|
Captain Bravo posted: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. Honestly, after Steubenville, laughing about getting away with rape doesn't even get anywhere near over-the-top evil-osity for me.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted: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. It's a webcomic as opposed to a Big Two multi-title universe that requires sticking to world status quo to keep everything identifiable. One-shot projects with one/two controlling authors can make all the changes they like. gently caress, look at Watchman. Say what you will about it, but it was a superhero comic and it did ] have world peace looming up as a distinct possibility. I like the guidance counselor, he makes a pretty good point. Just because he's a normal guy with no powers doesn't mean he hasn't been dragged into this kind of poo poo before. And they're both pretty classy about correction/being wrong instead of having big dramatic arguments like with the professor from the earlier chapters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
It's funny, in that casual moment of conversation Allison just assumed that a normal person would have no idea what biodynamic violence is like, completely forgetting who and what takes the fallout of all that collateral damage from biodynamic violence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
It's pretty terrifying that despite there being a fair number of biodynamic superheroes running around, one villain could hole up in Boston for six months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:It's pretty terrifying that despite there being a fair number of biodynamic superheroes running around, one villain could hole up in Boston for six months. Mindcontrol is pretty overpowered if it can be done to large groups of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
nimby posted:Mindcontrol is pretty overpowered if it can be done to large groups of people. Not to mention other biodynamic individuals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
nimby posted:Mindcontrol is pretty overpowered if it can be done to large groups of people. If you can control an entire city, yeah that's pretty terrifying. Hard to send in the big guns if the target can hide behind walls of brain-slaved innocent bystanders. Also I choose to believe that Dr. Zero's superpower is the ability to break mind control via headlocks. Nothing can convince me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
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. Look at how prison rape is still used a punchline in 2014. Bad thing happening to bad people don't count because
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Bussamove posted:If you can control an entire city, yeah that's pretty terrifying. Hard to send in the big guns if the target can hide behind walls of brain-slaved innocent bystanders. quote:Also I choose to believe that Dr. Zero's superpower is the ability to break mind control via headlocks. Nothing can convince me otherwise. He woke up one morning, saw the news, and said "my time has come".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Man, that guy is really well-adjusted about the whole thing. Yeah, I was brain-slaved for six months of ultraviolence. Crazy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:I can only go off of what is written in the text for this. Her lines are confusing is all I am saying. If she genuinely does believe that "all boys are rapists" than that would be fine for the story, but it's not clear either way. Reviewing the page, I think that there are basically three potential interpretations of what she said that make sense: 1) "It's rapists, not boys. It gets tricky, but there is, technically, a difference". This is the sort of thing I would expect someone who has decided to fight rape culture with a knife to think. Note that she says there IS a difference, not that there isn't one, she's just (somewhat sardonically) saying that sometimes it seems like all boys really are rapists. I can't see any potential interpretation of what she says that claims all boys are GENUINELY rapists. 2) "Executed. Murder is a crime. It gets tricky, but there is, technically a difference." This one's a bit odd because she diverged briefly to explain that they were rapists, but it fits in with what we know about her modus operandi and her way of viewing the world. She doesn't see herself as committing crimes here, but fixing the justice system's failure to prosecute those crimes. 3) "Executed. Murder is a crime. And it's rapists, not boys. It gets tricky, but there is, technically a difference." In this case, she's speaking holistically about the situation. As in, "I didn't murder some boys, I executed some rapists... it gets tricky, but there is a difference between those two phrases, as whole units". In this case, the emphasis is on her rejecting the entirety of what Sergeant Grozst is claiming; she's saying "no part of what you just said is correct, assbutt". If the ambiguity bothers you, fair enough; I actually read it as the first one when I read the page and didn't notice any other possible interpretations until this thread started talking about it. I believe all of them fundamentally get at the same thing in terms of exploring her world view. Brought To You By posted: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. Say, rather, it moves the ambiguity to a different place. If she's killing innocent people, it removes the ambiguity from her actions because they become wholly bad. Nobody is going to say "well, she killed a bunch of rapists, so it's okay that she killed a random teenager as well". It puts some ambiguity into her character, insofar as she's violating her principles to support her principles, but it removes the ambiguity that we're currently looking at in her actions, what makes Mr. Gaines able to say he supports the slasher in the most recent comic. It allows there to be a debate about whether what she's doing is right. I mean, I come down pretty hard on the "no, it's wrong" side of that debate, but if she'd actually murdered innocent people there wouldn't even BE a debate. So far, in this comic, we've seen Alison, our protagonist, kill more innocent people than Moonshadow (one is greater than zero). So even though we want to say what she's doing is wrong (or most of us do), the question the comic is asking