that Moonshadow’s actions seem very justified by at least some people if not legal (and I don’t think anyone’s argued that her actions are legal).

          • Nightsbridge

            I think that lawyers would be the first people to make that argument, actually. See, the whole conceit of how they work, unless they are horribly cynical and mercenary, is that they use the tools of the law to exact justice using checks and balances that exist in the world. At least in the ideal. Let’s assume that this is Atticus Finch talking, here . . .

            It’s the same logic that compels lawyers to defend people that they find loathsome. A respect for a system that they are part of to achieve justice. The idea is that the law has checks and balances that a single person set on achieving justice does not, which might allow it to see past bias.

            Moonshadow is victim of that mentality; she has only herself, and is willing to play dirty to get what she perceives as justice. But she also believes that the system of law that these lawyers would condemn her for circumventing are broken and do not properly function . . . and she’s correct about that, actually.

            But there’s a HUGE shift in mentality between a vigilante like Moonshadow and Atticus, regardless of who you think is correct in the end.

          • Arkone Axon

            Technically Moonshadow’s mentality is similar to that of Bob Ewell. The guy who swore revenge against the “evil” Atticus for destroying his last shred of credibility at the trial. “This action done by this horrible person can only be compensated for with blood!”

          • Nightsbridge

            Nah. Moonshadow is acting on a blind spot in the institution’s vision of law. Whether you think the way she’s carrying it out is fair, right or even the best way to go about it.

            Bob Ewell is a racist shitheel who, rather than believing Tom hurt his daughter, probably violated her himself.

            The two are not comparable.

          • Arkone Axon

            So was Bob Ewell. He was acting on a blind spot of the justice system. It failed him so drastically that when he tried to use it to cover up his “little faux pas” with his daughter, it instead convinced everyone that he was indeed guilty, and they only convicted Tom Robinson out of a grudging acknowledgement of the “southern whites gotta stick together against the darkies” policy of the time. He was thoroughly violated by Atticus, and with the law letting that blood sucking lawyer get away with it!

            And… obviously everything I just described is utter nonsense – but it was also Bob Ewell’s twisted reasoning to justify going after Atticus and even the man’s kids. And it’s ALSO Moonshadow’s sort of twisted reasoning. She’s attempting to justify running around on a murder spree rather than expose violations of the justice system or uncover conspiracies or do anything to actually HELP anyone. Killing a rapist doesn’t help the rape victim, it just feeds the base desire for revenge. You want to help rape victims: do things to prevent future rapes (and most rapists are not serial rapists, so “killing them will do that” doesn’t fly). Fix the legal system to provide greater assurance of justice for victims of sexual assault. Empower women to defend themselves (not just with weaponry, but by teaching them to recognize and avoid potentially dangerous situations). Address whatever issues might lead someone to consider sexual assault in the first place. Don’t focus on punishing the perpetrators, focus on reducing the number of victims in the first place.

            (One of the reasons I admire the Valkyrie program they’re setting up here in the comic is that it focuses on HELPING people. They’re not going after the abusers, they’re focused on helping the victims get away and build new lives)

          • Nightsbridge

            Bob Ewell exploited a blind spot in the justice system. Moonshadow is trying to burn everything one is missing. Moonshadow is morally gray, in a ‘you’ve gone too far and hurt innocent people in the name of justice!’ way.

            Bob Ewell is a scumbag racist and terrible person who did everything because he was a scumbag racist and terrible person.

            FIRMLY different things.

          • Arkone Axon

            Same mentality, though – the same desperate attempt to rationalize the evil that they do. The only difference is that most of us would agree that Bob Ewell is a thoroughly disgusting and utter waste of oxygen, food, and living space. Whereas Moonshadow isn’t quite as useless… though she’s also hurt more people.

            (Bob Ewell having been limited by just how useless and stupid he was – he didn’t have the ABILITY to hurt that many people. I understand there’s an Iron Man comic where someone very much like him gets his hands on something called “Extremis” and starts killing anyone he feels like killing, including a teenaged girl who disagreed with his opinion on the supposed heroism of the KKK. The only thing that made that guy more destructive than Ewell was that someone gave him the “Extremis” thing for their own purposes… which they felt were justified)

          • Arkone Axon

            Of course lawyers care about murdering innocents. The whole point of being a lawyer is to help create justice. Granted, the current system is adversarial – but it’s still comprised of individuals seeking justice. The prosecution attempts to prove the guilt of the accused. The defense attempts to prove the innocence of the accused. The judge referees the contest between the two and makes certain they play “fairly,” abiding by rules meant to safeguard the rights of all individuals present – accused, witnesses, etc. And the jury makes the final decision on the verdict because our system is heavily influenced by the dark legacy of the Salem witch trials and twelve randomly selected individuals are less likely to convict a wrongly accused defendant than a single person.

            Is there room for improvement? Of course there is – that’s why new laws get passed and old ones get modified or struck down. That’s why protections for rape victims have steadily improved since the 1950s when it was standard to assume the woman was lying to get attention. That’s why hate crime legislation was enacted. Even the failures of the justice system spur positive change – the horrific murder of Gwen Araujo led to the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act (signed into law by the Republican governator, Ah-nold Schwarzenegger himself) limiting the use of “transphobia” as a defense, followed by Assembly Bill No. 2501 (signed into law by Democratic governor Jerry Brown) which outright banned such a defense. And the American Bar Association (i.e. the organization for… lawyers) has suggested that the other 49 states enact similar legislation.

          • Todd

            “Of course lawyers care about murdering innocents. The whole point of being a lawyer is to help create justice.”

            Mmm. Be careful with this.

          • Arkone Axon

            Careful how? Should I also be careful with pointing out that the point of being a doctor is to treat the sick and injured, or that the point of being a carpenter is to create things out of wood?

          • Lisa Izo

            I’m pretty sure they’d want a lawyer zealously advocating on their behalf if they were ever accused of a crime… 🙂

          • Todd

            Careful assuming that lawyers, because they’re lawyers, care about murdering innocents or that the point of being a lawyer is to create justice. One can become a lawyer for far less noble reasons that what you assert. Same goes for doctors (don’t know about carpenters).

          • Arkone Axon

            If you mean “for the money,” then yeah – a lot of carpenters picked up a hammer because they didn’t want to starve. But once you pick up the hammer, you also pick up a specific mindset necessary to do the job right – to measure twice and cut once, to take pride in what you do, to create something that will endure. Otherwise you make crappy furniture and you get sued by the owners of houses that are falling apart. You need that mindset to do the job and make the money so you don’t starve.

