SFP

ks banner

sfp 6 140 for web

sfp book two promo image

It’s here! Please check out our Kickstarter to fund the printing of Book Two of this comic (chapters 5 and 6) and pledge if you can! It also helps us immensely if you spread the wordΒ on social media or directly to people you think would like the comic. Thanks for reading!

Show Comments
  • AshlaBoga

    Oh. God.

    Alison, sweety? GO! TO! SLEEP! NOW!

    This is NOT how you start a relationship. But Clevin seems to be an understanding guy.

    Although someone suggested she might be texting Patrick.
    Now THAT would be “interesting*.”

    *Where interesting means BOOM.

    • Danygalw

      “I know the last time we interacted was not the mostβ€””
      “Hey, long time no see!”

      I don’t remember her last interaction with Clevin. Probably fit both.

      • Zinc

        Here ya go.
        http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-104-2/
        (You might want to flip back a couple of pages too.)

        • Danygalw

          The sunrise before her chat with Professor G, which was… earlier today?

          Okay, it’s not Clevin!

          • Tylikcat

            Hey, “Long time no see,” is something you often say to someone you just saw. Like, if I saw my neighbor in the hardware store, and then fifteen minutes later also ran into him in the grocery store!

          • Danygalw

            …I do have an actual running gag where I say “Hey, [name], haven’t seen you in ages! How’ve you been?” if I see them within like ten minutes.

            But like I wouldn’t text that, because it’s not… it’s not actually spontaneous…

    • KatherineMW

      I’m guessing it’s Patrick.

  • zellgato

    Oh noes… freaking bug the shrinky dink guy to go to the movies or something! fly to antoher timezone for a movie idk..
    or go see knife fight

    well. this certainly shines that he’s been watching her at least somewhat. if not have a swemi permi connection to her

  • Kid Chaos

    Kickstarter! Yay! I’m getting a physical copy of Book 2, plus the PDFs. And I think Alison wants a significant other so bad that she’s thinking of texting a guy who hates her guts. Couldn’t she just go on Tinder? 😜

    • Tylikcat

      I’m all “I’m trying to avoid buying physical books, but those pins sound kind of sweet!” …I’ll work it out.

      (Which reminds me that I need to keep a variety of age appropriate stuff on my phone when running around with the youngers. The .pdfs of this are not something I’d want to hand over to my six year old adopted niece, I don’t think… this came up last time I was in town.)

  • Yes, Dear Reader. Yes she did.

  • Markus

    Who. Are. You. TEXTING?

    • Darkoneko Hellsing

      What are you, my MOM ?

      • Kid Chaos

        YES! 😍

  • Markus

    Alison’s texting strategy is 62.5% dominated by ‘hey’ based openers.

  • Darkoneko Hellsing

    You know, if you set the KS ad as the last panel, it’d mean she exploded the appartement when the phone starled her πŸ™‚

    • Timothy McLean

      Alison’s facial expressions in those panels match surprisingly well…

  • Tylikcat

    Pretty sure it’s Patrick. Remember how every time she was worried or upset about something she used to text Patrick? He was always her secret friend who totally understood her (major shortcut if you’re an involuntary telepath – also, their shared history of childhood super-stuff helped, even if from opposite ends.)

    Really, stuff with Clevin may have been a little tentative and unresolved, but they shared a fist kiss and everything was pretty good. I think things are fine with Clevin, other than Alison being a bit messed up. But Clevin is a stand up guy, and at least as far as we know, without experience of the darker realties of life. Would you go to Clevin with this? Especially if you had any interest in maybe dating him? Or would you go to the guy you wouldn’t even need to explain it to.

    (And, probably, I’m guessing by the texting, the guy she’s been missing, at least as a friend, a hell of a lot more than she’s been admitting. I mean, who the hell else did she have in her life that she could talk to about that kind of stuff? Seriously, the closest would be Daniel, and that’s not really a peer relationship.)

    Not to say that there aren’t downsides…

    • Lysiuj

      “Seriously, the closest would be Daniel, and that’s not really a peer relationship.”
      Also I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have a cellphone πŸ˜›

      • Paradoxius

        And he also can’t exactly
        – come over
        – kiss anyone on the mouth
        – hold anyone
        And it’s a little insensitive to ask “how are you” to someone who is dying of cancer in a dungeon with a grand total of one (1) friend in the world.

    • I’m guessing Patrick too. Of course it’s possible the person just isn’t at the phone at first, or is busy, but more likely the not responding is deliberate, in which case it is Patrick’s manipulation; not something Clevin would do. Also, “Hey. Did you” is not a good start for something from Clevin. But I’d better not say how that’s going to continue since it will be too detailed a prediction to be true.

      • Tylikcat

        I’m pretty sure this is meant to represent Alison writing and then deleting a bunch of things, until she accidentally sends a partial text.

        • Cyrano111

          This seems clearly to be the right explanation of what is happening, and as to whom, I agree with you that it must be Patrick. Nothing else makes her hesitation, or the content of the attempted texts, likely.

        • Bobo Chimpan

          ahh, ok. I was reading that as her writing and deleting a bunch of texts and suddenly -getting- a text from whoever it was. A second look has the sent text the same color as her send button, so…

          • Stephanie Gertsch

            I was too, but the partial text makes more sense. I was actually wondering if he could somehow hear her agonizing over the phone long distance.

          • Izo

            Nah. It’s Clevin. He probably has been staring at the phone on her text page for hours and keeps seeing the … on his screen. No mind powers needed, just being too nervous to text her after the movie theater

        • Right. I don’t know why I didn’t think of her writing and then deleting. But it isn’t clear whether or not she sent the two texts that aren’t followed by blank spaces, and I’m also not sure she sent the partial text, rather than receiving it.

      • Margot

        OMG, it’s Patrick, and his message is “Hey, did you start texting me and change your mind a bunch of times? Your over-thinking is so loud I can hear it from the other side of town.”

        • Tylikcat

          I still hold that if he can hear everyone over all distances his head would have exploded by now.

          • bryan rasmussen

            well he just recently started being able to hear people over distances because he got his power hyped by some guy that wanted protection from mega-girl. Funny how things work out for Patrick.

          • Margot

            But maybe if they’re thinking about him really hard? Mostly I’m joking, though.

          • Jon

            If he could her everyone over all distances, he wouldn’t need to be physically present at meetings like the Chinese Guys to mindread them, and he would probably have figured out the conspiracy thing by now.

            He’s gotta have a distance limit.

        • NathanaΓ«l FranΓ§ois

          Well, if so Al will be embarrassed enough by that that her cringing will provide free energy for the world for centuries.

        • It could be something like this. Right, I was mistaken to think those texts were being sent rather than deleted.

    • Arkone Axon

      Considering what she did to Patrick… why would she contemplate sending texts that involve offers to kiss and cuddle? That would imply a truly monstrous level of self absorption and sociopathy. And I do not see Alison being anywhere near that bad.

      • pleasechangemymind

        I don’t think that involves ANY self-absorption or sociopathy. I think that involves confused, conflicted feelings, and feeling like a monster because of what she did to Max, which is something Patrick could relate to. She’s always had a crush on Patrick, and Patrick has royally screwed up on several occasions because a) he doesn’t know how to interact with people genuinely since he can just read their mind, and b) ALL the self-loathing and self-sabotage. They both fucked things up pretty bad the last time they talked. But I don’t think that negates their feelings for each other, or her need to talk to someone who understands.

        Also, it follows that of course she *deletes* the “wanna cuddle” texts because she would never say that to him. She writes it to get it out of her system, and immediately deletes it. Who hasn’t done that?