is: how can you support Alison and Pintsize and what they do and NOT support Moonshadow and what she's doing? What is the difference? (I'm not saying there isn't one, just that this is what the comic is asking us.) Brought To You By posted: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. Sure. And I think all of that is intentional. I pointed out Jake's reaction as different at the time, too, but honestly reading back through things it really seems more like regret than innocence. Which raises a question about how much it matters that someone regrets their crime. What would he have done with himself if his throat hadn't been slit in a convenience store? Would he have spent his life trying to atone? Would he have ended up doing some good in the world? When you decide it's okay to just murder people in cold blood, you cut off those possibilities. Is that okay? Captain Bravo posted: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. I actually think the jocks got more development than that. We spend some time with them, they aren't all identical, and we have Alison's Greek allusions accompanying us, and their deaths made them almost a little bit sympathetic. Except the hoodie goblin; gently caress that guy. I'm not going to defend Judge Molestobot, though, that was just a caricature. My position is that her victims being guilty is good, not that them being one-dimensional is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
nimby posted:Mindcontrol is pretty overpowered if it can be done to large groups of people. Not to mention it might have been under the radar for a while. Easy enough with the right mind control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Reviewing the page, I think that there are basically three potential interpretations of what she said that make sense: quote:Say, rather, it moves the ambiguity to a different place. If she's killing innocent people, it removes the ambiguity from her actions because they become wholly bad. quote:what makes Mr. Gaines able to say he supports the slasher in the most recent comic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:She's killing people under her own authority and judgement. Isn't that bad enough already? My stance has been that no matter the crime, Moonshadow's way of going about it isn't justice, just vengeance. So even in the current scenario where we have abusive husbands, and ex-soldiers who kept someone in a rape dungeon for months. I don't think they should have died, but the system failed to catch them and someone else decided to step up. Sure. And that's a reasonable opinion to have. And the question the comic is asking you is: whose authority and judgment was she using before? The government was clearly sponsoring the Guardians, but was she consulting with them, or with a jury, before killing people? Is that different, and if so, how? I'm not saying you need to answer those questions for me right here in the forum, that's just what it's trying to get you to wonder about. Maybe you think there's some other difference. Or maybe you think what she was doing as a superhero was bad too. If Moonshadow were just killing innocent people at random now, it takes all that away, because you can say "well, it's different because she didn't used to randomly kill innocent people". The story doesn't want to give us that option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Sure. And that's a reasonable opinion to have. And the question the comic is asking you is: whose authority and judgment was she using before? The government was clearly sponsoring the Guardians, but was she consulting with them, or with a jury, before killing people? Is that different, and if so, how? I'm not saying you need to answer those questions for me right here in the forum, that's just what it's trying to get you to wonder about. Maybe you think there's some other difference. The comic has done a lot to show that the time for costumed heroics has past and by trying to keep his dream alive, Hector has unwittingly pushed her along the path she is on now. We also know that Moonshadow felt pressured to try and fill the void that Alison left on the team which caused her to become a more hardened individual. So my question is why did she stay? We know that something finally broke when the government wanted to have the Guardians aid the DEA. Maybe going after non-violent criminals was something that MS considered beneath her. I think that MS truly believes in the cause of helping people, but something changed to cause her to think that what she is doing now is ok. Before, all she had to do was help apprehend a criminal and leave the judgement to other people. Now she is taking that role upon herself. I'm waiting for that reveal because it will help put the rest of the puzzle together. quote:Or maybe you think what she was doing as a superhero was bad too. quote:If Moonshadow were just killing innocent people at random now, it takes all that away, because you can say "well, it's different because she didn't used to randomly kill innocent people". The story doesn't want to give us that option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:She's killing people under her own authority and judgement. Isn't that bad enough already? My stance has been that no matter the crime, Moonshadow's way of going about it isn't justice, just vengeance. So even in the current scenario where we have abusive husbands, and ex-soldiers who kept someone in a rape dungeon for months. I don't think they should have died, but the system failed to catch them and someone else decided to step up. Getting caught up with justice and trying to figure out if her actions are good or evil is a pretty useless way to analyze this. Sure we can tut tut about how her actions are immoral and opposed to our own personal code but i think that sidesteps the greater issue at play. She's been confronted by an incredible systemic issue and has decided that affecting change is difficult to impossible, and so she's trying to do it one individual at a time. Much like Feral, actually! Instead of asking if what she's doing is justice i think it's better to ask if what she's doing is justified. I think there's actually a decent argument for that one. After all, it's kind of hard not to see this as society reaping what it has sown for its belief that Raping Women Is Not That Big of a Deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Instead