            Same thing with doctors – the movie “Patch Addams” had the RL Dr Addams infuriated by how they depicted him; he believes in a warm bedside manner combined with professionalism. The dean at the start of the film makes a speech that emphasizes that he is in fact the hero of the film: he announces his intention to train the medical students be worthy of the trust people place in their physicians.

            And lawyers… yeah, if you’re not interested in justice, you’re not going to be a good lawyer. At the end of the day, a lawyer is “that annoying guy who reminds everyone at the table about the rules of the game.” And they’re mostly annoying to the players attempting to fudge the rules… to CHEAT, to screw over the other players at the table. A lawyer is the player trying to keep everyone honest and playing fairly, so everyone can have a good time.

          • Todd

            Well, I find it difficult to believe “for the money” means the same thing to a carpenter as it does to a lawyer. Carpenters aren’t generally portrayed as a profession where wealth and power are more easily accessible than to most other professions.

            And, no, I find it equally difficult to believe anyone interested in justice won’t make a good lawyer: it’s just more likely they won’t get as much material rewards from it as a fair lawyer who backs powerful and wealthy people.

            Hm. To me, a lawyer is basically someone who knows the laws in question: what they do, how far they can be used/bent/broken, where they’re weak, where they’re non-existent, etc. Law and its application is an important area where class struggle (not to mention other kinds of struggles) plays out, and it’s an important tool know how to use.

            But knowledge of its use does not have as a prerequisite that a lawyer care about innocents or justice (or such terms as defined by others than those a lawyer might represent).

          • Todd

            Hmmm. I’m having just the teensiest trouble following you. Would you mind running that by me once more, please?

          • Lisa Izo

            He was a prisoner in New York who committed suicide that’s sometimes used as an example by the Innocence Project about how he was not given a speedy trial (the courts kept pushing the trial date back because of overbooked dockets) and he wound up spending over 200 days in jail as a result. Basically was a violation of the Speedy Trial Clause in the US Constitution (in the sixth amendment). They never got to the trial, so whether he did or did not steal it was not actually the question (and actually therefore a wrong case for Zorae to be using to say that innocent people are sent to prison by lawyers all the time) – but the courts were wrong for not bringing it to trial within a reasonable period of time (200+ days in Rikers without a trial is NOT reasonable and New York City is currently being sued by the Browder family because of it, and they will probably win – not because of his innocence or guilt but because of how long he was in prison without a trial, while he had mental issues which culminated in his suicide).

            PS – I’ve never been involved in that case either.

          • Todd

            Um, what are you talking about? I don’t recall wanting to know about this Browder person.

          • Lisa Izo

            … are you just trying to go out of your way to start a fight with me?

            Zorae said “Kalief Browder” to which you responded with “Hmmm. I’m having just the teensiest trouble following you. Would you mind running that by me once more, please?”

            So I gave a very good description of who Kalief Browder was and the facts behind his story.

          • Todd

            No, I wasn’t referring to Browder. My question has to do with stuff Zorae wrote more than 20 hours ago (as of this time), before she gave the name.

          • Lisa Izo

            Ah. Based on what you had responded to (the Kalief Browder post), I hope you can understand why I would assume that you were referring to Browder.

          • Todd

            Try putting your cursor over the name of the person the poster is replying to; you’ll get the first few words of the post that prompted the reply.

          • Lisa Izo

            I don’t think you understand…. Your post was made after the Kalief Browder response from Zorae. Which is why I assumed you were referring to Browder.

          • Lisa Izo

            No offense, but I think you might need to stop getting your legal knowledge from re-runs of LA Law and The Practice. As for letting some criminals go free to help the innocent, that’s a good thing. The law is designed to give a slant of having 10 innocent people go free rather than have one guilty person imprisoned (even if sometimes it happens). Innocent until proven guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal requirement, as opposed to a mere preponderance of the evidence for civil cases)

          • Arkone Axon

            Gasp! You mean the things you see on TV shows and movies aren’t realistic? And here I was just about to leave my cell phone outside during a thunderstorm so that it would come to life and become self aware when a lightning bolt hit it… :p

          • Weatherheight

            Heh. Fifth time’s the charm, eh?

          • Tylikcat

            That sort of decision can be be made for a number of reasons. If something exists, and is running forward, is simply keeping your hands clean a principled decision?

            I just started typing up the story of how and why I tried to volunteer to serve in Afghanistan back in 2001. And… it’s long and complicated, and I don’t have time and I doubt y’all care.

            The point is that I didn’t really support the war. Okay, more to the point, I thought that administration in particular was utterly clueless in terms of what they were getting into and was almost by definition going to make a hash of things. (And I wasn’t certain there was a non-hash of things options.) My volunteerist strict was driven not by patriotism, but by something closer to despair, and knowing that I had a fairly rare background in applicable languages and cultures. I didn’t figure that I could make things much better, but if we were going to go over there, making it even a bit less bad would be worthwhile. (And the army took one look at my background and said I should be working for the Staties, and that’s where the long story bit starts.)

          • Lisa Izo

            I’m an intellectual property lawyer (now at least). I was working for the DA’s office for a year (and I worked in the juvenile courts for a while too), and in the DA’s office, there’s a LOT more stringent ethics codes than for the defense. Who’s innocent lives have I ruined?

            Also, pretty sure my being a lawyer actually means I do have a lot more room to talk about what’s legal and what isn’t, since I’ve actually gotten a degree, bar certification in two states, federal sponsorship, and years of working as a practicing attorney. It’s better than using google and unproven, anecdotal hypebole to make my arguments.

        • Stephanie

          That’s not true at all, at least of the “murdering” part. Last time I reread that arc, I remember it was pretty clear that she went to some lengths to make sure she was killing guilty people. She even put herself in danger to stop the fire guy from blowing himself up, once she knew he hadn’t raped anyone.

          You could argue that those lengths weren’t enough, and in fact I’m pretty sure Alison pointed out to her that she was bound to slip up and kill an innocent person eventually–but it was clearly important to Moonshadow that she only kill actual rapists.

          • Lisa Izo

            She literally admitted to Alison that she didn’t care if she kills or has killed anyone innocent, since she’d also be getting guilty people in the process. It’s the whole ‘you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs’ argument of vigilantism.