        • Arkone Axon

          Because to even type such a thing, even if you delete it… the last time she saw him, she had damaged his face with his own gift. For all we know, he doesn’t look nearly so pretty right now.

          Remember that guy who Moonshadow killed in front of his wife, where it was implied he was an abusive spouse (I say “implied” because we have no proof and Moonshadow has openly stated she’s 100% okay with killing innocent people because she’s “not afraid to make a mistake”)? If that was the case, then that would be what he apologized for. But… imagine if he hadn’t even apologized, had pretended not to notice her black eye or tears? Completely dismissive of the fact that he had hurt her… that’s what I mean, when I say that texting Patrick with “hey, wanna come over and let me kiss those lips that I damaged?” sounds monstrously self-absorbed.

    • Zinc

      I think it’s more likely to be Clevin – for somewhat similar reasoning to yours:

      a) One of the texts specifically references “kissing [her] on the mouth”, which is exactly as far as she got physically with Clevin on their last encounter (holding each other close is arguably more intimate, but less physical). If I remember correctly she never reached that level of physicality with Patrick – I think 5-110* is the closest they were to kissing, and that was immediately followed by Patrick claiming it as a ruse and breaking her heart. Especially considering how she left him afterwards, even considering inviting him to come over and kiss her seems exceedingly strange (even if it is prefaced by “I’m a crazy person”).
      * http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-5/page-110/

      b) Your second and third paragraphs seem to imply she is currently pining for a friend, someone to share her feelings and secrets with, preferably without speaking, for which Patrick is a better fit than Clevin. I think she is at the moment explicitly looking for romance (or possibly just makeouts), not friendship or sharing. The previous two (or three) scenes confronted her with Feral’s budding romance with Paladin, and then with the cute happy couple on the street – and I think her reaction implies that all of these reminded her of her own yearnings for romance. A few of the message drafts also support this interpretation (the kissing, the cuddling, probably “U up”)

      c) Also, describing the last interaction between Alison and Patrick as “not the most” anything would be the understatement of the century.

      • Tylikcat

        I like your reasoning. How long has it been since she last interacted with Clevin? Like, a couple of days at most? The “Long time, no see” was part of my thought, but that’s often used facetiously, and yeah, between Lisa and Tara, and the cute couple underneath the window, I can see her just wanting someone to hold onto. I might be reading too much intimation of history into what she’s writing. …and lacking that, Clevin makes a lot of sense.

        • Zinc

          I think it’s been about 24 hours, give or take a few. It happened here:
          http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-104-2/
          which took place at nighttime: http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-98-2/
          It was succeeded by Alison taking a stroll through the park at dawn, her discussion and breakfast (lunch? when she left she said “Have a good afternoon”) with Gurwara, her visit to Max’s house, coming home early and spending some time with Lisa. Having not slept at all since who knows when, she then fell asleep on the couch and it seems to be nighttime again. So, about a full day, assuming she hadn’t slept on the couch for over 24 hours (which is not too impossible).

          I agree that (if it’s Celvin) then “Long time, no see” is probably said jokingly, but on the other hand, considering what she went through since and her lack of sleep, it probably does feel like a long time to Alison, even if she knows it hasn’t actually been very long. Alternatively, she slept through the entire weekend πŸ™‚

          I’d also note that “Long time, no see”, if written to Patrick, would also be kind of facetious, considering that after their last interaction she pretty much decided* to completely break contact with him until his two years were up (he hasn’t been helping with that, though).

          * I seem to be basing this solely on the fact that she blocked him from her phone after he gave her Mary’s address… Might not be accurate.

          • Tylikcat

            I’m pretty willing to be converted. I tend to forget how shy people get early in their dating years. (I, um, mostly wasn’t. I was more “Contact my lover’s last three girlfriends and ask for references.” When I was fifteen. I am not joking when I say I was a menace.)

          • Tylikcat

            Also, that was my read on the breaking all contact – but this is desperate late night texting that she maybe doesn’t really intend to send. I mean, this is only one step away from drunk-texting your ex, right? (Okay, I’ve never done that, but it’s a thing people do.)

          • Zinc

            Hmm, I’m not with you on the “doesn’t really intend to send”. The vibe I’m getting from this page is that she really wants to send a text, but is being neurotic about the specific content. Which is fairly understandable, seeing as she is still very inexperienced, and doesn’t want to mess anything up. Definitely been there… I think it also points to Clevin a bit more than it does to Patrick. considering that the relationship with Clevin is still fresh and fragile, whereas the one with Patrick is mature and already broken – there isn’t really any reason for her to walk on eggs, practically anything that she’ll write would be an improvement on their last interaction.

            I do agree that she is definitely in drunk-texting mode (due to lack of sleep), but a person may drunk-text anyone, doesn’t have to be an ex. And for Alison to consider texting Patrick in this manner might require something significantly stronger than lack of sleep…

          • Tylikcat

            Yeah, not necessarily wanting to send a given text. Wanting to send something.

            And I will definitely give you that before she could communicate usefully with Patrick, she’d have to deal with the phenomenal betrayal of their last meeting. (Which I think she has more or less figured out, intellectually, but damn. Dude, sending $25 million doesn’t get you past that.)

          • Zinc

            How about giving her the information that can enable her to simultaneously save the lives of unfathomably many people AND rescue her best friend from self-inflicted torture and imprisonment?

            (Assuming he did not plan/foresee her convincing Max by coercion, scarring both him and her)

            I think that before reading your last message, I assumed that Patrick had ulterior motives in both sending the check and the info on Max. But maybe he didn’t? Maybe he was actually trying to extend an earnest olive branch, but had some uncharacteristic miscalculations on how badly they will be received (at least with the first one)? Seems somewhat out of character for the secretly-still-a-supervillain that I believe him to be, but then, so does his gluing back of the mug after Alison’s departure.

          • Tylikcat

            I haven’t seen Patrick as, mm, actively villainous and plotting as some people have? But then, like Lisa, some of the things he’s working on might end up being pretty darn problematic. (I’m personally more worried about time travel than artificial intelligence, but then, I work in very close to artificial intelligence, and do not see short to medium cause for concern.* Time travel? Um… well, all kinds of wacky shit happens in the SFP universe, so I do not know. Though by that logic, perhaps I should worry more about artificial intelligence.) I think he’s a guy, with a lot of baggage left over from his villainous teens. With a lot of the same problems that Alison has, stumbling along, making a lot of mistakes.

            He might have other motives with pointing her towards Max – he probably can’t help be think strategically. But he probably knew they were involved, he likely didn’t know they’d had a fight, and he’d been with her when she went to see Tara before Tara started the donation thing. And you can’t help but wonder what Alison means to him.

            * Nor do I think we actually have the data to predict the long term, and the people making such predictions generally give me hives.

      • DracoExIgne

        I mostly agree with you, but I also like Patrick for some bizarre reason.

    • Elaine Lee

      Re: The Clevin vs. Patrick choice. I had a choice between two high school boyfriends, one I really liked and one who really liked me. I chose the one who really liked me as my first experience and have never regretted it. After 48 years, we are still close friends. While Patrick is one of my two favorite SFP characters (the other being Feral), it makes sense for Alison to choose Clevin, at this point. Caring for Patrick, in his current state, would be a job. Nothing wrong with a little tenderness.

      • Tylikcat

        I don’t disagree – I was thinking more in terms of textual cues as well. If she wants to just cuddle? Clevin.

        …but if she wants someone who can understand her fucked up life? Patrick. (Who, after all, has made his own fuckwitted attempt at reaching out to her. I am not exactly saying it’s a good idea – certainly not before she catches up on sleep.)

