http://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED46/538e788979086.jpeg

This works on so many levels….

Uhm, is Alison’s world really so closely aligned to our own though?

So? Put the schematics out on the internet. Let him sue her for giving the world free energy?

Alison, break her arm for putting her petty worries above the future of the planet and all the death that’s caused from a lack of adequate energy, and all the wars caused over oil.

She isn’t. I don’t see everyone in the world having unlimited green energy, so she hasn’t done her job. Because she’s afraid of ‘lawsuits.’ And considering Paladin is a super-genius, she’s been wasting the good she can do by futzing around with robots that destroy themselves and motorcycles to give to her crushes instead of to the world.

Alison should tell her to get to work on it, and if she doesn’t, threaten to break her arm. Or is that threat only allowed for rich white men, and not rich black women (or black women who are not rich but, with her intelligence should be able to be rich using a fraction of her superhuman intellect).

1: Paladin literally just mentioned (casually) how she’s got cheap, clean energy powering that motorcycle. Not to mention that all her robots, and even her suit of powered armor, need SOMETHING to keep them going. And they aren’t exactly spewing up clouds of smoke from their internal combustion engines.

2: The point Izo’s been trying to make is that Paladin could just dismiss whatever happens to her in the future and make all her inventions open source. Even though it would mean possibly being sued to oblivion. But that’s just a minor threat and Paladin’s silly for being afraid of that, and anyway she’s not really afraid because when she explicitly mentioned it she was clearly lying. So she’s being a selfish jerk for not wanting to use her powers to save the world and help countless people, and so Alison should give her a little arm twist until Paladin agrees to do this base level, decent, no-brainer request. And then maybe show up later to offer to do something to make up for the non-torture of this selfish jerk who doesn’t deserve any pity whatsoever.

3: She’s a genius who could build a gambling robot and have it start doing internet trading. And everything she DOES patent Templar has “first rights” to buy up (and for extremely generous amounts of money, which is why Paladin can’t find a judge who’ll agree that the contract is unfair). Which means any time she sees her bank account drop below seven digits, all she has to do is quickly whip up another robotic toy for children or something, and Templar will snatch it right up. (Their standing policy is to buy ALL her patents… she can always make a point of patenting non-essential luxury items with limited military application).

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

“A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction of positively charged hydrogen ions with oxygen or another oxidizing agent.”

In other words, a fuel cell is a power source, not just a battery. So unless the author was just inserting technobabble, then it’s a power source. “Add fuel, have power.”

2: “Max was literally faced with a minor threat.” Thank you for once again emphasizing how twisted the arguments against Max are. The flying brick (who once bit a cop’s gun barrel off and then spat out the bullet before emphasizing that nothing anyone could do would stop her from murdering an entire crowd if she so chose) put him in a painful joint lock, then threatened to murder him if he didn’t do as she demanded. Every bit of that has been repeatedly pointed out as: being multiple felonies, fitting the exact definition of torture, AND the worst possible method (since she’s ensured that he’s no longer available to enhance anyone else, unless she’s prepared to drop everything and go on a Jack Bauer style rampage to track him down and declare, “your life of eternal servitude in accordance with MY ideology begins now!”).

Again: the first biodynamic to learn about his abilities and show up at his doorstep immediately confirmed all his fears by terrorizing and torturing him into using them for her benefit. She decided that he needed to use his powers according to her moral beliefs, and his own issues and concerns should be mocked and dismissed. If that’s a moral thing to do, then you MUST agree that Paladin is being selfish by being unwilling to face multiple lawsuits as a consequence of bringing unlimited cheap energy to the world. After all, if they sued her they’d look hideously bad in court and the lawsuits might not even go anywhere if it could be argued that she acted for the public good. Of course they still might do it just to be jerks…but that’s a minor threat and so she is being EVIL for not dismissing the threat to her own life, liberty, and happiness for the sake of others. At least, according to the same logic that claims that Max is evil for doing the same.

Again: just because Templar sues her, people would still benefit from the cheap plentiful green energy. Also, Izo (who is an attorney) already pointed out that no they don’t have the patent. They won’t have the patent on anything Paladin hasn’t patented… and if she has patented it, then it’s only right that she should “take one for the team” by releasing her invention to the general public.

And I respond to your claims (which contradict the statements given by the actual lawyer in this discussion) with the example of Eli Whitney:

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

He literally went broke trying to enforce his patent rights on the cotton gin. The cotton farmers expressed outrage and self-righteous indignation and produced their own versions in vast quantities.