            Also, some of the people she killed were not rapists. It’s more accurate to say ‘she only kills people who she thinks are rapists, or who she thinks might be rapists one day, or who stand in her way, or threatened her identity.’

          • Happyroach

            That’s reminding me of Utopia from April Daniels’ Nemesis series. Sh’ll be at pains to tell you she’s not an indiscriminant killer; she merely kills anyone that could thwart her plans, get in the way of her plans, give the heroes clues about her plans, anyone witnessing her killing someone who might thwart her plans, anyone who happens to be in the collateral damage radius of her plans…

          • Stephanie

            But Moonshadow doesn’t do that. She kills people she believes to be rapists, and on one occasion she tried to kill a single non-rapist person–Alison, the basically-unstoppable superwoman who was there to take her in. We don’t see her going around killing all of these auxiliary people like the character you’re describing. I don’t agree with her actions, but she is very explicitly not an “indiscriminate” killer.

          • Todd

            That’s true: she killed definite rapists, abusers AFAWCT, and murderers.

            You got proof for the ones about standing in her way or threatening her identity?

          • Lisa Izo

            Uh… no, she killed people who were also not definite rapists. Klevin’s classmate was not a ‘definite rapist.’ That’s some real ‘Minority Thought’ future crimes accusations there.

            Also ‘As Far as We Can Tell’… comforting.

            And yes, the mercenaries that she hired, then murdered … as well as Furnace, who she kidnapped and put in a deathtrap, which is the cause of his death as well – ie, that’s felony murder there too.

          • Todd

            The classmate might have been a rapist; we really can’t tell, but that’s a far cry from your assertion that she killed non-rapists or people she has a simple, non-corroborated belief are rapists.

            Try not to change the terms of the argument too much, Counsel; people might think you’re prejudiced against the accused enough to go for a maximalist sentence to satisfy your own ideological peculiarities.

            I note you still haven’t said word one about those “standing in her way” or “threatening her identify”. The mercs were apparently murderers, and it’s plausible that she would have let Furnace go free.

          • Lisa Izo

            “The classmate might have been a rapist”

            To use your style of posting:

            Proof?

            He didn’t rape anyone. Who did he rape? Who was he suspected of raping?

            That’s not a far cry from my assertion that Moonshadow killed non-rapists…. since he was a non-rapist whom she killed.

            Heck, you saying ‘the classmate might have been a rapist’ – I could say you might be a rapist. I’d have no proof of it and no reason to think it but hey… I just said you might be.

            “Try not to change the terms of the argument too much, Counsel; people might think you’re prejudiced against the accused enough to go for a maximalist sentence to satisfy your own ideological peculiarities.”

            I’ve actually been incredibly consistent on this. Also I’m not ‘prejudiced’ against Moonshadow. She actually IS guilty. She’s admitted to what she does. I’m prejudiced to what… the truth and her admissions?

          • Todd

            Proof
            https://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-5/2308/

            And, yes, I might be a rapist. Like you said: no proof. But what if you saw one article that seemed to indicate I had done that. Would you still say “no proof”? And I’m not talking legal proof here, Consel. Like you’ve reminded everyone more than once: you’re the resident expert on law, so I see no point in arguing a point of law with you.

            I wasn’t talking about your being prejudiced as to her guilt; her legal guilt is obvious, even to a legal neophyte like me.

          • Lisa Izo

            Again, that’s not proof of anything. I can do the same thing to you by claiming you raped me. I have no proof. It’s my word against yours. And it’s not like it doesn’t happen. Happened with the Duke Lacrosse case. Happened in the Nikki Yovino case (the woman had made up a false rape charge in order, in her own words, to gain the sympathy of a prospective boyfriend). Hell it’s happened one case that a coworker was on where the girl admitted later that she had made it up ‘because she didn’t want to get in trouble with her boyfriend.’

            An anonymous allegation does not proof make.

            “And I’m not talking legal proof here, Counsel.”

            Then… what type of proof are you talking? What exactly do you consider to be the definition of ‘proof?’

          • Arkone Axon
          • Todd

            Um, that page gives us proof that he might have been a rapist, which is what you asked for, not that he categorically was one.

            Getting back to Moonshadow, given what we’ve been told about her MO and her victims, it seems reasonable enough to say that she might have made a mistake or that she might have been correct in her findings that Clevin’s friend had raped at least one woman. However, you seem incapable of getting that mushy or grey; you just bang on about The Law and refuse even to consider anything that doesn’t partake of The Law’s qualities.

          • Arkone Axon

            Yeah. “Proof” doesn’t work with “might.” “Proof that he might have been” is not proof. “Proof that he DEFINITELY was” is proof. That qualifies as “evidence,” which is enough to conduct an investigation and possibly a trial… but not proof. Proof is what you have before a conviction – if they had proof, he would have already been in jail.

          • Lisa Izo

            “that page gives us proof that he might have been a rapist,”

            The fact that you have to qualify it with ‘might’ is telling. You might be a serial killer. There…. that’s proof because I made an unfounded allegation with no other information possible. You’re probably just very good at hiding the bodies. You might have harassed me in the past and threatened my life. I shouldn’t need to show any proof of this, for I have made an allegation and in your view, that’s proof enough.

            Except no, it isn’t. Obviously that’s a ridiculous thing to claim as proof. Especially proof with the verdict of death.

            “it seems reasonable enough to say that she might have made a mistake or that she might have been correct in her findings that Clevin’s friend had raped at least one woman.”

            So… your proof is he might or might not have done the crime for which she summarily executed him. Might as well flip a coin for the same type of proof.

            ” However, you seem incapable of getting that mushy or grey; you just bang on about The Law and refuse even to consider anything that doesn’t partake of The Law’s qualities.”

            That would be because I believe in innocence until being proven guilty. That’s not even in-depth law. It’s almost one of the basic philosophical tenets OF our laws instead. If it’s ‘mushy’ (wow I’d so hate to have someone accuse me of doing something based on someone else’s mere claim with no proof, since that constitutes ‘mushy’), you assume they’re innocent until you can prove that they aren’t. Hell, I’m not even using the legal requirement of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that should be used in a criminal case… especially where the result would be death of the accused. Odd how you seemed to be okay with agreeing with Zorae about how ‘lawyers are murderers when people who are innocent are put into prison and commit suicide or, worse, executed. Now you do a 180 and don’t want to have to hear about that troublesome idea of where the burden of proof lies. Heck, you can’t even get to preponderance of the evidence (ie, 51 percent or more) which would be used in a civil case.