        • Elaine Lee

          I agree with you about Patrick. Down the road, with time to get himself straightened out, he may be a better longterm choice for her. But she’s young, inexperienced, and hasn’t straightened herself out yet. Plus, she’s sad. For now, cuddles are good.

          • Tylikcat

            Long term choice sounds, um, a lot more involved than anything I’d think reasonable for the moment. So. Many. Issues. To. Resolve.

            Maybe coffee and a chat?

          • Izo

            I’m not sure how choosing the mass-murdering terrorist would ever be “the better choice” for anyone…

          • Zorae42

            Wow, way to hate on Martha Washington, Julia Dent (Ulysses S Grant’s wife), and Mary Anna Custis Lee (Robert E Lee’s wife).

            Not that Patrick is the same as any of their spouses. But they could accurately be described as ‘mass-murdering terrorists’.

          • Izo

            Are you seriously trying to call George Washington and Ulysses S Grant a couple of terrorists? Are you unfamiliar with the idea of formal rules for a declared war? I guess that whole ‘Declaration of Independence’ and declaration of war against England flew right over your head. Even by modern standards, war during those times was a LOT more formalized, and the idea of killing civilians to make a ‘point’ was not only something generally rewarded by being put in the stockades, it was also a career killer. Washington was actually given multiple commendations when he fought alongside the British Army during the French and Indian War within the Virginia Regiment. For his ‘fairness, bravery, and immense civility’ (actual words used, heh).

            Perhaps you’ve confused Grant with Sherman btw. Grant also never did anything that could even arguably be considered, even by today’s standards, a war crime or a terrorist act. However, even Sherman, who’s often accused by people who get their history from Gone with the Wind instead of actual history books, did not kill civilians (although he did burn down 35 percent of Atlanta – he made sure to spare the civilian lives).

            PS – Grant married his wife in 1848. He was a general in the civil war in 1861. Washington courted his wife in 1758 and married her in 1759. The Revolutionary War started in 1775.

            Heck, even Robert E Lee was not a ‘terrorist.’ There was a formal declaration of war, there were rules that they followed in regards to the civilian populations (and to enemy soldiers caught while in uniform), and civilians were never targeted, no matter what you’ve learned from Gone with the Wind and Mel Gibson’s The Patriot.

          • Zorae42

            A whole bunch of terrorist organizations have declared war on the US. It’s not like everyone in the country agreed to go to war. The whole thing about the Revolutionary War is that they didn’t play by the rules. They used Gorilla Tactics (out of necessity, not criticizing). I mean, sneaking up on Christmas to kill a whole bunch of drunk, sleeping soldiers was pretty big dick move (especially considering the times).

            Well, I picked Grant mostly for the mass murder aspect: he was called a butcher for a reason. Yeah it was mostly his own men, but it was A LOT of people that he sent to their death. I think a big portion of the South still consider him and Lincoln both terrorists that attacked them and their way of life without provocation (which is a very very skewed view of history, but one they do hold).

            But you’re right that Sherman’s actions better qualify as being terrorist actions. He might not have killed Civilians outright (or at least not ordered it, hard to believe 0 civilian people were killed as part of that), but the whole point was to psychologically attack the civilian population of the South by destroying a crap ton of civilian property. That definitely qualifies as terrorism.

            And honestly, those were just the 3 that immediately sprang to mind. There are probably better examples of leaders that were mass-murdering terrorists (with happy, loving spouses) that history gives a kind light to because they won/were ‘right’ πŸ˜›

            Also, I’d say other mass-murdering terrorists would probably want to pick mass-murdering terrorists that have similar beliefs/reasons (or at least ones that did those things for reasons they find acceptable). Look at Harley Quinn/Poison Ivy, that’s a great couple! Just because you’re a mass murdering terrorist doesn’t mean you can’t be in a healthy, happy relationship.

          • Izo

            “A whole bunch of terrorist organizations have declared war on the US. It’s not like everyone in the country agreed to go to war in the revolution.”

            What you’ve written in these two sentences, and the political ignorance of the difference between a mass murdering terrorist and a soldier who HAS to kill other soldiers (who are also trying to kill them) during wartime is sort of sad….
            Especially since you can’t tell the difference between a formal declaration of war and people yelling about the great satan and then blowing themselves up to cause terror, or (in this fictional world) building giant robots to kill civilians.

            “The whole thing about the Revolutionary War is that they didn’t play by the rules”

            Again, history from badly researched quasi-historical action movies. The Continental Army DID actually play by the rules of war of the time. Are you thinking ‘the militia’ instead – who were not formally trained and ‘guerilla tactics?’ And even then, the militia NEVER targeted civilians and still would abide by the same rules of war, just using hit and run tactics … tactics which HAD been used before formally (especially in Scotland and even in England itself, which many of the Continental Army officers were trained by or worked alongside for years before declaring independence and making a formal declaration of war against England). And if militia were to attack civilians, the Continental Army would usually make them leave or have them shot. Don’t get your history from Mel Gibson.

            The main reason the US won was because of the long amount of time needed to resupply the British, the French helping us, and Washington’s tactics against Hessian mercenaries during a crucial part of the war. As an actual army, we did not win by superior strategy. We won by distance and allies and killing the mercenaries who were going to kill the patriots.

            And that’s the difference between soldiers and terrorists btw. A soldier, following the rules of war, doesn’t murder unarmed civilians and does not specifically target civilians as a primary set of targets. You know…. in order to inspire TERROR among the populace. That’s why it’s called a terrorist. A terrorist does this. Patrick has done this. Washington, Grant, and Lee did not do this. You are talking nonsense based on pseudo-knowledge.

            “They used Gorilla Tactics (out of necessity, not criticizing).”

            Guerilla, and that’s not a violation of the rules of war. Even the old rules of war allowed for it. The Picts did it. The Scottish did it. You’re mistaking tactics with intent of a combatant. A terrorist does what they do in order to inspire terror in order to demoralize and intimidate the POPULACE.

            “I mean, sneaking up on Christmas to kill a whole bunch of drunk, sleeping soldiers was pretty big dick move (especially considering the times).”

            The Hessians were hired mercenaries, on enemy land, and were hired specifically to fight the war against the Americans. That made them not civilians. The Continental Army and the Hessians were also not all murdered. MOST of the Hessians actually just surrendered when caught off guard. They werent slaughtered while drunk. Washington CAPTURED most of them, rather than kill them. Where have you learned your history? Seriously.

            Also, the idea that they were drunk? It’s just a story. According to the Patriot, John Greenwood, who fought IN the battle and supervised the Hessians after they were captured, he’s written “I am certain not a drop of liquor was drunk during the whole night, nor, as I could see, even a piece of bread eaten.” They were just tired, not drunk. They were professional mercenary soldiers. You’re literally using a myth as fact.

            “Well, I picked Grant mostly for the mass murder aspect: he was called a butcher for a reason.”

            Oh for the love of god, Grant was not a mass murderer. He was given the nickname ‘The Butcher’ by the UNION press because of the rate of losses that the army suffered after Grant took command of directing it. As with today, there were journalists who knew crap about what they were writing, since Grant lost twice as many men as Lee lost… from enemy fire. Then Democrats (who were almost universally pro-South and in favor of slavery) started using the moniker to describe Grant in order to show their dislike of his commander-in-chief, Lincoln.

            “Yeah it was mostly his own men, but it was A LOT of people that he sent to their death.”

            So…. if the enemy kills your men, YOU are the terrorist? What the frack?

