|
paragon1 posted:We know at least one of those though, "gunning down a family of 5 in Fallujah". I think it would be safe to infer the other mercs had something similar in their past. Yep, and that was the inference I was making. It's just nicer to have something specific, or the implication thereof, to chew on. On an unrelated note, I'm going to go to MICE this weekend, and am going to drop by the SFP artist's table. Shall I bring her any messages from the Internet?
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Shall I bring her any messages from the Internet? See if we're right about the knife being special, or even confirm if it's back-engineered from Cleaver somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Ask when the birthday party is going to be and insist that Moonshadow is in fact planning one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Ask her if all men are rapists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Give her a link to this thread. Then run, loving run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Pavlov posted:Ask her if all men are rapists. Nope, but, per the new page, it seems like those dudes were.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
What guidance counselor does that? I mean huh? "Oh hey there thanks for coming in, I'm going to show you a video about rape murder and arson for no reason then we can sit down and I'll do my job"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:What guidance counselor does that? I mean huh? "Oh hey there thanks for coming in, I'm going to show you a video about rape murder and arson for no reason then we can sit down and I'll do my job" You think that's unrealistic? I call bullshit on any media outlet giving that much effort to present the rape victim's side of the story. Completely unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:I'm going to go out a limb and bet that they raped someone. Mmmhmmm. Moonshadow sure does have a theme in her serial killing. Captain Oblivious posted:You think that's unrealistic? Sadly, this is correct. Also, yes, this guy is a total douche. Based on the presentation and Alison's expression, I'm pretty sure we're supposed to think he's a total douche, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:You think that's unrealistic? Maybe that's why he went all "oh god you've got to watch this". idonotlikepeas posted:Sadly, this is correct. Also, yes, this guy is a total douche. Based on the presentation and Alison's expression, I'm pretty sure we're supposed to think he's a total douche, too. Hovertext: "Today we have our first cameo appearance, of a backer who was super generous in our Kickstarter - cheers, Ken!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Hovertext: "Today we have our first cameo appearance, of a backer who was super generous in our Kickstarter - cheers, Ken!" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
I now just imagine that guy showing horrible news stories to everyone that comes in his office. Seriously, who the gently caress does that, here let me shove this in your face. Ugh, that's so awkard...
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I now just imagine that guy showing horrible news stories to everyone that comes in his office. Seriously, who the gently caress does that, here let me shove this in your face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:You think that's unrealistic? It is even sadder that it is based of a real event. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Right, you guys are forgetting that the only thing the media loves more than telling you about someone dying, is telling you "Remember when we reported on these guys months ago!?" I sure as hell know that if I'd done a story on a high-profile rape accusation, and then a year later the accusers died, my editor would make drat sure I put "Don't forget, these guys were attempted of rape!" in the article. Journalists have long memories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I now just imagine that guy showing horrible news stories to everyone that comes in his office. Seriously, who the gently caress does that, here let me shove this in your face. He's not, it's worse than that. "Hey, you're like the most famous biodynamic out there! Isn't this news story hosed up, about a biodynamic-powered serial killer who murdered ARE TROOPS? What do you, as the representative of all biodynamics, have to say in defense of this person who I am mentally grouping you with?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:Right, you guys are forgetting that the only thing the media loves more than telling you about someone dying, is telling you "Remember when we reported on these guys months ago!?" I sure as hell know that if I'd done a story on a high-profile rape accusation, and then a year later the accusers died, my editor would make drat sure I put "Don't forget, these guys were attempted of rape!" in the article. That's fair. I think people (including myself) are just a bit pessimistic about media coverage of rape cases after Steubenville. But I am definitely sure that if those two football players from Steubenville were later found murdered with the word "rapist" carved into them, the rape case would be brought up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
What an amazing first appearance of a backer in the comic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