          • Stephanie

            I honestly don’t remember her killing someone whom we know for sure she didn’t even think was a rapist–can you refresh my memory?

          • Lisa Izo

            1) The mercenaries that she hired to train against, who she murdered immediately afterwards.

            2) Klevin’s classmate, who did not rape anyone.

            3) Furnace would also be the obvious example as well.

          • Stephanie

            ???

            https://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-5/page-51-3/

            https://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-5/2308/

            They were all rapists, except for Furnace, who–although she did put him in that situation–was the most immediate cause of his own death. Like, literally the reason she hired the mercenaries was to kill them for being rapists, they weren’t just some randos she offed for giggles. And “Clevin’s classmate” wasn’t just some random dude, he was Miles, the guy who tried to date rape the girl at the party and then turned out to have assaulted girls at his boarding school. It’s all there in the comic.

          • Lisa Izo

            Okay I was apparently wrong about the mercs (didn’t see that part of the comic – my bad there, although again, an allegation is not proof any more than the allegation of the Duke Lacrosse Team rape allegation was proof) – not sure about the classmate though.

            Also…. 1) It’s arguable that Miles date raped the girl – he wanted to have sex with an obviously drunk girl though (I think he was also drunk as well) – but didn’t because Alison grabbed him by the throat. Point is, though, he didn’t rape her and you can’t kill someone for possible future crimes. 2) The emails refer to allegations of sexual assault. Doesn’t seem to give more than that single sentence. Not to mention Moonshadow did what she did because of a possible future crime that never occurred, not because of something from his past.

            Assuming, though that Miles actually HAD sexually assaulted someone else, there is, like you agree, still Furnace.

            You say ‘he was the immediate cause of his own death’ – he wasn’t. She put an active bomb on him which was set to trigger based on his powers. She knew about his temper and that he would want to stop her for her little murder spree. She was the cause of his death. It’s like the jigsaw killer from the Saw movie series.

          • Stephanie

            I believe we’re meant to infer from the newspaper tidbit that Moonshadow had done her own research, personally talked to his victims the way we know was her M.O, come to the conclusion that whatever he’d done was rapey enough to kill him for. Like, Moonshadow isn’t us, she didn’t just see this fragment of a newspaper article in a comic panel. The phone conversation on that page implies there was more to the story than we could see in the newspaper, too.

            Sure, it’s theoretically possible she was wrong and he was innocent, but the only thing relevant to the question of “does Moonshadow kill indiscriminately” was whether she believed he was a rapist. We have evidence suggesting she did, and nothing that suggests otherwise.

            Furnace died because he FOOMed and blew up the dam while he was trying to kill Moonshadow. The explosives belt had nothing to do with it–it had already exploded harmlessly in the air when she cut it off him and threw it away. It was his own runaway power that broke the dam. That said, I agree that she’s morally culpable for his death, but she absolutely didn’t intentionally kill him–which is what’s relevant when we’re asking the question “does Moonshadow kill indiscriminately.”

          • Lisa Izo

            I find it a bit odd that, on this forum, I’ve been simultaneously accused by Zorae of being a member of a profession that doesn’t mind causing people to die unjustly, while at the same time I’m on the side of supporting ‘innocence until proven guilty’ being a good thing. The two things seem to be contradictory.

          • Stephanie

            Yeah I’m not really sure what that’s all about, I’m not really a fan of personally attacking people based on their professions unless they’re hitmen or something.

          • Todd

            Maybe, Counsel, it’s because two different people are accusing you of two different things because of two different viewpoints. It does happen.

          • Lisa Izo

            Uh… no. Think about it. On one hand, I have people telling me that, as a lawyer, I shouldn’t talk because lawyers let innocent people suffer. On the other hand, they’re simultaneously defending what Moonshadow did to the point where I have to point out, repeatedly, that what she did was evil and murder and, as I’ve had to point out to you, allegations are not proof and innocence until being proven guilty is how things are supposed to work – and you can be damned well sure that if you were ever accused of a crime without any proof, you’d want people to assume you’re innocent until proven guilty, and you’d probably want a lawyer to zealously advocate on your behalf.

            So…. I’m both accused of treating people as guilty even when innocent as some made up belief of my entire profession, and at the same time I’m defending innocent until proven guilty. Partially from the same exact people, which I find bewildering.

          • Arkone Axon

            I believe it comes down to the belief among some people that emotions are a substitute for facts and logic. “If I’m angry and upset enough, then things WILL go my way!”

            So they’re complaining because they demand the ability to instantly defend all the innocent people from unjust accusations, but also the ability to ruthlessly punish all the guilty. And to be able to decide for themselves which is which and then have everyone else (including retroactive history) agree with them.

            …In other words, they want to be Kim Jun Un.

          • Walter

            Point of order, Moonshadow attempted to murder Alison, who has not raped anyone. Like, gah.

            There are people on both sides of the debate that skeeve me, but you’ve never been one. I’d like to think we have, basically, the same view of the situation with Moonshadow.

            She’s one of history’s great monsters. (Another is the Patriarchy she despises!
            The world is complicated.) She slaughters the helpless without remorse, and justifies it as such fiends have always done. (It is fine to kill them, they have committed crimes. My crimes need not be punished in this manner though. My punishment is feeling all broken up about it, theirs is that their blood leaves their bodies.)

            Alison’s darkest moment was not when she kidnapped and tortured Max, but where, when she caught Moonshadow metaphorically transporting the cholera filled blankets, her objection boiled down to “what if a real person gets sick!”.

            It was a stunning lapse in moral clarify, and that, more than super strength, has always been Alison’s real superpower. If anyone cares to chart an actual ‘Alison is fed up with the world’ arc, it is that moment that the rot starts to show through.

          • Stephanie

            I want to be clear that I’m not defending Moonshadow. I empathize with her grievances and with her compassion for victims of sexual violence, but I’m opposed to the way she is addressing those grievances. She is absolutely a murderer, and extrajudicial murder is wrong even if she’s only killing rapists–I’m not disputing that. I’m specifically and exclusively objecting to the claim that she kills “indiscriminately,” because we know that she doesn’t.

            She did try to kill Alison, yes. I don’t think that rises to the level of evidence that she kills “indiscriminately.” Alison is the sole exception we know of, and she is a special case–in that she is a superwoman who posed an immediate and practically unstoppable threat to Moonshadow’s cause, and her window of apparent vulnerability was probably the only opportunity to take her down that Moonshadow ever expected to get–and she also openly regretted it very shortly afterward.

