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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admit it’s a good tactic but cmon….

Chibi ferals… awwww 🙂

Tell that to the victim of a conscientious victimizer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good point though.

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

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

Nice post.

You’re welcome 🙂

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

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

Got a second wind.

“Tell that to the person who was raped…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SJ:

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

Why the hell was I brought into this?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Force:

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

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

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

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

Blame:

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

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

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

Unifying statement:

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

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

Re: this story:

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

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

Finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not QUITE, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell that to victims in the cold case files.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Needs of the many, and all that.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Or women like you.’

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

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

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

Daken as wolverine would be like Damien Wayne as Batman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was just awesome.

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

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

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

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

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

urbandictionary just says this:

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

Did some additional research though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They stopped 50 Draculas together. It was great.

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

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

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

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