            “I think a big portion of the South still consider him and Lincoln both terrorists”

            So… there are stupid people who consider them terrorists, even though they aren’t. And you agree with them. Okay…. now I’m not going to say what that means for you, but you shouldn’t agree with stupid people. It doesn’t reflect well on you if that’s the basis of your argument.

            “that attacked them and their way of life”

            *cough* slavery *cough*

            “without provocation”

            You’re killing me with not knowing history. The civil war actually started after CONFEDERATE soldiers bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, on April 12, 1861. Please tell me they still teach basic stuff like that in history class, because I learned this in 7th grade.

            “(which is a very very skewed view of history, but one they do hold).”

            Please show me who thinks this. Aside from you. And (I’ll guess) racists in the ‘Robert Byrd’ KKK mentality, who wish that the ‘good ol days of slavery’ was still around.

            “But you’re right that Sherman’s actions better qualify as being terrorist actions.”

            Did you read the rest of what I wrote, because I immediately afterwards show why even Sherman would be difficult to be considered a terrorist, and he took great pains to NOT have civilian casualties. A lot of the destruction was overstated – mainly in order to dissuade people from helping the Confederates.

            “He might not have killed Civilians outright (or at least not ordered it,”

            And yet he didn’t.

            “but the whole point was to psychologically attack the civilian population of the South by destroying a crap ton of civilian property.”

            Actually it was to get the population of Atlanta to abandon the Confederate cause. And they didn’t destroy ‘a crap ton of civilian property.’ They did steal food and livestock (so that it would not be used to supply the Confederate army, since the civilians in that town were doing that), and ONLY burned the houses of the people who fought them … then did not kill the civilians. Sherman was a harsh guy, no doubt, but he wasn’t a terrorist who was targeting killing civilians. But he IS ‘closer’ than Grant … but neither of them could be qualified as a ‘terrorist.’ Unlike Patrick, who built giant robots specifically to kill large swaths of the population AND destroy cities. Full of people who were not fighting him or CAPABLE of fighting him, and who were not at war with him.

            “And honestly, those were just the 3 that immediately sprang to mind.”

            Three whom I’ve already shown are not terrorists and can’t even be argued to have been terrorists.

            “There are probably better examples of leaders that were mass-murdering terrorists (with happy, loving spouses)”

            Feel free to show some who are and I’ll agree if the history backs it up. Real history, not Hollywood history, mind you.

            “that history gives a kind light to because they won/were ‘right’ :P”

            History is written by the victors, true, but there are PLENTY of accounts, from both sides, of what actually happened during that time. It was only 240 years ago. And many records were taken, on both sides.

            “Also, I’d say other mass-murdering terrorists would probably want to pick mass-murdering terrorists that have similar beliefs/reasons”

            Technically Alison isn’t a mass-murdering terrorist …. yet. She’s only threatened to kill innocent civilians so far, and done some torture. Flamethrower guy doesn’t count. He wasn’t an innocent civilian.

            But I’ll give you this one argument, since I think Alison could definitely BECOME a terrorist with the mentality she’s seeming to get, especially after what she did to Max (although she does ‘feel bad’ – not that I care that she feels bad if she’d do it again).

            “Look at Harley Quinn/Poison Ivy, that’s a great couple!”

            Agreed – Harley and Poison Ivy are the best couple in comics, with Nightwing and Oracle a close second.

            Ok why are we talking about my two favorite villains-turned-anti-heroes?

            “Just because you’re a mass murdering terrorist doesn’t mean you can’t be in a healthy, happy relationship.”

            Technically speaking, Harley never personally killed anyone in DC’s New Earth arc (although Joker killed thousands of people and she USUALLY didn’t try to stop him since she was in her whole ‘abuse victim of love’ theme back then). Which is when the relationship began. Weird, huh? She only started when she joined the Suicide Squad and they started rewriting her to be more ‘dark and edgy.’ At least from what I know. I can’t find any examples of Harley killing anyone BEFORE joining the Suicide Squad, back when she was with Joker. Her starting to kill people (other criminals) wasn’t because of being with Poison Ivy. I could be wrong about this, but I’ve read a lot of Harley Quinn and don’t remember anywhere that she’s killed anyone in New Earth. Maybe she did in Injustice but that’s an alternate universe, and she’s not with Ivy in that universe, and Joker was killed by Superman in that universe anyway…. I just sort of went off a tangent though. Back to what you’re saying…

            “Just because you’re a mass murdering terrorist doesn’t mean you can’t be in a healthy, happy relationship.”

            It helps if you, as a girlfriend, are totally insane when it comes to rationalizing the horrible stuff your S.O. is doing. And… if the only two people you can have as comparison are the Joker and Poison Ivy, Ivy definitely has the smaller bodycount. πŸ™‚ Although I wouldn’t call ANY relationship of Harley’s to be ‘happy and healthy.’

          • Zorae42

            We didn’t have a nation at the time, so we couldn’t really legally declare war now could we?

            Alright, so all those people who were living peacefully in their homes and supporting their country that the revolutionaries drove out and stole from (and occasionally straight up killed) were totally stollen from legitimately and didn’t have terror inflicted on them. Right. Admittedly, those acts weren’t done by Washington, but the Revolutionary War was not committed without terrorism.

            I concede to the rest of your points about that War. I was not drawing on any of the action movies based on it, but rather the watered down version they teach you first blurred with some of the finer details taught in later classes (which did not actually spend time correcting the historical context of the nature of the War’s tactics).

            “So…. if the enemy kills your men, YOU are the terrorist? What the frack?”

            No, I specifically called him a mass murderer there. And you know it’s not ‘because the enemy kills your men’, it’s because he used tactics that gave 0 shits about the well being of his men because he could and the enemy couldn’t. However, since that was all legal I realize now it doesn’t meet the definition of the word ‘murder’. Although it is unreasonable/unjust killing so I personally feel it meets the spirit of the word (which is why I incorrectly considered it the first time).

            Terrorism isn’t limited to killing civilians. It’s just the unlawful use of violence and intimidation (often against civilians) for political gains. I’d say stealing massive amounts of food from civilians, telling them that if they resist having their stuff stolen you’ll burn down their home, and then letting that news spread to discourage and frighten and demoralize any other civilians seems to fit that pretty well.

            The whole South thing? I said it was what THEY believed. Key word: THEY. My god, I called it a skewed view of history. You don’t need to tell me about it. I was raised on the border, so I didn’t get it so strong – although I do remember the existence of lessons stressing how amazing Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were (and don’t ever remember one for Grant or Sherman). And I vaguely remember learning about how life was harder for black people when they weren’t slaves anymore (I mostly remember my Dad getting pissed and correcting that idea the instant I repeated it). I also remember learning about it being considered “The War of Northern Aggression” as an alternate view point. But I also took AP History classes and had a Dad who was a major history buff (we watched Ken Burns while I was in high school, it’s a great series!); so I personally was spared the dosing of “Southern Pride” that people who live farther South are more likely to receive.

            But not all people who think the Civil War was about “State’s Rights” are bad people (or racists), they were just taught a skewed view of history. Some of them believe the South would’ve eventually moved towards abolishing slavery on their own, and that it was wrong of the North to try and (“unconstitutionally”) enforce their laws on them. Are they right about what would’ve happened? Who knows, but that’s what they were taught. And given that specific view of the Civil War: as one of an unjust war, they can believe anyone who participated on the Northern side could be considered a murderer and a terrorist (as being “unjustly” invaded incites terror no?).