Also, if Paladin releases those blueprints… especially if they aren’t demonstrably hers… then Templar CAN’T patent it, since they clearly didn’t invent it. You can’t patent a design you found online that someone else uploaded to the entire internet.

Um… one: you’re validating the original thrust of Izo’s argument (i.e. the sarcastic observation that Patrick was, is, and continues to be far, far worse than Max, even though fans continue to give Patrick a pass and dismiss Max as the worst villain of the strip to date).

Two: as has been pointed out – repeatedly – this only applies to things Lisa has already patented. If she just releases something and makes it freely available to the public, it becomes like the Franklin Stove, which Ben Franklin refused to patent so that everyone could benefit.

Three: it doesn’t matter if it was a few centuries ago. It’s still established legal precedent. Which is why Templar would essentially be attempting to perform the equivalent of Snapple suing anyone who made homebrewed iced tea in their homes; it wouldn’t work, it would enflame public opinion against them, and it would cause a dramatic crash in their publicly traded stock values.

Four: the whole point of the sarcastic argument about Lisa needing to have her arm twisted to force her to release her designs is that Lisa could indeed be doing more good for the world, but rather than forcing her to act in spite of the potential risks to herself Alison is respecting her right to live her own life as she chooses. Which she failed to do for Max. The original point was about the double standard here.

The example of Eli Whitney was of how someone who technically had patent law on his side still failed to enforce said patent. And as for Templar having unlimited oodles and oodles of wealth… look at what happens to corporations that get overly aggressive in protecting their copyrights/patents. They lose a LOT of money. They lose money spent on the legal fees. They lose money spent on lost profits because they’ve driven customers away. They lose money when their stock prices plummet. The only way they can stay in business while continuing to aggressively be jerks to customers is if they have a monopoly over them, the way Comcast does in too many places.

And I agree that something is preventing Lisa from doing it. Namely: she doesn’t want to ruin her life over this and instead wants to find a solution that won’t force her to risk everything. I agree with her on that. I support her on that. I simply feel the same applies to everyone, not just people the protagonist happens to personally like.

Again, Patrick doesn’t care a whole lot about profit motive in this instance. His explicit goal is to prevent Lisa’s inventions from getting out there. As far as cost, in many cases these kinds of lawsuits never go to court. Templar may not be able to afford a hojillion lawsuits, but mom ‘n pop companies can’t afford ONE lawsuit. As a (very) small business owner myself, if Microsoft filed a lawsuit against my business, I’d start trying to settle immediately. I’d stop doing whatever they told me to stop doing. Wouldn’t matter what the claim was, because I can’t afford to win the first court case, much less the appeals.

“I’m not talking about her being sued. I’m talking about anyone who attempts to use it being sued.”

They actually can’t sue a person for using a former trade secret. If you found out the recipe for Coca Cola or the Colonel’s Secret Blend of Herbs and Spices, and started selling soda or chicken, Coca Cola and KFC wouldn’t be able to sue you.

“Templar says “ooh, neat”, patents it, and starts suing anyone who makes and sells them.”

Actually, if it’s open to the public, Templar CAN’T patent it. You can only patent something that you invented. If Elon Musk invents something, then tells the world how to make it for free, Joe Shmoe can’t say ‘Hey, lookit that. I’mma gonna patent it!’ The USPTO will say ‘uh… no.’

“The way our patent law works, your ability to patent something is based pretty much entirely on your ability to defend that patent in court.”

Seriously no, that’s not how patent law works, and in this case this isn’t me just using google or a general opinion. You clearly don’t know anything about how intellectual property works – especially not patent law. I do this for a living. Your ability to patent something is based on proving that you invented it, and that the work is useful, novel, and non-obvious. It’s NOT about ‘Let me just try to patent stuff that I clearly have no right to patent, and just defend against it. It’s a ‘I have to prove this to you’ in regards to the USPTO, not a ‘Prove me wrong’ to the USPTO.

“That’s why patent trolling is such a huge industry.”

For the love of god, that’s not even what patent trolling is. Patent trolling is when the bona fide patent holder sues OTHER people far beyond the patent’s actual value. It’s not about looking at stuff that’s already available in the public sphere and patenting THAT stuff.

“If Lisa releases something without patenting it, she just makes it easier for Templar to snap it up.”

What the… no! That’s not how patents work! If it’s already in the public sphere, they can’t ‘snap it up.’ That’s the point! There’s already evidence then that they did not invent the thing that they’re trying to patent!

I’m… I’m not sure how I can make this more clear. You can’t patent something that you did not yourself invent or significantly improve upon to the point where it’s novel, useful, and non-obvious.