In retrospect, what was the point of the last, like, ten pages? "She's got superpowers, she's crazy, and she kills rapists"? We knew that. A few weeks ago, I said there was no way this scene was going to just be her killing them and still work as a competent, coherent addition to the narrative. I stand by that statement, these last few pages feel pretty pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:In retrospect, what was the point of the last, like, ten pages? Jackard posted:[Allison] gets involved after these guys get slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Well that would be one way to get her guidance councilor to shut up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:In retrospect, what was the point of the last, like, ten pages? "She's got superpowers, she's crazy, and she kills rapists"? We knew that. A few weeks ago, I said there was no way this scene was going to just be her killing them and still work as a competent, coherent addition to the narrative. Seems like a good time to keep my promise. Poison Mushroom posted:All you people saying she's going through all these stupid hoops just to kill some mooks should be supervillians. And never, ever be writers. Cat Mattress posted:I'm gonna quote that if she ends up killing them. Poison Mushroom posted:Please do. If I am proven wrong, and her killing them ends up happening, AND well-executed, I will eat all the crow I deserve. Cat Mattress posted:I haven't said anything about it being well-executed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Seems like a good time to keep my promise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Looks like we were both right, then. You were right that it happened, I was right that it's poorly-executed. Those guys seem pretty well executed to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:In retrospect, what was the point of the last, like, ten pages? "She's got superpowers, she's crazy, and she kills rapists"? We knew that. A few weeks ago, I said there was no way this scene was going to just be her killing them and still work as a competent, coherent addition to the narrative. Well although some people guessed it was Moonshadow I think it was only that storyline that actually revealed it. More importantly it gave us a look at her attitude and how she acts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Yeah, the narrative purposes of the last ten page were as follows: * Establish Moonshadow as the killer. We had all guessed before, but this section made it explicit. * Give Moonshadow a chance to actually talk. We'd barely heard at all from her before this in the story; we've talked AROUND her a lot, and heard other people talk about her, but it's not likely she's going to survive this storyline and she needs a chance to speak for herself before the end. * Create a contrast between her motivations and those of Pintsize, Brad, and Alison. You can't do that without having her explain her motivations to someone, and who is she going to talk to, apart from her victims? * Establish Moonshadow as a genuine threat. We've seen her in action before against unarmed teenagers and old people, and there's a flashback that shows the aftermath of her killing some thugs, but in this chapter we see her fighting a squad of soldiers that are armed, trained, and used to going up against biodynamics, AND have fought her before, and she wiped out all of them with very little effort. This makes her a lot more menacing. * Start to connect her with Alison. There has to be some movement that gradually brings the storylines together, and this is how they're doing it; Alison has been informed of the story directly, and presumably some more events will occur that push her into a direct confrontation with Moonshadow. The comic can't just cut right from her talking to Pintsize to trying to punch an invisible person; we need to cross that distance first. * Make her serial killing theme just a bit more obvious. So, no, it wasn't badly handled; this is all necessary stuff. And yeah, it was pretty obvious right from the beginning that those guys were super dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:So, no, it wasn't badly handled; this is all necessary stuff. And yeah, it was pretty obvious right from the beginning that those guys were super dead. First we have Moonshadow's dialogue itself. Whether it's a product of poor word bubble arrangement or bad writing I'm still not sure if Moonshadow thinks that Boys are rapists, or if she is trying to distinguish between execution of murder. I keep re-reading that page and it seems like the former is true based off of the sentence structure. The whole "I do it for free" line is just nonsensical. Technically they are both contract killers since The Guardians are a publically recognized, and government funded organization so that line is just for the sake of being edgy. Making one of the mercenaries a murderer of civilians is the same lazy writing that was used for the judge who was a spousal abuser. We were already going to be against the guy once he, and his unit, were revealed to be rapists. Was that information supposed to be a smokescreen to get us thinking that Moonshadow had changed MO? I did like the Girl and the Starfish story because it explains why Moonshadow is only going after individuals and not trying to take down every offender out there. She's probably restricting her targets to high profile rape cases where the victim didn't get justice and that works fine. It also might hint that she approached Private Bernal which is why she wasn't available for comment. Her carving slurs onto