            I told you, they were the first that came to mind. I apologize that they require a specific viewpoint to qualify (and not a very good one in the Civil War’s case). You want an unequivocal mass-murdering terrorist from history that doesn’t require a loser’s perspective? Harry Truman. Done. Ordered the dropping of the Atomic bomb on civilian targets. After Japan had decided to surrender.

            Patrick didn’t create robots “specifically to kill large swaths of the population AND destroy cities.” He created them to take down the government and its military. He literally made a public declaration of war on the Government and told civilians that if they complied they wouldn’t be harmed. He’s said that he ‘kept casualties to a minimum’, and we don’t actually have the numbers of civilians he hurt. Considering the existence of civilian casualties in most wars (especially revolutionary ones and modern wars) you can’t claim that he’s “specifically targeted them” when that was not his goal.

            Weird how when he does that he’s a mass-murdering terrorist, but when the Revolutionaries or Sherman do it, it’s legal and ‘tactics’ and ‘only to people that fight back’.

            We’re talking about them Harley/Ivy because your original comment was, “I’m not sure how choosing the mass-murdering terrorist would ever be ‘the better choice’ for anyone”.

            Pretty sure Ivy was ‘the better choice’ for Harley πŸ˜‰ However, that was a choice between one mass-murdering terrorist and another so *shrug*. Although I can’t really see Harley settling down with a non-mass-murdering terrorist (or at least not one that I’d like better than Harley/Ivy) πŸ˜›

          • Arkone Axon

            …Dude… the way you’re demonizing actual military commanders by comparing them to terrorists…

            Let me try putting it this way. In a typical fight, there are considered things you Do Not Do. Examples include “kicking them in the balls,” or “shooting down pilots who have bailed out of their aircraft.” There are three basic reasons for not doing these things. One: once you do them, you expose yourself to retaliation in kind. Two: once you acquire a reputation for doing them, you find diplomacy to be far, far more difficult (i.e. nobody wants you around). And three: once you do them, you have to live with the consequences of having done so.

            That’s why terrorists are demonized. Because they openly go for the nastiest and most despicable methods, specifically to be as evil and monstrous as possible. To spread terror to achieve acquiescence. They’re not looking to defend their population or achieve a peaceful solution, they want to be scary and nasty to get their way. This includes using captured civilian children as suicide bombers (as with Boko Haram), murdering anyone in the population who speaks out against the hate (as with Hamas), and deliberately targeting children (again, as with Hamas. And Boko Haram).

            To compare military leaders who fought with honor and distinction to the likes of Boko Haram or Hamas is to insult not only said leaders, but also the victims of ACTUAL terrorists.

          • Zorae42

            Oh no. You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to list absolutely horrible examples of what you call “actual terrorism” and then pull “that’s insulting to the victims of actual terrorists”. Not after all the shit you’ve given over me making that exact argument with torture. No sir.

            I’m quite happy to argue the merits of my examples on whether they actually ‘unlawfully used threat or violence against civilians for political gain’ or ‘committed mass murder’, but I won’t even bother with such a hypocritical argument.

          • Arkone Axon

            Uh yeah, yeah I can. Because unlike your dismissal of Alison’s actions as “twisting the arm,” the examples of Washington, Grant, and Lee are actually different from the examples of Arafat, Bin Ladin, and Shekau. Washington, Grant, and Lee did not deliberately target children, or even civilians in general. They did not engage in actions known to be vile and horrific in order to terrorize the populace into frightened acquiescence.

            You might compare Ghengis Khan to a terrorist, given that he targeted civilians (not to mention the horrific and deliberate environmental destruction the Mongols carried out, which turned the lush agricultural lands of the middle east into the desert we now know it as). You could certainly compare the Japanese Imperial Army during WWII to terrorists. But there’s a huge difference between military commanders who understood and followed the “rules of honorable warfare” (including understanding WHY it’s important to follow them), and sadistic monsters who don’t hesitate to be as evil as possible and achieve their goals through instilling terror.

          • Zorae42

            You’re right about the three I initially listed, they were made flippantly and without much thought put into them. And I have since apologized for those specific examples.

            General Sherman however, definitely deliberately targeted civilians. Harry Truman, targeted civilians.

          • Arkone Axon

            Sherman (who actually loved the South and had planned to retire there after leaving military service) chose to deliberately target PROPERTY, not lives. He didn’t want to kill people, he wanted to educate them. Because, if you’re being truthful about your AP History and such, then you of course know that the Civil War was motivated by one thing: Slavery. And every attempt to claim otherwise ignores the state constitutions written by departing states (where they emphasize that they’re seceding over slavery) and attempts to muddy the issue by rightfully stating that there were numerous economic and cultural differences between north and south… which were all due to slavery.

            In other words, the Civil War was started by a bunch of rich bastards who were sending poor white people to kill and die to defend the “right” to own poor black people and make them work for mere subsistence. It was the equivalent of today’s NATO fighting a war against the Fortune 500. Hence Sherman’s decision to deliberately target property (i.e. farmland, cotton fields, plantations, etc). “You want to treat war as a game, and get good people killed for the sake of your PROPERTY? Let me show you what I think of valuing property over lives.”

            As for Harry Truman, he was placed in a horrible, horrible position, and made the best choice he could. Nevermind the whole “Japan was slaughtering, raping, and torturing people” bit, because at that point they were losing. But at that point the Japanese officers were poisoning wounded soldiers before retreating, telling able bodied soldiers to go hide in the jungles and waste their entire lives hiding from the demonized Americans, and training old men, women, and children to fight rifle wielding infantry while armed with only sticks. They were doing everything they possibly could to avoid surrendering, because the lives of their own citizens meant NOTHING to them. They were perfectly okay with spending those lives like bullets in the hopes that the Allies would agree to a ceasefire and partial surrender. And that was unacceptable, hence the use of the bomb.

            (I will admit that he probably should have targeted a military installation or two. However, as I said, hindsight is 20/20 and it’s always easy to blame and condemn the guy who was on the spot and suffering from a lack of information, when we have plenty of time and all the facts to work with)

          • Izo

            “We didn’t have a nation at the time, so we couldn’t really legally declare war now could we?”

            Please tell me you’re just trolling and baiting, because I can’t believe it’s anything else at this point.

            That’s exactly what the Declaration of Independence was for. It was a formal declaration stating our independence from England, although up until that point we were colonies which had a fairly independent lifestyle primarily due to the extreme distance between us and England. These are things you learn in junior high school. Why havent you learned any of this?

            “Alright, so all those people who were living peacefully in their homes and supporting their country that the revolutionaries drove out and stole from (and occasionally straight up killed) were totally stollen from legitimately and didn’t have terror inflicted on them.”

            It’s like you learned history from webcomics or a cracker jack box or something. The revolutionarie were the ones IN their homes. And most of them did NOT want to rebel in the first place. They only did because of the crushing taxes without any sort of representation. You know ‘No taxation without representation’ – it was sort of a focal thing behind the Revolutionary War. It took years to convince all the colonies to sign up for the rebellion, and ALL of the Founding Fathers wanted to negotiate with England to get some say in how they were governed – that was it. England wouldn’t do that so the majority of the colonists rebelled. Also they did not ‘inflict terror on the Loyalists and kill them.’

            “Right. Admittedly, those acts weren’t done by Washington, but the Revolutionary War was not committed without terrorism.”

            You keep saying that, but don’t seem to have a clue what terrorism is. Or have any knowledge of US history whatsoever.

            “I concede to the rest of your points about that War. I was not drawing on any of the action movies based on it, but rather the watered down version they teach you first blurred with some of the finer details taught in later classes (which did not actually spend time correcting the historical context of the nature of the War’s tactics).”