            I see that incident as a lapse of Moonshadow’s principles, not evidence that she doesn’t have any. There’s a huge difference between “I only kill people I’m sure are rapists except maybe this one specific person,” and “Hahaha, I don’t care who I kill, I’ll just kill any given rando who crosses my path!”

          • Walter

            Glad to hear it. I don’t particularly agree with you (I generally profile Moonshadow as a child soldier who won’t allow her war to end, and imagine that if her grievance were resolved she’d simply find a new excuse to slaughter.) but I can certainly see where you are coming from.

            I agree with you that Moonshadow’s selection of victim is highly predictable (and will likely take a while to evolve). Someone saying that it is random or indiscriminate is incorrect, in my eyes.

          • Stephanie

            That’s an interpretation I haven’t heard before, that she’d find a reason to kill even if the world were fair to victims of sexual violence. Can I ask how you arrived at it?

          • Lisa Izo

            Possibly because when Alison left, she had to take over as the ‘heavy hitter’ on the team, and that shaped her view to have more of a killer instinct to make up for her lower power level compared to Mega Girl, who she was essentially having to replace?

          • Stephanie

            It’s possible, and potentially a cool way of looking at her, but I’ve always interpreted Moonshadow differently. It’s implied that she was raped while trying to fill Alison’s shoes with her lower power level. So I always figured that her trauma, and her bitterness over the apparent impotence of the justice system to redress it for her and other victims, is at the root of her motivations–and that in the absence of those factors she wouldn’t be killing people. I see her experiences as a child soldier–in an environment where “killing the bad guys” is an acceptable solution to problems–as a factor in her choosing that particular way to address her grievances, but I’ve never seen it as the root cause.

            I could be wrong, though. It would certainly be interesting if she did learn to be more brutal than Alison because, unlike the invincible superwoman, she doesn’t have the luxury of taking half-measures and surviving.

          • Lisa Izo

            I’m just basing this new theory (interesting idea that Walter proposed actually) on what Brad said to Alison about what happened when she quit. I don’t remember hearing anything about her being raped – seems like it would have been something she might have said to Alison in the end of the Moonshadow arc, at least from a storytelling perspective. Maybe though. I think it’s more likely that she just learned to be more brutal since she’s not invulnerable, and got a particularly murderous mindset as a result, once she found she was good at doing it. The rape/abuse targeting aspect might have just been a way for her to feel a sense of moral justification while sating her bloodlust/psychotic need to kill. And why she might have started getting more lax in how much she’d research something, which culminated with people like Furnace, and the attempt on Alison and slashing Klevin.

          • Stephanie

            The rape was implicit. She never outright said it, but there was a panel that visually implied it and she talks about rape as if she has personal experience with it. And she certainly behaves like someone who has a personal vendetta against rapists.

            To be honest, although it’s interesting to speculate how being a child soldier filling too-big shoes might have influenced her approach to violence, I don’t buy that she has a “psychotic need to kill.” That would flatten out her characterization quite a lot. She’s much more interesting as an antagonist with understandable motives and a coherent value system that conflicts with Alison’s, who kills in pursuit of her own goals, than she is as just a generic murder enthusiast with a flimsy post-hoc rationalization tacked on. This comic has been pretty good about portraying its antagonists as fully characterized people and not cartoon villains, so I’d find it hard to imagine that the authors intended Moonshadow’s real motive to be psychotic bloodlust.

            Don’t you think kidnapping and interrogating Furnace counts as “research”? Brutal research, but certainly rigorous. At least if we assume that whatever “truth serum” drug she used actually works like that in the SFP-verse.

          • Lisa Izo

            There seems to be a lot more evidence that she just got into a more violent mindset, started getting used to it, and needed to find an outlet for her violent impulses. That wouldn’t be uncommon with other serial killers either, both in fiction and in real life. And she most certainly does have a psychotic need to kill, or she’d arrest those men or work with the police instead of being judge, jury, and executioner, not caring if she makes a mistake and not feeling guilty if someone dies as a result of her mistake. It’s not like there aren’t psychopaths in real life.

            And no, I don’t consider kidnapping and interrogating Furnace as research. I consider it kidnapping, assault, battery, the start of an attempted murder, and possibly terrorism.

          • Stephanie

            She can’t arrest them or work with the police, and we already know why, and it’s not because she has a “psychotic need to kill.” Her whole thing is that she perceives that the justice system fails victims of sexual violence. She specifically kills rapists who have escaped conventional justice. You might want to reread the arc, this was kind of a major point of it.

            This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you leap to the conclusion that someone who does things you consider immoral must be a crazed, bloodthirsty psychotic. The world has gray areas. There are all kinds of different reasons that a person would choose to solve a problem with violence instead of other methods; it doesn’t need to be because they crave the violence as an end in itself.

            Your counterpoint to the Furnace thing is a non sequitur. I wasn’t asking whether it was a crime, I was asking whether it was an effort to discern his guilt–which it objectively was. I’m pretty sure we can acknowledge that kidnapping and interrogating Furnace was a bad thing, while still recognizing that it is an example of Moonshadow going to great lengths to confirm whether he raped anyone before killing him. It’s a strong point against your interpretation that her research has gotten “lax.”

          • Lisa Izo

            “She can’t arrest them or work with the police, and we already know why, and it’s not because she has a “psychotic need to kill.””

            Not with her murdering them, she can’t. However, she’s not an agent of the police. If she wanted to, she could gather evidence and make sure the police get it. When it goes to court, the defense lawyers argue that she was an agent for the police, and the prosecutor argues that the police had nothing to do with Moonshadow’s actions at all, and don’t even know where she is and the cases were already closed, in fact. It would get in most likely and the people would be more likely to get arrested, unless there was not enough proof to arrest them.

            And frankly if there isnt enough proof to arrest them, maybe they didn’t do the crime.

            “Her whole thing is that she perceives that the justice system fails victims of sexual violence. ”

            OR….. she needs to kill, but needs to feel justified about killing, so she goes after people who she thinks are sexual predators, and that makes her feel that she’s still a moral person working for the greater good.

            This is just a theory btw. Based on what Walter suggested.

          • Stephanie

            I think that if killing for its own sake were her real motive, it would gut the themes of that arc as well as the complexity of her characterization.