Btw, Arkone give a WONDERFUL example with Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. Another example would be the person who created the ferrule (the metal band that attaches an eraser to the pencil).

1: you’re arguing legal issues with an actual attorney. Your uninformed opinion is worthless compared to an educated explanation.

2: I’ve got a number of copyrights in my own name, and I’ve had to deal with other people’s copyrights as well. And setting aside the fact of “fair use” meaning that I can reference a name brand in my own work without being sued for it, setting aside the fact that suing everyone who tries to reproduce your trade secrets in their own home is a perfect way to piss off all your customers and lose a lot of business, there’s the fact that if you go suing everyone in sight, the result is COUNTERSUITS for malicious litigation, and your attorneys getting disbarred for abusing the law (also known as “why Fred Phelps had to give up law and become a hatemongering preacher”).

3: See 1. You don’t even have the basic information, just your own opinion followed by increasingly twisted arguments to support it. I’ve actually seen someone like you in a courtroom. That person was asked by the judge point blank, “WHAT exactly are you suing for?” Their response was to glare at the judge incredulously, shocked that it wasn’t completely self evident, and then wave dramatically at myself and my coauthor and declare, “…THIS!”

(Spoiler: that case ended with the judge telling the plaintiff that he would be sending his verdict in the mail, and the bailiffs asking us to remain in the courtroom until the crazy person had exited the courthouse just to avoid trouble)

“You actually can.”

No. You can’t. What you quoted me saying is literally the FIRST sentence in ANY patent law class. It’s the basis for all patent law.

“Obtaining a patent is insanely simple.”

I’m willing to bet you’ve never applied for a patent.

“People own patents for the concept of networking.”

Uh…. you really need to read up on what you’re talking about. There’s no patent for the ‘concept’ of networking. Perhaps you’re talking about US 5594910 A, the patent for an interactive computer network and method of operation. Which was an improvement on multiple earlier patents, starting in 1988 (Patent 219931…. and back then networking multiple computers together WAS novel, non-obvious, and unique).

“One guy owned a patent for podcasting”

Actually no again. That patent was knocked out as invalid in most of the parts of the patent (which was actually patented back in 1996, which again was back when podcasts were novel, unique, and non-obvious – and they still lost when they tried to stretch it beyond the Apple lawsuit).

You really need to stop arguing this. You’re incredibly wrong on every element about which you’re arguing.

“The only reason that all podcasters don’t have to pay that guy royalties is, that guy lost the court battle defending his patent.”

No, it’s because on April 10, 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued Personal Audio LLC (the patent holder) and the USPTO revoked five provisions of Personal Audio’s podcasting-related patent, 8,112,504 – effectively neutering the patent on podcasts.

“And, like Eli Whitney, that was one guy by himself. It was not a multi-billion dollar corporation with an army of lawyers.”

Um… actually it was a company called Personal Audio LLC, which had millions of dollars at its disposal, and was lost lawsuits against small companies. When Personal Audio had sued Adam Corolla, the patent holder had to drop the lawsuit because they were losing – and Adam Corolla didn’t spend money – the defense was from a crowdfunding site (in the amount of $475,000). Please get your facts straight.

“Again, this important: Templar DOES NOT HAVE TO WIN these lawsuits.”

The lawsuit would consist of a summary judgment against them, period. If they do not HAVE a valid patent to begin with, they can’t GET a patent with which to sue, which ironically is different than the podcast example you’re giving, where the company DID have a valid patent, and STILL LOST. BADLY.

“Smaller companies can’t win these lawsuits because they don’t have the money to fight them in court.”

Oh for crying out loud. Personal Audio LLC, BEFORE it was a major multi-million dollar LLC, won a lawsuit against APPLE. Back when it had a VALID patent. Then when Personal Audio sued Adam Corolla, they LOST from a defense funded by a crowdfunding site. Then thet lost against a non-profit digital rights group that was NOT a multi-billion or even multi-million dollar company, which sued PERSONAL AUDIO LLC, and they won, removing vital parts of the patent that made the patent useless. It cost Personal Audio millions. And this was a company that had a VALID patent at one point, unlike what Templar would have.

“Larger companies probably could, but that goes against the whole “give it to the people for free” thing anyway.”

You are honestly pulling this stuff out of thin air. Even your own not-on-point example actually invalidates your entire argument.

“So, yes, Coke could in fact sue you for copyright infringement if you managed to independently reproduce their secret formula.”