            Seems like you were using The Patriot as the sum basis of all your knowledge, actually.

            “No, I specifically called him a mass murderer there. And you know it’s not ‘because the enemy kills your men’, it’s because he used tactics that gave 0 shits about the well being of his men because he could and the enemy couldn’t. However, since that was all legal I realize now it doesn’t meet the definition of the word ‘murder’. Although it is unreasonable/unjust killing so I personally feel it meets the spirit of the word (which is why I incorrectly considered it the first time).”

            According to your rather unusual definition of ‘mass murderer,’ you’d be saying that Patton was a mass murderer for D-Day, because of how many Allied soldiers died within the first few minutes. Or maybe Winston Churchill was a mass-murderer because of the Germans dropping bombs on London civilian centers daily.

            At least you are possibly gleaning that you have no concept of what murder means. And a soldier killing another soldier during a war is not murder. Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another human being. Key word – illegal. The whole point of a war is some people are going to kill other people. But there are still rules in war to prevent it from spilling over to the civilians. There are no rules with terrorists to do the same

            “Terrorism isn’t limited to killing civilians. It’s just the unlawful use of violence and intimidation (often against civilians) for political gains.”

            Can you read those two sentences together please. Do it a few times.. Yes. Terrorism is about killing, torturing, and maiming civilians in order to instill terror in the populace because THAT is not allowed by any formal rules of war.

            “I’d say stealing massive amounts of food from civilians, telling them that if they resist having their stuff stolen you’ll burn down their home, and then letting that news spread to discourage and frighten and demoralize any other civilians seems to fit that pretty well.”

            You can say that, but you’d be absolutely wrong. An army cutting off supply lines and new recruits to an enemy army in a formally declared war between two armies is not the same as terrorism.

            And you’ve gotten me going on a tangent again because of the (possibly just ignorant, but more likely trolling/baiting) arguments you’ve been making.

            “You don’t need to tell me about it. I was raised on the border, so I didn’t get it so strong – although I do remember the existence of lessons stressing how amazing Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were”

            That would probably be because they actually did run rather strategic battles. A lot better than Grant, actually, if you’re going to base it entirely on bodycount. Especially considering they did not have nearly the same level of industrialization in the South as the North had. Although a lot of that was due to McClellan’s bumbling beforehand. And Grant’s predecessor, McClellan, despite being a supposedly good strategist in practice was absolutely inept compared to Grant because of insane levels of over-cautiousness and paranoia when it came to the number of troops McClellan thought he was going up against.

            “(and don’t ever remember one for Grant or Sherman).”

            Judging from how little you’ve known about history in this thread so far, I’m willing to bet you probably just didn’t listen to the lesson plan, or forgot what was said in favor of the episode of Timeless where they go back to the Civil War (I believe in the pilot episode).

            “And I vaguely er learning about how life was harder for black people when they weren’t slaves anymore (I mostly remember my Dad getting pissed and correcting that idea the instant I repeated it).”

            Technically true. Mainly because Lincoln was assassinated before he could write any additional proclamations or orders which would have helped the newly freed slaves with getting plots of land. Andrew Jackson was a pretty piss-poor President.

            “I also remember learning about it being considered “The War of Northern Aggression” as an alternate view point.”

            Not sure how it would be a war of Northern Aggression when the South started the war. Sort of like if Person A punches you with intent to hurt them, then Person B beat the crap out of Person A for punching them. It’s still Person A’s fault. Although Lincoln DID want the slaves freed from the get-go…. but most politicians WOULD have kept the 3/5th compromise and other flawed concepts like that if it meant preserving the Union without a war. Lincoln and most of his cabinet, and most of the Republicans of the time, though, happened to realize that slavery was an inherent cancer on the nation. If you really want to learn your history from a movie, the movie ‘Lincoln’ is pretty historically accurate. It’s just called Lincoln. If it has anything with vampires in it, you’re watching the wrong (but still pretty cool) movie. Just letting you know in advance.

            “But I also took AP History classes”

            No offense, but either you didn’t pay much attention in that AP class, or you had really crappy teachers if this thread is any example of what you learned.

            “and had a Dad who was a major history buff (we watched Ken Burns while I was in high school, it’s a great series!);”

            Pretty sure that Ken Burns never made a documentary about how Lincoln and Grant were terrorists. Or that Sherman killed civilians.

            “so I personally was spared the dosing of “Southern Pride” that people who live farther South are more likely to receive.”

            Assuming they arent a minority (they are a very small minority btw), why are you using the opinions of clearly idiotic people as the basis of your argument? Especially if you realize that mentality is screwed up?

            Not sure why we’re even talking about the civil war, aside from that you’re saying the Union were terrorists. Which is frankly ignorant. And I’ve already pointed out how it is but you seem to gloss over facts presented to you for some reason. :/

            “Patrick didn’t create robots “specifically to kill large swaths of the population AND destroy cities.” He created them to take down the government and its military.”

            Then why would he have the robots ATTACK CITIES. Instead of… say… attack military installations. Because he’s a terrorist. Not that he has any sort of ‘declaration of independent statehood’ behind his actions but even if he had…. how does having giant robots attack cities where soldiers are NOT stationed not seem like terrorism to you?

            “He literally made a public declaration of war on the Government and told civilians that if they complied they wouldn’t be harmed. He’s said that he ‘kept casualties to a minimum’, and we don’t actually have the numbers of civilians he hurt.”

            Thousands. He murdered thousands. Real minimal. Right. Complied with what…. NOT being in the buildings that the robots were smashing? Pretty sure they were complying with not fighting the robots since most people CAN’T fight giant robots. They can just run in terror from them.

            “Considering the existence of civilian casualties in most wars (especially revolutionary ones and modern wars)”

            Again, you don’t know anything about history apparently, and you don’t know anything about civilian bodycounts during war apparently.

            “you can’t claim that he’s “specifically targeted them” when that was not his goal.”

            Except it WAS his goal. His goal was to cause fear among the populace in order to get the government to do something. That’s textbook definition of terrorism. WHY ARE YOU STILL ARGUING THIS?

            Oh wait, because you’re trolling and you realize if you keep writing ridiculous stuff, I’ll keep responding to correct you. Okay yeah, that makes sense….

            “Weird how when he does that he’s a mass-murdering terrorist, but when the Revolutionaries or Sherman do it, it’s legal and ‘tactics’ and ‘only to people that fight back’.”

            Look just call FDR and Churchill terrorists for killing the Nazis and Hitler. That’s where you’re leading with this argument. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a soldier in a war, and a terrorist. You don’t seem to understand the difference between targetting and murdering innocent civilians in order to influence an enemy government and killing enemy soldiers where there might be unavoidable collateral damage OF civilians. You LOVE false equivalencies and don’t seem to understand that you’re making a huge one here.

            “We’re talking about them Harley/Ivy because your original comment was, “I’m not sure how choosing the mass-murdering terrorist would ever be ‘the better choice’ for anyone”.”

            Probably would be better to focus on Harley/Ivy than the Founding Fathers and generals in the Civil War then. And technically… Harley LEAVES the mass murdering terrorist for the eco-terrorist who … well… kills less people. Which… okay look, Harley’s insane. That’s the point. It makes sense to be with a terrorist only if you’re INSANE.

            Because it’s an insane thing to choose.

            “Pretty sure Ivy was ‘the better choice’ for Harley πŸ˜‰ However, that was a choice between one mass-murdering terrorist and another so *shrug*. Although I can’t really see Harley settling down with a non-mass-murdering terrorist (or at least not one that I’d like better than Harley/Ivy) :P”

            She’s also partnered up and befriended Power Girl. Who hasn’t killed anyone. Amanda Conner wrote and drew a whole series about that. Much better than being with a terrorist.