          • Lisa Izo

            Not really Stephanie. The webcomic is big into deconstruction of superhero genres. This would just be another deconstruction of someone like that of the Punisher or Ozymandias. Or even Batman, who has said in his comics more than a few times, including in Under the Red Hood that the reason he doesnt kill is because he knows for a fact that he wouldn’t stop and his no killing rule is the only thing that stops him from giving in to the desire to kill criminals. Because it would be ‘so easy.’

            Here… a clip on it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kscfb9XzPs

          • Stephanie

            We agree that it’s a deconstruction, but not on what kind. IMO, the comic is deconstructing the idea of stabbing problems to death by showing a character trying to stab a legitimate, serious problem to death, and wrecking her own life and moral character in the process because that’s a terrible way to solve the problem. It’s not doing it by showing a character pretending to stab a problem when actually she just likes to stab. The deconstruction doesn’t work if the “heroic” motive is a facade–because then it ceases to be a portrayal of a deconstructed superhero, and becomes a portrayal of a regular old villain.

          • Walter

            Moonshadow’s fundamental issues are those that Hector pours out to Alison , re: Mega Girl stepping down and her being forced into the team’s primary combat role. The world only makes sense to her as a war zone. She beats the bad guys, grateful people are saved and cheer. Imagine the experience!

            But super villains are extinct. The creatures she hunts no longer exist. She thinks about it for a millisecond, and decides that a good shepherd should prune the flock, designates some portion of the people that she protects as her new enemy, and continues.

            You can see this reflected in her actions. There is no reason, if you are trying to protect future rape victims, for giving the soldiers guns and showing off your powers to them before killing them. Put a bomb in their car and be done with it. No reason to slash Clevin’s leg while making her escape from Alison. She is trying to replicate the experience of facing off with super villains. Furnace and the drug/bomb/camera nonsense is the absolute pinnacle of this particular effort. Murdering the helpless bores her, and she is trying to get the rush back. Dudes can be LIKE supervillains, if you give them enough help, and newspaper articles in her secret room can pat her on the back almost as well as the ceremonies of old.

            Slashing Alison is an artifact of this effort. Like, if her cause was ever actually ‘protect rape victims’ killing Alison is absolutely crazy and counterproductive. Indeed, she should be desperate to get Alison out of the field of battle entirely. Alison will help thousands of women over the course of her life. Moonshadow should be willing to die to keep her safe.

            But of course the real point IS the battle, and Alison is playing the role of one of Menace’s androids, then you see a weak spot, you take your shot. She was carried away in the moment.

            So, say a genie snaps its fingers, or Valkrye is incredibly successful. Now all the men and women are surrounded by bubbles, split off from one another, entirely separate and equally thriving. Does she stop her war and get a job (Hollywood would pay her millions, for the illusions alone)? Moonshadow, avenger of the innocent…becomes Mary, key grip?

            Well…she didn’t last time she ran out of targets. The root of her problem (Sunday afternoons are very long and I don’t have any friends) hasn’t changed.

            Her life is built around her passion. She has a shrine that substitutes for the accolades that she used to receive back when the world made sense. She has a pattern. What would fill the hours she normally spends spying on people? Where would the rush come from? She can be complete as long as she finds an injustice to avenge, and the earth is filled with that.

            Instead, she will realize that the REAL problem with the world is (or, more likely, the way revelations like this work…was all along)…fill in the blank. My guess would be the rich and powerful, (“The people I used to punish only hurt one person at a time, but the inhumane conditions that inequality generates are causing thousands to suffer.” ) but there is no way to know.

            What I do know is that the killing would continue. The reason that Moonshadow isn’t afraid to make a mistake to make a difference is that the mistake’s cost wouldn’t be borne by her. I mean, logically, Moonshadow should be petrified to make an error, right? Like, most of the people she kills haven’t done anything close to as heinous as murder an innocent person. By her logic, she deserves death for what she tried to do to Alison. The knife is right there, you think she’ll judge herself like she judged that college kid?

            Ha. Moonshadow says that those who judge her will never mention the victims of her victims. Well, we readers judge her, and I’ve watched the victims of her victims. They are horrified. The old women rushes to try and save her husband. The world would have rushed to Furnace’s aid. The Invisible Slasher isn’t a folk hero, she is a nightmare. She can try to put her crimes on the invisible masses of oppressed women all she wants, but her hand is holding the knife, and they didn’t ask her for this.

            Not that she cares.

          • Stephanie

            Thanks for responding! I don’t think I agree with all of your analysis, but I can see you’ve thought it through and I enjoyed reading it.

            I think where our interpretations differ is that you’re saying her experiences with superheroism caused her to pursue violence as an end in itself. I think they taught her to use violence as the means to her ends.

          • Walter

            I think it would be unduly mean to Moonshadow to say that she pursues violence as an end to itself. My analysis is that she wants to vanquish evil. Deprived of targets she invents her own, but her fixation is on the end goal (another article in the shrine, another dripping body), rather than the violence. (She definitely enjoys it, but if she was actually just a dopamine junkie she’d have let Furnace explode) I agree with you that violence is, for Moonshadow, a means to an end.

            I disagree with her about what the end is, but I think the idea that she is after the violence itself is falsifiable with the evidence of the text.

          • Stephanie

            Oh, I think we agree then! I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at.

          • Walter

            That’s on me, I wasn’t super clear. Good talk.

      • Walter

        She’s an evil mass murderer, though, and at least 2 of her targets are shown in this page.

        • Todd

          Disagree about the evil part.

          • Arkone Axon

            Tell that to Clevin, the guy who almost died because she committed attempted murder as a deliberate gambit to force Alison to focus on saving his life instead of chasing after her.

          • Todd

            You seem to spend a lot of time finding excuses for abusers, murderers, and rapists in the comic, but I don’t think you’re evil.

          • Arkone Axon

            At the same time that you accused me of finding excuses for “abusers, murderers, and rapists,” you also blamed one of Moonshadow’s victims and claimed he was at least partially to blame for his own death at her hands.

            I don’t think you’re evil, either. I think you’re confusing your emotional opinions for
            factual reality. But yes, I will happily defend the devil in court… and provide this quote as my reason why:

            Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
            More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
            Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
            More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

          • Lisa Izo
          • Todd

            Context.

          • Lisa Izo

            Could you possibly use more than one word in your argument?

            Disagree. Proof. Context. Seriously, cmon. If you want to have a reasonable argument, put some effort into the posts when arguing?