No, they can’t.
1) Copyrights are not patents. Copyrights are totally different from patents, and the secret formula is not patented anyway. It’s a trade secret. Trade secrets are also different than patents. With a patent, it’s already available to the public because the government gives the patent-holder a ‘limited time’ monopoly. A trademark has no limits on how long they can hold it. It just stops being theirs once the secret is out. Then ANYONE can copy it, and they can’t be sued for it.

Again, this is BASIC intellectual property law.

“You can file a lawsuit for anything against anyone.”

Uh…..you’ve never filed a lawsuit before, have you? I’m assuming you don’t know what a summary judgment is, or what a motion to dismiss is? Literally the simplest, quickest way to stop a frivolous lawsuit, especially when based on something which is on its face faulty. It costs about $300-$600 for a lawyer to file the motion, depending on where you live and how much experience the lawyer has. Or you can do it on your own. Costs about $50 for the filing fee for the motion, at least in my state.

“You could file a lawsuit against me for being wrong on the Internet.”

Uh… no I can’t. I would need to prove damages.

“Your ability to win that lawsuit is basically zero, of course, but you could probably force me to hire a lawyer.”

I definitely could not force you to hire a lawyer to defend against something like that. I’d most likely get berated by the judge if the judge even looks at it and the clerk doesn’t toss it.

“So, sure, maybe Coke couldn’t successfully prove in court that you’d stolen their formula.”

There’s no stealing! It’s a trade secret! The point of a trade secret is once it’s no longer a secret, there’s nothing!

Not to mention Coca Cola’s trade secret DID become public back in 2011. By a broadcast on NPR called ‘This American Life.’ And Coca Cola was NOT able to sue. They just tried to broadcast that it was NOT the formula. Because that’s the only way to defend the trade secret – to deny that the secret was figured out.

Here’s the recipe btw, if anyone wants to start up a cola company. I’ll represent you if Coca Cola tries to sue. I’ll do it pro bono. Might be hard to start it up since the actual formula DOES use the coca leaf, which is heavily regulated and Coca Cola has a special arrangement (legally) with the DEA which permits the importation of the leaves.

A mixture of orange oil, lemon oil, neroli oil, nutmeg oil, cinnamon oil, coriander oil and alcohol provides the flavor base for a cola beverage. In order to actually make cola, lime juice, vanilla, caffeine and coca leaves are necessary.

“But if you’re a tiny soda startup that’s still running a negative profit margin?
You’re not going to go to court. You’re going to try to settle on whatever terms Coke gives you that seem less expensive than a court battle.”

Uh…. no. Just… no. Read above.

“And if you do decide to go to court, you go bankrupt long before a verdict comes down.”

Yeah those motions to dismiss sure cause a lot of bankruptcies. Tell me the truth, you’ve never been involved in any litigation ever, right?

“This isn’t even theory.”

Correct, it’s not a theory. A theory means your hypothesis would have been tested and would be at least plausible.

“Lisa’s a rich genius, so she won that battle.”

1) Actually it would be because she’d have proved the armor existed before Templar’s patent, assuming she did not sell her patent for the armor to Templar.

2) Again, you do realize that the point of a patent is that patents run out, then anyone can make it right?

3) Once you add to an existing patent, you can patent THAT if it’s novel, unique, and non-obvious. Obviously Templar isn’t patenting everything that PALADIN makes. Because they aren’t the ones creating anything.

“I’m not a rich genius, myself. I’d have settled.”

You don’t need to be a genius. You need a first year attorney who took one course in patent law and passed the patent bar.

Seriously, almost everything you’ve said is wildly inaccurate.

“Okay, buddy. It’s not like this is something that actually happens in real life every day.”

Did you miss the part where I explained to you what you need to actually do to sue over a patent? Most importantly …. having a valid patent to sue over? What do I know though.

Oh wait, I’m an attorney who passed the patent bar (and has been practicing primarily patent law – and copyright and trademark law which is totally different, though you seem to not realize this – so I have a fairly good experience dealing with what is involved in the USPTO and lawsuits surrounding patent violations), but I would only really need to have taken a single course in law school to know this stuff since you’re somehow arguing against the absolute basics of patent law. Also, you don’t seem to know how corporations DO use patents, or even the history of the examples you gave.

“But hey, if Microsoft sues me, I’ll just raise $500k from crowdfunding like Adam Corolla.”

If Microsoft sues you for… what? Huh? Are you under the belief that Microsoft has gotten as powerful as it was because of patent lawsuits? That must be why Microsoft Explorer is the most widely used web browser. Oh wait, it isn’t. No, Microsoft doesn’t use patent law to be powerful. It uses ‘BUYING THE COMPETITORS’ and making deals with computer companies to bundle their software with the computer company hardware.