the one mercenaries back is also appropriate because it shows that she's gone off the deep end. Also,  jesus christ on that last page. I feel bad for Ken getting his debut like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:As necessary as this sequence might be, that doesn't mean that it wasn't poorly written. I don't want to keep harping on the comic but I really don't like how the last 10 pages played out. Fair enough. I'm not going to tell you you need to like it. A couple of points, though. Brought To You By posted:First we have Moonshadow's dialogue itself. Whether it's a product of poor word bubble arrangement or bad writing I'm still not sure if Moonshadow thinks that Boys are rapists, or if she is trying to distinguish between execution of murder. I keep re-reading that page and it seems like the former is true based off of the sentence structure. Actually, the more grammatical option you're referring to is "not all boys are rapists, although sometimes it seems like they are". Given the particular killings she's been doing, this way of thinking wouldn't seem out of place for her. I don't believe that the authors intend for us to believe that she's correct here. Brought To You By posted:The whole "I do it for free" line is just nonsensical. Technically they are both contract killers since The Guardians are a publically recognized, and government funded organization so that line is just for the sake of being edgy. She's not functionally a member of the Guardians anymore. And they aren't paying her to do this anyway. So, yeah, she's killing these dudes pro bono. It's also something of a joke. I'd also say that she doesn't literally believe that the difference between her and the people she's killing is that she's not being paid for it. She believes that they're horrible scum and she's doing whatever is necessary to cleanse them from the earth, or at least that's what it seems like right now. (Her motivations may get fleshed out a bit more from here.) That line is basically her taunting him, even using a vaguely superhero-y one-liner. Brought To You By posted:Making one of the mercenaries a murderer of civilians is the same lazy writing that was used for the judge who was a spousal abuser. We were already going to be against the guy once he, and his unit, were revealed to be rapists. Was that information supposed to be a smokescreen to get us thinking that Moonshadow had changed MO? I mentioned this upthread, but keeping her murder victims consistently bad people actually adds to the ambiguity. We're supposed to feel somewhat uneasy in disliking Moonshadow, because the parallel she's drawing between the more recent murders and what she did as a superhero working for the Guardians is not completely without merit. I think they weren't revealed as rapists immediately because we weren't supposed to be handed the information that they were about to die right away. It was easy enough to infer it, but that's different from the authors giving us a big sign that says "THESE MEN ARE RAPISTS AND THEREFORE WILL HAVE THEIR THROATS CUT IN A FEW MINUTES". But yeah, I think once we get the war crimes revealed to us, that is supposed to make us think that maybe she's killing them for a different reason. Once it's revealed that she isn't, it strengthens the idea that there's something specifically about rapists that gets to her. Again, not saying you have to like all this. I just figured I'd explain the reasons why I do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
I admire your effort idonotlikepeas, but some dudes are just gonna get mega defensive and dismissive if anything even vaguely feminist talks about rape, and there's really no way to get them to think otherwise. #notallgoons
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:She's not functionally a member of the Guardians anymore. And they aren't paying her to do this anyway. So, yeah, she's killing these dudes pro bono. The joke has another layer to it. Take it in context of what she's said before. Moonshadow posted:No one called me "truly disgusting" when I went ultraviolent on a fellow bio. No one accused me of playing judge, jury, and executioner when I killed terrorists and gangsters without warrant or trial. Moonshadow posted:To me? I'm a superhero, Sarge! It's not about me! You're bad men! You kill people! The meaning is fairly obvious in the context of the first quote. It's a joke that absolutely reeks of a cynical rejection of Hector's idealistic perception of the Guardians. She's stating it outright: A super hero is just a state approved killer. Killing people for free is what being a super hero is all about. It's black humor, but it makes sense from the perspective of someone who's had to all but literally become a child soldier to fill Allison's shoes when she left. Stuff like this is why I said in a previous post, more or less, that she strikes me as the sort of person who kind of hates herself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Actually, the more grammatical option you're referring to is "not all boys are rapists, although sometimes it seems like they are". Given the particular killings she's been doing, this way of thinking wouldn't seem out of place for her. I don't believe that the authors intend for us to believe that she's correct here. quote:She's not functionally a member of the Guardians anymore. And they aren't paying her to do this anyway. So, yeah, she's killing these dudes pro bono. quote:I mentioned this upthread, but keeping her murder victims consistently