          • Izo

            By the way, rather than continue on with this thread of you baiting me to get me into an argument by making the ridiculous post that people like George Washington and Ulysses S Grant were terrorists because they were soldiers who did such terrorist things as getting independence for the United States and…. yknow, ending slavery…. Yeah real terrorist mentalities there…. I think you should probably quit while you’re behind since you’re pretty much saying anyone who’s ever been a soldier is a terrorist. You seem to live and thrive on making false equivalencies. You really need to just stop. I’m sure there will be future strips where I say something that you can get into an argument with me over that won’t involve you calling Founding Fathers, people ending slavery in the US, and … I dunno what you’ll argue next, you’ll probably next say Patton is a terrorist because he was causing lots of nazis to die, or something ridiculous like that. Seems to be approximately where you’re heading.

          • Zorae42

            Oh please don’t. I acknowledged the problem of specifically picking Washington. And even in my previous post I admitted that the specific viewpoint needed to consider Grant/Sherman was not one I shared.

            “you’re pretty much saying anyone who’s ever been a soldier is a terrorist”

            Hmm. I suppose my arguments do boil down to, “anyone in an unjust war that went out of their way to cause terror to civilians or was in charge of people doing so (and therefore culpable for their actions)”, but that can be distorted that to work for any war and a large portion of soldiers (definitely have to do quite a bit of distortion for the Civil War).

            Now that you’ve pointed out the ridiculousness of that track, I’ll stop and admit that my examples were ones that required very skewed viewpoints and were not good examples. Like I said, they were made off the top of my head. I apologize for not taking the time to come up with better examples (especially since I know history is full of them and it’s a failure on my part for not being able to come up with them). Although Sherman still used terrorist tactics (but was not a mass-murderer) πŸ˜›

            In case you were serious about quitting this thread, I’ll reply with some of my points from my other post that are unrelated to the previous examples I gave (so you don’t have to go through all the points that I acknowledge were wrong both in that post and here).

            An unequivocal mass-murdering terrorist from history that doesn’t require a loser’s perspective: Harry Truman. Ordered the dropping of the Atomic bomb on civilian targets. After Japan had decided to surrender. I’m not sure how you can spin that one. Although I suppose he was married before that happened, so his wife only chose to stay with a mass-murdering terrorist.

            We were talking about Harley/Ivy because your original comment was, “I’m not sure how choosing the mass-murdering terrorist would ever be ‘the better choice’ for anyone”.

            Pretty sure Ivy was ‘the better choice’ for Harley πŸ˜‰ However, that was a choice between one mass-murdering terrorist and another so *shrug*. Although I can’t really see Harley settling down with a non-mass-murdering terrorist (or at least not one that I’d like better than Harley/Ivy) πŸ˜›

          • Izo

            “Hmm. I suppose my arguments do boil down to, “anyone in an unjust war that went out of their way to cause terror to civilians or was in charge of people doing so (and therefore culpable for their actions)”, but that can be distorted that to work for any war and a large portion of soldiers (definitely have to do quite a bit of distortion for the Civil War).”

            So you’re saying that the Revolutionary War and the Civil War was unjust? Seriously what the frack?

            “Now that you’ve pointed out the ridiculousness of that track, I’ll stop and admit that my examples were ones that required very skewed viewpoints and were not good examples.”

            Okay, I appreciate that you realize the examples you gave are ridiculous, but I’m hoping you also realize that your other examples, like Sherman, ALSO don’t fit into terrorism. You’re using myths as reality. Soldiers in a formalized war are not the same as terrorists. And if a soldier does act like a terrorist, they tend to get put in the stockades, dishonorably discharged as a soldier, put in prison, and sometimes executed. Even pre-Geneva convention they had rules which they followed. Even without corporal punishment, because it was (and still is) bad for a military career to be seen as ‘that person who engages in killing innocent civilians.’

            “An unequivocal mass-murdering terrorist from history that doesn’t require a loser’s perspective: Harry Truman. Ordered the dropping of the Atomic bomb on civilian targets. After Japan had decided to surrender. I’m not sure how you can spin that one.”

            I’m actually not going to spin that one, since that is the closest thing you’ve mentioned to something that COULD be considered a terrorist-like practice.

            However, I will give you the reasoning they used for why it wasn’t. It’s not a terrible reasoning either, actually.

            1) The Japanese were fanatically loyal to the Emperor. The only way Japan, at the time, was going to surrender WOULD be a war of complete attrition due to the warrior mentality of the culture at the time. By using the bomb, they provided the Emperor with a way to surrender while saving face… to say ‘I must surrender for the good of my people, since these barbarian outsiders will do THIS type of dishonorable act if I do not.’

            2) The Japanese were dug in so deeply that not using the atomic bomb would have prolonged the war by over 5 years, during which the Japanese might have developed the bomb as well (since the Nazis had been trying to give the Japanese the heavy water experiments to do just that before the Nazis were defeated). By using the bomb, they literally saved hundreds of thousands of lives over those 5 years on both sides, not to mention they did not have to reduce Japan into the stone age during those five years during which the Japanese took more and more desperate tactics to forestall their defeat.

            3) The United States was not sure of the destructive capability of the bomb. They weren’t even sure if it would work, which is why they used BOTH of their bombs after the initial test in New Mexico. And they used the bombs on cities with smaller populations, with the President turning down the idea of using it on Tokyo. They grossly underestimated the destructive capability of the weapons though, and you’ll notice no one has ever used a nuclear weapon in war since that time.

            “Although I suppose he was married before that happened, so his wife only chose to stay with a mass-murdering terrorist.”

            Also yes, he was married to his wife LONG before that happened. Decades before.He was married to Bess in 1919…. that’s before he was even in the military, let alone elected President. So… she married him when he was a farmer and a haberdasher, I believe.

            “In case you were serious about quitting this thread, I’ll reply with some of my points from my other post that are unrelated to the previous examples I gave (so you don’t have to go through all the points that I acknowledge were wrong both in that post and here).”

            I’m serious about quitting the thread after this post, yes. Mainly because I don’t believe you’re making these arguments because of any sort of genuine belief in what you’re saying, since I find it difficult to believe anyone would be arguing this over a single sentence that I wrote about Patrick being a mass-murdering terrorist…. considering he IS a mass-murdering terrorist.

            I wrote about the Harley thing in my other post. Not posting on this anymore because this conversation has just become really ridiculous.

          • Zorae42

            The Revolutionary War? Definitely. The colonies were taxed waaaay less than the mainlanders, they were only being taxed due to the expensive ass war that we did take part in and gained benefits for (French and Indian War, or 7 Years War for the worldwide version), and it was not about ‘Taxation Without Representation’ it was about ‘All the rich people could make a ton more money if we were independent’. Especially since in Britain itself only 3% of the population could actually vote. So honestly, no one had representation. Hence why, when multiple other rebellions (consisting of mostly veterans) in the US started up afterwards about taxes they felt were unfair, they were struck down swiftly rather than considering their complaints.

            I mean, I’m glad it happened and we won, but it was all total BS lol.

            Civil War? No. But a large portion of the South thinks so πŸ˜› Seriously, quick google of ‘US Civil War poll’ and you get pretty recent polls of 42%-48% of US people thinking they were about States’ Rights. There’s another poll out there from 2011 where 23% of people from Georgia, Mississippi, and NC think the South should’ve won. *Shudder* It’s really not as small of a group as you’re making it out to be.