But no, it’s ‘ermergerd, big corporations iz evul!’ Did you miss the part where, in the example you gave, a small LLC sued APPLE over their patent…. got $8 million, then when they sued a single person on a podcast, they were losing so badly that they voluntarily stopped the lawsuit… then a non-profit group which was NOT a multi-million dollar megacorporation sued the multi-million dollar patent-holder and gutted their patent?

Nah you must have glossed over that part 🙂

“Whether or not your patent is valid is something that is decided in court.”

*rubs her temples* Actually it’s the USPTO that decides if a patent is valid or not based on your patent application. The courts come in later during patent challenges. The courts will also not allow a company to sue someone over violating a patent if they don’t hold the patent in the first place. There would be no standing. You need to either own the patent or be substantially directly harmed by it to have standing. Please get at least one thing right about my profession.

“I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that only large corporations benefit from patent law.”

Your last two posts have literally used large corporations as the example, even while your real life example shows exactly the opposite happening.

“I’ve stuck to talking about large corporations because Templar is a large corporation.”

And yet they can’t defend a patent which they don’t own. And you STILL don’t seem to understand the difference between a trade secret and a patent, or how you can’t sue for a patent that you literally don’t own, or how you can’t take something in the public domain and use THAT as a source for a patent.

“At any rate, it’s become clear that you’re too mindlessly combative for debate to be worthwhile.”

Because I actually understand patent law and have kept correcting you on what you write? That’s ‘mindlessly combative?’ Look, don’t take it from me. Read a book on patent law. Pretty much ANY textbook on it. The basic principles of Patent law hasnt changed much.

You just seem to ignore anything that goes against your worldview, regardless of the law in favor of some dystopian evil corporation world out of Robocop or Blade Runner.

*shrug* Be my guest. I’ve already blocked the other guy; if you, like him, are the sort who winds themselves up over internet arguments and turns them into personal vendettas, I’ll just go ahead and block you as well. Have a nice life.

“Ah yes, because knowledge of robotics and computer programming means you know how to develop cheap, clean energy. That’s why they let pediatrists do open heart surgery, it’s all the same field right?”

Well apparently punching people hard means you know how putting experimental organs in people on a mass scale will work out, so why not? At least here, you have actual EVIDENCE that she can make such a device. And apparently, as you will see in the next comic…. SHE HAS TONS OF THEM. WHICH SHE KEEPS IMPROVING EVEN MORE ON BUT HAS NEVER BOTHERED TO PUT IT INTO THE PUBLIC SPHERE.

“But hey, super powers right? In that case, who’s to say she didn’t invent clean, cheap energy back while Templar had complete control over her.”

She apparently keeps improving on the technology. New improvements = new patentable technology = not under the old patent = put it on the internet and let anyone who wants to use it. Patents won’t apply. And lets say they do. Who’s gonna force her? Alison, get to armbreaking anyone who forces Paladin not to give clean energy to the world.

I love how you bend over backwards to defend Paladin not giving free energy to the world because on the off chance that she might get sued by a company run by a terrorist who desperately wants Alison on his side in the first place to the point where he gave her a $25 million check, but with Max, who has valid reasons for his life being in jeopardy if he does what she said, it’s ‘F*** Max, he’s a rich white male’ – such hypocrisy on your part 🙂 I guess you can only force someone if you don’t like them. And if they’re a rich white male. It’s delicious hypocrisy from you, really.

“And now they do own the patent and/or have her under a non-disclosure clause so she can’t release the knowledge?”

Lets assume your statement is true, despite how a first year law student who’s taken introduction to intellectual property law could destroy your idea. Which do you consider more important, saving billions of lives and fundamentally changing the planet, not to mention saving it from man-made climate change, or getting into a lawsuit by a company of whom Alison has major pull over the founder. Hmm…. decisions decisions. Her life isnt even in danger, mind you. Not even by a stretch of the imagination, unlike how Max’s was. No, if she wants to protect herself from the stress of a lawsuit by not giving free, clean energy to the world, Alison should start forcing her to do so by telling her she will break her arm and murder her. It’s the right thing to do, since it will guaranteed save billions of lives and the planet itself. Cmon, look, I’m all utilitarian now! People here like utilitarianism, right? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one? Real Star Trek philosophizing going on here.