            What are you asking for context for? The quote he made (it’s from ‘A Man for All Seasons’ – about how it’s important to follow the rule of law because it protects both the accuser and the accused, and that you shouldnt just take the law into your own hands on a ‘however I feel at the time’ basis as if you know better about meting out punishment as you see fit in lieu of an investigation, trial, and the ability to let the accused defend oneself on an equal playing field).

          • Todd

            I’d really like to put chapter and verse down, but the flesh is weak, this is just the Internet, and you’re just one more person on it who happens to be wrong at a certain point.

            I come back with “context” because you and Arkone keep hammering out boilerplate about The Eternal Rules of Law and How Fixed and Immutable and Alpha and Omega They Are.

          • Lisa Izo

            “I’d really like to put chapter and verse down, but the flesh is weak, this is just the Internet, and you’re just one more person on it who happens to be wrong at a certain point.”

            It makes it difficult to have discussion with you when half your posts are poorly written and have to be read several times before I know what you’re even trying to say (or if you’re just mocking), and several of the other posts are just one word sentences, without explaining what you disagree with, what you want context for, what you are disagreeing with, etc. It also makes me think that you don’t actually know how to articulate your thoughts.

            “I come back with “context” because you and Arkone keep hammering out boilerplate about The Eternal Rules of Law and How Fixed and Immutable and Alpha and Omega They Are.”

            Then you used the word context wrong.

            Context – the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed; the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

          • She’s killiing people as a vigilante. (Un)Lawful Evil is one potential interpretation of that.

          • Todd

            Vigilante, yes, obviously.

            But if you want to try to use alignments, what edition are you referring to?

          • None, just riffing on the orginal Good-Neutral-Evil/Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic double axis.

          • Todd

            Well, leaving aside the notion that alignments aren’t meant to mirror life outside of a heroic-fantasy RPG, lawful requires a predilection for working in groups as well as obeying (in some manner) “lawful authority” (which she isn’t). An evil character cares nothing for “creature rights” in the face of his/her own wants and desires (she’s not killing for her personal amusement). I’d say she’s more chaotic neutral.

          • Remember, vigilantes think they’re working as a force of Law, so Chaos is out. And Moonshadow is sacrificing the rule of law, due process and individual rights to her concept of Law, so Evil.

          • Todd

            Vigilantes might believe they’re working as a force of law, but, as lawfulness implies one big hierarchy, even if it’s made up of many smaller ones inside it, and the alignment of Law is about, among other things, demanding that one subsume one’s self into the hierarchy, the vigilantes would be operating outside of lawfully constituted groups and orders; that is, they’d be behaving in a more individualistic ie chaotic manner.

            Good (at least in 1st ed AD&D) has nothing directly to do with rights in the legal sense ie due process; that’s the domain of Law. You can be good and have no care whatsoever for laws eg elves (except drow, of course) or creatures that are sent to help combat Evil any way they can eg agathia or moondogs.

            Evil can absolutely have an interest in laws and hierarchy eg devils.

          • Law doesn’t require a hierarchy, justice originally rested directly in the hands of feudal lords. The vigilante is arguably drawing on that trope.

          • Todd

            Well, certainly in the real world, law requires (and even implies) a hierarchy, even if it’s a really simple one ie one person/group to make laws, another person/group who doesn’t; it’s historically typical that the law-makers are made up the ruling class ie higher in the social hierarchy than those who don’t make the laws.

            Feudal lords were part of some kinds of hierarchies at various points in, say, the European Middle Ages: some, especially near the beginning, were at the apecis of their little, local hierarchies; later, those hierarchies were joined into greater ones that extended upwards to the overall ruler eg king or emperor.

            I’m not sure how a vigilante, especially a lone one like Moonshadow, fits into or mirrors this concept of group structure.

          • “But the law itself has no locality”, William Scott, Lord Stowell, 1799

            One of the most fundamental judgements in legal history, one of the core foundations of both international and maritime law, and it explicitily severs law from hierarchy. (He was ruling that a prize court was an international court and should not make judgements on national interest).

            Moonshadow is simply taking it to an extreme.

  • Weatherheight

    I find it amusing that the purely nostalgic bits in this page have a lot of blue in the background.
    And it’s interesting that thinking about Menace immediately leads to thinking about Mary. Would very much like to know the association chain for each of them in panel 3.
    And I have to wonder exactly how traumatized Clevin was by that attack – he doesn’t seem to be badly messed up by it, but if that look in Panel 3 is a reaction to Mary, then he may have something going on beneath the surface.
    The more I consider, the cooler that 3rd panel is…

    • JohnTomato

      Panel #3: The body language supports your premise.

    • Shjade

      I’d say it wasn’t so much the thinking about Menace that led to Moonshadow as it was immediately following “I think we all did.”

      “We” includes her.

      • Weatherheight

        Indeed – that was my meaning, as supported by the lack of subject and the phrase “each of them”, “them” being an inclusive pronoun.
        I guess I should have been more clear.

    • danima

      upvoting for being the first post below the multi-page zombie flamewar

      go little thread

      go

      we believe in you

  • Lisa Izo

    Alison: “We got to check the security cmeras, see if any drinks mysteriously disappear.”
    Brad: “Or if the odor to the bathroom opens by itself.”
    Klevin: “Or if someone slashes my hamstring again after murdering one of my classmates.”

  • Cori J.

    Even Clevin’s Patrick senses are tingling, and he doesn’t even know who that is!

    • Lisa Izo

      I’m almost certain it’s about Moonshadow that he’s uncomfortable, not Menace

      • Cori J.

        *leans close*

        *whispers*

        ρα†Ʀιcκ

        • Lisa Izo

          *leans closer*

          *whispers*

          He has no idea who Patrick is. He knows who Moonshadow is, and personally met her knife to his leg. After seeing one of his classmates murdered by that same knife.

          • Cori J.

            𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔢 𝔦𝔰 𝔬𝔫𝔩𝔶 𝔭𝔞
            𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖊 𝖎𝖘 𝖔𝖓𝖑𝖞 𝖕𝖆𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖈𝖐

            ţ̵̧̲̯̫̜͈̊h̷̩̒̄͂̃̔͜e̸̛̛̛̖͈̪͉̥͚̠̜̫͍͙͈̝͐͊̈́̑̊̓̽̌̍͌͠r̸̡̢̨̘͇͇̩̞͚͎̜͔̯͕̙̽̏̿̀̃͠ë̷͓́̈͆͌͋̽͑ ̶̛̬̗͎̟̱̖̖̋͑i̷̧͓̝͖͇̳͙̹͍̩̜̖̇̈͌̏̕͜ś̴̮̞̩̩̤̔̑̀͒́̇͋͗̓ ̵̛̜̭̻̞̬̰̐̍̐͛̕͠o̷̢͖̠̪̦̯̮̾̔̎̌̊̿͛͑̎͋͆͠n̸̨̛͓̬̪̹̙̳͎͙̰̥͍̜̅̎̔͋̎̈̋͊l̷̮͎̫̱̯̙̦͈͓̱͖̞͇͍̔̈́͂̊̐̓̆̊̆́̕͜ẙ̴̘̜̼͕̪͇̘̰̱̤̻̗̥̣̈́̐̍͑̿͂̑͝ ̵̨̖̬̞̘̮̺̭̹͉̀̒̀̕͠ͅp̴̢̡̭͔̪̞̼̫̖̱͔̆̾̾͛͐̊͌̑̚͘a̶̠̪͔͍̹̮̳͛t̵̡̛̳̻̖̩̖͎̯̥̱̝̱̔͊̊͑͒͆͆̇̍̏r̵̯͕̜͒̓̊̽̔̋͋́̑͛͝į̷̧͇̗̪̻̀͛̑̉̆̒̈́͑̋̈͘͠c̴̡̢̳̪͚̟͕͇̹̖͑̀̾̀̑̑̌͌̕k̵̞͉̘̺͉͉̺͕̅̾̽̈́͆̃̽̂͂̉͌̅̚̚

          • Lisa Izo

            I gotta admit I’m sorta impressed by how you’re doing that.

            Plus despite what you’re writing, I’m reading it as ‘There is no Dana only Zuul.’

          • Arkone Axon

            Is this the point where Bill Murray offers to inject someone with enough Thorazine to kill an elephant, and everyone just shrugs and goes with it?

          • palmvos

            no, i think this is where we start looking for the key master.

          • Lisa Izo
  • David Armstrong

    I notice that Clevin is silent and doesn’t appear in either of the last two panels.

    Gods, PLEASE let this be the moment that Clevin actually shows some human emotion. He’s been WAY too perfect thus far and basically has had no flaws or personality, it makes him unrelateable and boring. Almost makes me suspect that he’s not actually who he says he is and is trying to infiltrate Allison’s life. But if he straight-up Irish goodbye’d this party after his girlfriend casually joked about the person who nearly killed him, I’ll like him and trust him a lot more.

    Random, unrelated note: Has anyone considered the possibility that Gurwara was Moonshadow?

    • Walter

      I hadn’t till you mentioned it.

      Honestly, I still don’t see it. There was an empathy to Gurwara that Moonshadow doesn’t strike me as remotely able to fake. Granted, her whole thing is fooling people, but I don’t buy it.

      • Tylikcat

        There was a *maturity* to Gurwara. And his loopy was a pretty different sort of loopy.

    • JeffH

      Has anything been shown where Moonshadow can fool audio senses? Even with her extraordinary visual illusions, I feel like it would be difficult to maintain the audio, imitating a person who’s physically so different from her.

    • Incendax

      Unrelatable and boring like a well-adjusted normal human being. 😀

      • Zac Caslar

        I was gonna say, yeah. Clevin would be normal for pretty much any slice of life webcomic. A man doesn’t have to wear his dark side on his sleeve.

        A man shouldn’t, as it were.

    • Todd

      Re. Gurwara as Moonshadow: if that’s the case, she’s superbly good at acting.

  • Nathan B Earl

    I adore that you cannot see who the speech bubbles are attached to in the last panel. Now I can cast that conversation however I want.

    • Weatherheight

      Damnnnn.. that is cool.
      How dare you mess with my head canon. 😀

  • giffnyc

    Did we know before this that Menace had some kind of “decoy” tech or ability? I mean, anybody could be a decoy, right? Anybody?
    Too many happy pages are making me paranoid.

    • Mechwarrior

      Plot twist: that’s not Klevin, it’s a shapeshifter pretending to be a different shapeshifter pretending to be an illusionist pretending to be Klevin.

      • Todd

        >Hngh . . . !Paf!<

        (Chewbacca Defense reaction)

      • Weatherheight

        And is also Mary’s child from the future, sired by Arjun!

      • Azmodan

        Plot twist twist: It’s Moonshadow’s all the way down. She actually captured Al when they fought and has been using her illusion powers to screw with her mind to switch her to her way of thinking.

    • Arkone Axon

      We know he’s had other people pretending to be him. After all, his costume involved not just a mask, but a full fledged helmet (presumably complete with voice synthesizer to make a thirteen year old kid sound like a big scary supervillain) – anyone of approximately the same height and build could impersonate him.

    • Someone pretending to be Menace was pretty much how Cleaver vs Alison happened

  • JohnTomato

    Transition sub-plot scene.

    We have a dishonest narrator (see the magic Professor), and a social group of supers and slightly supers. The social group was just a tad homogeneous toward the science fiction fandom meme of “Let’s all be different together.”

    Hundred or so attendees and everyone is of good alignment, or at the very least lawful or true neutral? Not buying it.

  • Dawn Smashington

    I need to conspiracy theory here re: Moonshadow being there. I remember she was able to leave an image of herself as an alibi somewhere, but I don’t know aside from invisibility what else she can do. Al mentioned a security camera, and I’m like, hey, we have one right here, let’s go back and look.

    Okay, so both pages 9 and 10 have middle panels that depict someone on the left pointing up and to the right, and panels on the right that have three people in roughly the same positions. Tara’s pointing more up than the random guy in a crowd, and following her finger on the page, she’s pointing at A in the Valkyrie sign. Both Tara and the random guy are vaguely pointing at Amanda. Amanda’s the only one with a drink in her three-person panel with Al and Clevin (Al mentioning looking for missing drinks).

    Amanda is Moonshadow somehow.

    There is my dumb conspiracy theory I am going to bed now

    • Lisa Izo

      Better conspiracy. Alison is both Moonshadow and Gurwara.

  • Lee

    Clevin’s body language kinda makes me uneasy here aaa

  • Theobservantwolf

    So, who sat on her? I’ve no idea whose speech-bubble that is… Heck of a wake-up though! 0.0