bad people actually adds to the ambiguity. We're supposed to feel somewhat uneasy in disliking Moonshadow, because the parallel she's drawing between the more recent murders and what she did as a superhero working for the Guardians is not completely without merit. I think they weren't revealed as rapists immediately because we weren't supposed to be handed the information that they were about to die right away. It was easy enough to infer it, but that's different from the authors giving us a big sign that says "THESE MEN ARE RAPISTS AND THEREFORE WILL HAVE THEIR THROATS CUT IN A FEW MINUTES". But yeah, I think once we get the war crimes revealed to us, that is supposed to make us think that maybe she's killing them for a different reason. Once it's revealed that she isn't, it strengthens the idea that there's something specifically about rapists that gets to her. I don't know how making every person she kills unlikable before it's revealed that they are, or aided in raping someone, adds ambiguity. I remember when the first murder happened and I kept pushing the idea that the one reluctant kid wasn't involved with Kaylee's rape. If all he was guilty of was having terrible choice in friends, a concept we would see played out on the rooftop party, than there would be room for questioning Moonshadow's actions. This page makes me feel bad for the boys, but the kid in the #10 shirt specifically. Because regardless of what crime they committed, or who they committed it against; nobody deserves to die like that. Crying and powerless while some invisible slasher quietly slits their throat. And the killing is drat near poetic because rape is an action that dis-empowers the victim, and the same happens to them. The next page solidifies my impression that nobody wins with Moonshadow's solution. Kaylee is in tears and can't even watch the broadcast while the mother comforts her and the father stare on angrily. Killing those kids won't change the past and Kaylee has a new scar to carry on to the future. The judge and these mercenaries leave no room for any ambiguity because each situation paints the victims of Moonshadow's wrath as getting "what they deserve". If say, the judge had to acquit the boys because of police failing to log key evidence properly. Than there would be room for questioning Moonshadow's actions because the judge would have been doing his job within the letter of the law. Heck, you could even have him deliberately throwing out key evidence because he's corrupt or just 2 days from retirement and he wants a quick trial. Instead he gets his throat slashed before he is presumably going to lose his temper and possibly hit his wife again. No reason to feel bad here. We're told that the captain of the mercenary unit killed foreign civilians right before he, and his unit, get killed. Again, no reason to start sympathizing with any of them except maybe Decker, and that's because he's injured already. If every victim is guilty by default and have multiple crimes lumped against them, we can only question Moonshadow's actions because of how cold and calculated they are, and how they take vigilante justice to a terrible extreme. But the writing leaves no room to doubt whether or not Moonshadow is at least somewhat justified in singling each victim out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:If every victim is guilty by default and have multiple crimes lumped against them, we can only question Moonshadow's actions because of how cold and calculated they are, and how they take vigilante justice to a terrible extreme. But the writing leaves no room to doubt whether or not Moonshadow is at least somewhat justified in singling each victim out. that's the point. You said it yourself, nobody deserves to die like that even if they are terrible people. The question isn't, "do her targets deserve retribution" it's "do her targets deserve her retribution". Compare it to Allison's speech to Cleaver- this kind of stuff is what she wants to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
The message isn't "don't kill bad people because you might accidentally kill someone who isn't bad." It's "don't kill bad people because murder is not a solution to societal problems." That's why every single one of Moonshadow's victims being scum is absolutely the thematically appropriate choice. It impresses me how many people in this thread seem to believe that murder is fine as long as the victim deserved it. I think this is another reason why the comic had to spend so many pages showing just how far gone Moonshadow is. Without them, even more people would fail to see any problem with Moonshadow's actions. What's wrong with killing bad people? They're bad!