“How could she be rich? She’s under contract with Templar. ”

I guess all that money she’s wasting on robots that tell bad jokes then destroy themselves makes me think she has money to waste. Especially since she has ‘tons’ of those types of motorcycles, and the cost of leaking the schematics on the internet with some of the improvements she comes up with on apparently a daily basis is approximately nothing.

“I assume if she created anything for profit (without their approval) it would violate the contract.”
Then she shouldnt try to make a profit out of giving the world free energy. Take an Elon Musk approach to it. Give it away for free. There. No profit. It’s for the good of the world, Zorae!

“No one could legally buy/produce/sell the stuff she invents (or want to considering who owns her contract)”

What, you’re a capitalist now? Give the schematics away for free.

“That combined with the high cost of lawsuits”

I hear that Alison has a solution for dealing with legal arguments. It’s called ‘I will break your f**king arm and murder you and dump you in the ocean if you tell me no, and no one will be able to stop me.’ Clearly she took ADVANCED Intellectual Property law. You don’t learn that until the second year of law school.

“and high tech R&D,”
She already made the motorcycle and engine and power cell. R&D is done with that. Plus she can shift her future R&D that she’s using to build an artificial slave race that self-pummels itself after making bad jokes and use it on project ‘stop energy pollution forever.’

“I don’t see how she could possibly be rich.”
I guess those robots she builds are made of paper mache?

Yep. Everything you just said. Yep.

Except that (as has been pointed out repeatedly), Max never said “I would be willing to see ten thousand people horribly die in agony, for the *solitary* purpose of making you suffer.” Go back to the actual page, and you will see that his actual declaration was “I want you out of here because you are a horrible person and I want nothing to do with you. I will always say no to you, JUST TO YOU. Someone else might be able to convince me to say yes, BUT NEVER YOU, because you are that unpleasant towards me.”

No, Max isn’t “apathetic,” he’s frightened of… violent biodynamics entering his home without his consent, declaring “my cause is just and my needs outweigh your rights!” and then torturing him and doing “whatever it takes” to get him to use his powers. Which Alison proved he was completely justified in fearing.

“An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”

Saying Alison should/will break the arms of everyone who disagrees with her is a pretty huge misrepresentation of her beliefs/what transpired with Max, which most people would agree is a ridiculous course of action. Seems like a strawman to me.

“because another person’s normal argument is unable to be sufficiently argued with”

No, it’s because it’s easier to argue against the strawman than the actual argument and then pretend that the strawman you ‘defeated’ was the original argument (when it is not). Your phrasing suggests the fault is with the other person’s argument instead of the strawman’s constructor.

“I responded initially to Weather and not in a way to dispute anything he said.”

No you didn’t dispute anything they said. You just posted yet another unrelated comment that suggests anyone who supports/sympathizes with Alison’s actions towards Max is someone who believes that it’s okay to break the arms of anyone who disagrees with them. Which is, again, a misrepresentation of such people and Alison herself.

Considering that Alison’s actions towards Max are in fact “multiple violent felonies punishable by anything up to and including multiple life sentences,” perpetrated by someone whose justification was “this person won’t do what I want after I insulted and treated them like crap,” and that Alison herself admits what she did was a horrible and unforgivable thing that she knows she’s going to be suffering the consequences of down the road… supporting her actions is quite literally saying “it is okay to break the arms of anyone who disagrees with your moral ideology.”

SYMPATHIZING with her actions is another story. There are plenty of people who can understand why she felt how she did. I’m one of them. But to SUPPORT her actions? No. That’s saying “this person doesn’t want to risk themselves for a cause we believe in, so we’re going to denigrate him, dismiss his feelings, mock his concerns, and repeatedly emphasize that he doesn’t deserve pity, compassion, or anything but a kick in the head and a gobbet of spit in the face.”

Except that, as has been pointed out (repeatedly), it wouldn’t be “thousands and thousands,” the number has been drastically overestimated. Just as the risk to Max has been hugely underestimated – especially since Alison proved that the risk was very very real when she did the very thing he was proven very right to fear.

Also, the same thing applies even more so towards Alison. If it’s okay to “twist the arm” (y’know, like how waterboard is just “spraying a little mist on someone’s face”), then is it not okay to “show a fraction of the consideration for someone with a critically important ability that we’d show to a friend?”

That’s what’s being argued here. The double standard.

Waterboarding IS a horrible torture… that inflicts no physical damage and is entirely fleeting. Don’t be an ass.