            As for Truman and Japan:

            1 & 2) Japan wanted to surrender. As the dates of the bombing drew closer, they were even willing to give the US everything we wanted, except messing with their Emperor (as they did view him with such high esteem and were afraid we’d execute him or humiliate him if they gave us unconditional surrender). And the bonus reasons for doing it (besides sewing utter terror in the Japanese as well as the world honestly), don’t change the fact that it was a terrorist act.

            3) That’s an even shittier reason for committing an act of terrorism.

            No, I’m arguing against your statement that ‘mass-murdering terrorists’ can’t be the right choice in partner for anyone.

          • Izo

            It’s honestly not worth arguing with you on this. Your entire position is ridiculous and shows you don’t know anything about US history, don’t know how to debate, and are just arguing in order to argue, rather than having a sapient point to make. In other words, you’re baiting and trolling, and feeding the troll just helps you to make more ridiculous, unsupportable claims. Everything you’ve said has been horribly wrong and shows a complete ignorance of even the most basic elements of the historical events and people you’re posting on, or even common definitions of the word which you started a fight with me about for literally no reason. Your statistics are false, your claims are based on myth or just pulled out of the ether, and you’re just not worth continuing this. G’night.

    • Izo

      Definitely Clevin

  • Kifre

    “U up?” Yesss. Classic opening line for a booty-text, Al. If it’s Patrick you’re reaching (I have my doubts) you could probably dispense with the phone if you just think hard enough!

    • Danygalw

      If it’s Patrick, maybe he just did.

  • Tylikcat

    Today’s episode of existential comics struck me as both hilarious and apropos to this comic in general, if not to today’s page in particular. Perhaps I should have resisted, but I did not even try.

    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/182

    • Weatherheight

      Thank you for yet another webcomic I need to read… πŸ˜€

      • Tylikcat

        I wouldn’t want you burdened by all those empty hours…!

        (Says she who should absolutely be writing now.)

  • Apromor

    “Long time no see” It’s not Clevin unless she’s trying to make a joke.

  • Ben Posin

    My text game is pretty weak. Am I right in reading this as Alison hitting send by mistake mid-text?

    • Bakkonator

      There are TWO text bubbles that have no “blanked text” bubble afterwards. They are also the most frank.

      • Ben Posin

        When I look at this the impression I get is that the only message actually sent by anyone was the one with the green background at the end. What I’m trying to figure out but is was that sent to or from Allison, and is that the complete text of what was sent. My read is that she by mistake sent the words “hey you” to whoever she’s been thinking of writing to.

    • Kifre

      That’s what I think. I think she sent “Hey. Did…” by mistake, hence it coming up in the colored bubble, which is generally for things you have sent when working on an iPhone.
      Also, elipsis of doom are in the grey bubble which means that a response is forthcoming….

  • Walter

    That list bit…the ‘Hey, Did you’.. what I’m getting from that is that the green text is the other party texting Alison, amidst all of her furious composing and deleting of texts. A buddy who read this suggested, instead, that that was Alison accidentally sending a partially composed text.

    What do y’all think?

    • Carla

      That’s what I thought too, though we seem to be the minority.

    • Ben Posin

      That’s where I came down, though I’ve posted a plea for help as I’m not sure.

    • Bobo Chimpan

      As I posted above, that was my theory at first.

      However on second glance, Alison’s send button in all the previous panels is the same green color as the text that got sent, and most of them also begin with “Hey.” So I revised my theory.

      • Danygalw

        But Alison’s ones are all hey, comma. The sent one is hey. Full stop. Which… might not mean anything.

    • motorfirebox

      At first I thought she accidentally sent a text. Now I’m not sure.

    • Zorae42

      I think it is too. Because of her reaction to the message. If she’d accidentally sent something you’d think she’d be like “Oh shit” then *furious typing to remedy such a strange text*, not *surprised gasp* then *intense staring at the screen*.

      The thing about it being a text from someone else means it might not be the person she was texting πŸ˜›

  • shink

    I think it’s Clevin. She doesn’t seem to want to talk, she wants a booty call.

  • Arklyte

    It’s not Patrick, people, calm down. It can’t be him…

    • Arkone Axon

      Yeah… that would be incredibly psychotic if she were to send THOSE sorts of texts to him, after what she did to him…

      “Want to come where I live and kiss me on the mouth?” With what, the lips you damaged when you threw his gift at him?

      • Kifre

        I mean…She did start that text with “Hi! I’m a crazy person.”

      • Walter

        I mean, he sent her millions of dollars. Like, he’d probably come when called.

  • bryan rasmussen

    Clevin: Hey, did you beat up your last boyfriend in order to make him do something you wanted done?

    Patrick: Hey, did you beat up that guy I sent you to beat up so I could bring my dastardly plans to fruition. Psych – totally know you did.

  • Pyro

    “Hold each other close as time rockets us into the terror of the unknown?”
    Oh Al.
    Ohhhhhh Al.

  • Lostman

    I’m sure if I should find this funny, or sad.

  • zopponde

    Tag yourself, I’m “Hi! I’m a crazy person! Want to come to where I live and kiss me on the mouth?”

    • Walter

      “U up?”

  • pleasechangemymind

    While I really want her to have a nice, healthy, happy relationship with Clevin… I honestly can’t see their relationship as being terribly healthy at all. He has her on a pedestal, and the moment he learns about the horrible shit she’s done things are gonna start falling apart, either because he is horrified, or because he isn’t and Alison gets angry about that (like “why are you letting me get away with this, why do you still think I’m a good person, wtf is wrong with you”).

    I want her to have normal. I want her to be with Clevin. But I don’t see that working out. =(

  • Robbie X Pierce

    Someone clarify for me, please? I’m bad at nonverbals. Did she send the “Hey. Did you” or did she receive it?

    • Kifre

      I think she sent it, ’cause it’s in the colored text bubble. Which usually means it is something sent from the phone that you’re looking at (if you’re using an iphone).

    • MartynW

      That’s how I read it. If she accidentally fired one off, at least it wasn’t one of the other ones.

  • Pol Subanajouy

    Did Al over think her late night text to Patrick so HARD that he heard it all the way from across town?

  • Crow

    “… Two years.”

    http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-5/page-113/
    Check the age of the comments.

  • Weatherheight

    I’m old enough to have done exactly this sort of dithering – but with a telephone.
    Not a cell phone – a land line.
    With a cord attached to the handset.
    With a rotary dial.

    I can’t imagine how folks who are my parent’s age feel – from the dawn of the radio age and silent films to CGI and Cell phones – and I’ve probably got another 30-40years to go…

    • MartynW

      You get a lot of time to think as that dial spins back all those times. And a lot of time to push that button on top before the last number goes in.

  • Sonny

    Guys, look carefully at panel five. There is no new message box after the “Hi! I’m a crazy person…” message. I think she accidentally sent that one instead of erasing it like the rest….

  • JohnTomato

    In affairs of the heart reason doesn’t apply.

  • Elaine Lee

    Congrats on the amazingly successful Kickstarter Day 1, Brennan and Molly! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1009893331/strong-female-protagonist-book-two?ref=category_recommended

  • Amanda

    just going to throw this out there: pretty sure patrick wouldn’t cut off the end of one of his texts like that

  • Soqoma

    Can we take a moment to appreciate her sense of humor, though? It doesn’t surface very often in the comic (especially lately), but “Hi! I’m a crazy person! Do you want to come where I live and kiss me on the mouth” is hysterical. Especially because she wrote the whole thing out for no one’s befit for her own.

    SUPER excited about book 2. Holy gahhh