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Yeah, the narrative purposes of the last ten page were as follows: the pacing was absolute poo poo. the starfish page was especially egregious in this regard. it spoonfed the reader every detail of moonshadow's motivation and used some pretty overwrought dialogue and exposition to do so. brevity soul of wit yada yada for a comic that started out as a deconstruction of superheros it sure seems to be reveling in the shittier aspects of them. Wittgen posted:The message isn't "don't kill bad people because you might accidentally kill someone who isn't bad." It's "don't kill bad people because murder is not a solution to societal problems." That's why every single one of Moonshadow's victims being scum is absolutely the thematically appropriate choice. despite my complaints i actually really like the line the comic is taking with this stuff. sure vigilantism is 'wrong' in that same vague sense that breaking laws is wrong, but if a society shows itself again and again to be wholly incapable of addressing a rather pressing problem, then lashing out via alternate means is understandable and even sympathetic. Dismissing a Nat Turner, or even a John Brown type of situation as wrong is a pretty simplistic analysis. if society has shown that by and large it doesn't give a poo poo about you, why shouldnt you start killing your oppressors? A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:despite my complaints i actually really like the line the comic is taking with this stuff. sure vigilantism is 'wrong' in that same vague sense that breaking laws is wrong, but if a society shows itself again and again to be wholly incapable of addressing a rather pressing problem, then lashing out via alternate means is understandable and even sympathetic. This is my stance. Things aren't going to get better at a systemic level any time soon so I'm not overly fussed by murdering the poo poo out of that starfish Except in Allison's world affecting systemic change in the reasonable future is more plausible, because this is a superhero story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Nah, since it's a superhero comic, it's obligated to make less social progress than what happens in the real world, like how Batman still has to fight villains that were designed as 1930s mobsters. And no matter how many times they punched Hitler, no superhero was allowed to win the war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
O...kaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
I think some of you guys might be getting a bit overzealous in defending the author's use of chauvinistic caricatures earlier in the chapter. For one, it doesn't fit with the last few pages, the military dudes are done well. They're much better characters than "racist sexist old man", they have motivations, they're not completely 1-dimensional, and they don't simply narrate their crimes before having their throat slit, hell the offense that actually gets them killed is revealed by someone else. That's much better than the way some of the earlier people in this chapter were treated. I really appreciate the fact that the author devoted the pages needed to fully flesh them out, even if it was pulling double-duty in fleshing out moonshadow as well. And while I am a bit disappointed that it just ended in murder and no birthday party, I agree with Peas breakdown of the progress made over the last few pages. But anyway, I don't really see how you're drawing a trend out of that, since their characterization isn't consistent. They're not shown as terrible people. Sure, they're not shown as good people either, but they don't display the same kind of over-the-top evil-osity as earlier people. They're professional, they're articulate, and they are neither repentant nor unrepentant. Moonshadow just narrates their crimes at them, and then a news report adds some more. They're not laughing with each other about getting away with rape, they're not smarmily picking a fight with The Most Powerful Person in the World, and they're not offhandedly lumping their own sexism, domestic abuse, and a billion other terrible things into one conversation. They are Well Done Characters, and I appreciate the extra time and effort the author spent making them that way. I'm not saying that absolutely every story must have a complete backstory and codex for each henchman, but I don't really understand the line of thought that says the story is actually better for having a certain character be utterly flat and insipid. I can't really speak to the author's motivations for choosing the earlier victims to be that way, but I am glad that things are starting to get back on track and the train is once-again headed for "Amazing Characterization" City. Speaking of characterization, have we heard of Puppetmaster before? I seem to remember Patrick telling us that mind control doesn't actually work, and that people who claim it were actually just making poo poo up. P.S. Small Frozen Thing posted:I admire your effort idonotlikepeas, but some dudes are just gonna get mega defensive and dismissive if anything even vaguely feminist talks about rape, and there's really no way to get them to think otherwise. I was all getting set to write up a big rebuttal about why being dismissive like this makes you an rear end in a top hat, and then I remembered that Brought To You By is the dude who claimed earlier in the thread that rape is 50/50 men and women... So I was going to leap to his defense, but gently caress that. He is not the hero this thread needs. He might be the one this thread deserves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:Speaking of characterization, have we heard of Puppetmaster before? I seem to remember Patrick telling us that mind control doesn't actually work, and that people who claim it were actually just making poo poo up. Patrick was saying that he never had mine control, despite what a lot of people claimed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:Speaking of characterization, have we heard of Puppetmaster before? I seem to remember Patrick telling us that mind control doesn't actually work, and that people who claim it were actually just making poo poo up. Pretty sure he just said HE couldn't mind control. e:fb
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 10:11
|
|