Because yes, it IS torture. So is what Alison did. She didn’t just twist his arm, she put him in a joint lock while reminding him that she was a thousand times stronger than he was, invulnerable to any attempts he might make to defend himself, and could easily murder him and get away with it. She didn’t just inflict pain, she inflicted terror in a deliberately cruel fashion to make her victim comply with her demands. Every bit of that is torture, and the fact that you feel her cause justified her actions makes you EXACTLY the same as the idiots at Fox News who insist that waterboarding is a patriotic thing to do. “Our cause is just and therefore it’s not really torture, it’s HEROISM! Don’t be an ass by criticizing!”

(Which is why, while people in the comments section continue to defend her actions, Alison herself regrets them because she knows what she did was evil and wrong)

Also, 8000 people is still less than “thousands and thousands” (which implies a six digit number, i.e. in excess of 100,000 a year), as well as less than the “millions” that others have espoused. It’s also been established by the comic as not being Alison’s true cause. She wanted to get Feral off that table. That wonderful young woman gushing over the bike and the genius who built it for her? Alison’s goal was to create the circumstances that would convince Feral to get off that table of her own free will. FERAL cared about those thousands of people; Alison treated them as a means to an end, an abstract concept. Bringing up the transplant recipients is not quite as bad as denying that Alison’s actions were torture, but it’s still inaccurate.

“you’re inducing a state where the person feels like they’re drowning to death.”

Oh, like being put in a joint lock by a violent metahuman declaring “I don’t like you, I have no respect or sympathy for you, and if you don’t do what I want I will drown you in the ocean?”

Again, you’re continuing to do EXACTLY the same thing as the waterboard apologists. You’re minimizing the sheer enormity of the torture, refusing to even call it torture (“enhanced interrogation,” anyone?), and insisting it was justified because it was for a good cause.

And no, Izo was not purposefully misrepresenting this view point. Izo got it pretty much spot on. Your continued insistence on emulating the behavior of Dick Cheney by insisting that it wasn’t really torture and it saved lives continues to validate Izo’s stance.

“But it did save thousands of people. And I personally think that Max’s temporary pain was worth it.”

And that’s the point. That’s why I’m comparing you to Dick Cheney. Btw, waterboarding is NOT torture… according to Cheney. And according to Trump. And of course they both emphasize that it WORKS! It totally works and the ends justify the means! And the inconvenient details of how it doesn’t work, how it causes far more problems than it might supposedly solve, get glossed over because it was the hard choice that had to be made! As opposed to the easy “Imma just use violence and terror to get my way” choice that everyone else would call it.

Izo has been deliberately exaggerating Alison’s actions… which is a counter to those who have been downplaying the sheer monstrousness of her behavior. As you are doing by ignoring that her actions were undeniably torture (and done by someone who was emphasizing the terror aspects of torture, with how she could do literally whatever she wanted and get away with it), but also insisting that it worked (even though Max is now unavailable for any other positive use of his power. Plus Alison now has powerful enemies who are completely justified in disliking her. Plus I don’t think Feral will be too happy when she finds out what Alison did… or the doctors duped into participating in a hideously unethical procedure… or Lisa, for that matter…).

It’s amazing how many people are completely missing the point of this whole chapter. It’s about how Alison flinched from the observation that her attitude was that of a tyrant, then did horrible, terrible, immoral things for what she believed to be a just cause, then realized that that’s what pretty much EVERY tyrant does… and now she’s going to have to live with the consequences.

Um…. you just strawmanned Arkone now.

Exaggerating Alison’s actions… you mean by pointing out that what she did was torture? But then again, you’ve made it clear you’re a torture apologist.

No, Izo wasn’t misrepresenting your position. She’s been MOCKING your position.

Except that what you are is a torture apologist who thinks that anything that leaves a lasting effect is horrible and shouldn’t be practiced… unless it’s the method used by someone you personally like. Then it’s okay.

(Also, kudos for talking about schoolyard bullying as if that were what Allison did. Downplaying her actions as just harmless kid stuff, classic torture apologist work)

I’m pretty sure elsewhere, I outright state that I’m mocking their position. I guess even that’s too subtle 🙂

If you wanted to ‘force a consistency” then you’d be saying “twist Paladin’s arm”. But you’re not. Because that doesn’t sound as bad as “break Paladin’s arm”. And you want to prove you’re right, so you’re exaggerating (which literally means a false statement) and pretending it’s equivalent.

Which is, how about that, a strawman 😀

Nope. Never said it.

She didn’t threaten to dislocate his shoulder. She told him that, due to the way she had him pinned, he was going to dislocate his own shoulder by struggling. If I have a gun and tell you not to step in front of it or you’ll get shot, that’s not threatening to shoot you.

“Because that’s totally not a death threat.”

Where did I say she never made that threat? God, do you ever stop misrepresenting people/saying they did things they didn’t? It’s quite tedious to argue with you because of it.

What do you think comes after twisting with ‘slliiiightly’ more pressure?

She didn’t say “slightly more pressure”. She said “do the arm more”. Which simply means, “hurt the arm more”. The ‘slliiiight’ pressure was just adding the same ‘sliiight’ pressure she applied the first time.

If she had applied ‘slightly more pressure’ (which she didn’t nor did she threaten to do), it would’ve sprained the joint. Not dislocated the shoulder, and certainly not broken the arm.

Hm, notice how you wrote a big long paragraph with lots of extra words (“shame”, “might”) to make the statement a threat. But in the comic she said “Don’t do that or you’ll hurt yourself”. Notice how that doesn’t sound like a threat, because it isn’t.

“The fact that you keep acting like I’m making up what Alison did. She threatened to break his arm if he did not comply”

Do you…. do you even read your posts? Pretty sure we just established that she never threatened to break his arm. Which is the thing you’ve been spouting over and over again (and in some cases without the ‘threat’ qualifier).

“Do you not read your own link?”

I did, but you appear to not have read my post. Here, I’ll write it again and maybe you’ll read it this time:

She didn’t say “slightly more pressure”. She said “do the arm more”. Which simply means, “hurt the arm more”. The ‘slliiiight’ pressure was just adding the same ‘sliiight’ pressure she applied the first time.

Maybe comics and discussion about them aren’t for you if you have such a hard time reading.

Oh no! You copied my texts without explicit permission! I should totally sue you for millions and billions of dollars! And then collect because the judge won’t possibly throw it out of court and I won’t have exposed myself to a countersuit! Rah rah, and further immature rantings! Rah! :p

(Teasing aside, thank you for speaking so highly of my arguments. Unlike some people, I value the expert’s opinion – and it’s nice when the expert points at you and says, “the amateur’s right.” 🙂 )

Blah blah blah, strawman strawman strawman, call Izo a strawman without understanding what strawmanning is despite an entire discussion on what strawmanning is, then don’t want to get back to the actual point of the thread because it’s too difficult and much easier to keep shouting strawman. Which is strawmanning 🙂

Resorting to ad hominem attacks now? That’s neat.

I guess I’m done talking to you now if all you’re going to do is call me a name and say that’s all you need to do.

I’m just fascinated that Zorae has twisted herself into now defending waterboarding, as if he was W and Cheney’s best friend. 🙂

No, you’re defending waterboarding. Or to be more precise, you’re defending the exact method of “enhanced interrogation” that you want to justify being used as “totally different, not torture at all, don’t be insulting!”

Especially since Alison’s methods bear so much more in common with waterboarding than the fact that the threat of drowning was involved.

Restraint: A key component of torture is the inability to escape the torment. You have to be held down or otherwise restrained to be subjected to physical torture.

Helplessness: The emphasis of “you have no control here. You are powerless. Your only options are to do what I want, or you will suffer until I get what I want. But you WILL do what I want, and your only choice is how much you want to suffer.”

Terror: To quote a book by Lois Bujold, pain is not the point. Terror is. Physical pain is simply a tool used to achieve the terror. This is why waterboarding leads to lasting psychological trauma – because the victim is powerless and in the clutches of someone who can do literally whatever they want. The victim is reduced to the level of a child in the hands of an abusive adult.

So congratulations – you’re a torture apologist! You’ve defended the use of torture by the character you like against the character you don’t! You’ve dismissed the suffering of the victim as inconsequential! And, just like your BFF Dick Cheney, you’ve emphasized how it was for a good cause and that makes it okay! So… own it. Either accept that you’re a torture apologist, or acknowledge the same truth that Alison herself did – that what she did was horrible, evil, and something she is going to be suffering consequences for having done.

You keep bringing up child bullies as if anyone other than you had mentioned them, you torture apologist.

And police officers are permitted to use joint lock holds when restraining physically violent suspects who are resisting arrest. They are permitted to use them until they have applied the handcuffs to restrain them so that they can then be transported to prison. At no point are police officers permitted to use joint locks to torture people into performing activities against their will.

Fun fact: Alison then admitted that she did it because she had never been taught a method of dealing with people that didn’t involve physical violence. Which is why she admits how scummy and vile her actions were, you torture apologist.

Somehow I think that if Alison waterboarded Max, you’d have been all for it 🙂