of asking if what she's doing is justice i think it's better to ask if what she's doing is justified. I think there's actually a decent argument for that one. After all, it's kind of hard not to see this as society reaping what it has sown for its belief that Raping Women Is Not That Big of a Deal. Okay, since you asked the question, kindly elaborate on why you think revenge-killing is justified in the cases where due process reaches the conclusion that the suspect should not be punished. Be sure to include whether or not this argument means that due process can be throw away entirely, and the first response to any crime should be to kill the suspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Okay, since you asked the question, kindly elaborate on why you think revenge-killing is justified in the cases where due process reaches the conclusion that the suspect should not be punished. Be sure to include whether or not this argument means that due process can be throw away entirely, and the first response to any crime should be to kill the suspect. And to chime in, because this is a good discussion, also include why we've decided to upgrade the punishment for rape to murder. And also since the victims appear to be giving permission for Moonshadow's rampages, would it also therefore be justified for the friends and family of the men being killed by Moonshadow to also seek vigilante revenge on the original victims, since after all they had a family member slain and the victims are just as connected to the murder as the judge was in that rape trial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Okay, since you asked the question, kindly elaborate on why you think revenge-killing is justified in the cases where due process reaches the conclusion that the suspect should not be punished. Be sure to include whether or not this argument means that due process can be throw away entirely, and the first response to any crime should be to kill the suspect. That's a funny way of phrasing it, but I'll take a swing at it. Rape is unique in that it is a serious crime that the United States is completely incapable of prosecuting at an acceptable rate. Somewhere around 3 percent of rapes lead to jail time. Again, 32 out of 33 times someone is raped, their perpetrator never serves time. The State is unambiguously failing in its responsibility to investigate and prosecute rape, and in situations where the State is failing so obviously private action becomes much more acceptable. In addition, very few rapists only commit a single offence. Statistically speaking, the people Moonshadow has killed would have gone on to rape many other people. This does not mean the state should do away with due process, but the state should actively investigate why the prosecution rate for rape is so low, and take steps to correct it. I'm not advocating for vigilantism as a general rule, but in specific circumstances, where the State is either incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes, private individuals are justified in stepping in. Tar_Squid posted:And to chime in, because this is a good discussion, also include why we've decided to upgrade the punishment for rape to murder. And also since the victims appear to be giving permission for Moonshadow's rampages, would it also therefore be justified for the friends and family of the men being killed by Moonshadow to also seek vigilante revenge on the original victims, since after all they had a family member slain and the victims are just as connected to the murder as the judge was in that rape trial. Moonshadow doesn't have a jail to throw these guys in, she has a knife. It is not her responsibility to perfectly imitate the punishments the State would levy if it was functioning properly,when she is only acting because the State is not functioning. Moonshadow isn't sentencing these men to death, she is killing them because that is her best way to punish them and stop them from committing further crimes. Your concerns about retribution and an escalating cycle of vengeance are (some of the) good reasons why vigilantism is a bad idea. And if the State was doing it's job with any regularity, Moonshadow would be wholly unjustified. Further discussion questions. Why do you think Moonshadow killed the Judge? Was it because he let the boy off? Or because he's a wife beater who molested his daughters? Reading back through the chapter I realized we don't actually know what happened in the trial, its perfectly possible they were found guilty and given a suspended sentence, or a minor amount of jail time, but they could also have been found not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Reading back through the chapter I realized we don't actually know what happened in the trial, its perfectly possible they were found guilty and given a suspended sentence, or a minor amount of jail time, but they could also have been found not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:They were acquitted. What we don't know is why. Whoops, don't know how I missed that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:They were acquitted. What we don't know is why. There were four gloves. None of them fit. It was practically open-and-shut. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Looks like Paladin is going to be coming back into the story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
This is reallly loving boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:This is reallly loving boring. Have to have a lull before you ramp back up the hyper murder otherwise you burn the audience out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Mr.Pibbleton posted:Looks like Paladin is going to be coming back into the story. See, I was figuring that the author would bring back "Dead Husband Professor" and have him sign off on it as a forgiveness/redemption kind of thing, but I forgot all about Chekov's Paladin, and that makes much more sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:See, I was figuring that the author would bring back "Dead Husband Professor" and have him sign off on it as a forgiveness/redemption kind of thing, but I forgot all about Chekov's Paladin, and that makes much more sense. That was my first line of thought as well then I remembered Paladin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Also that professor with the dead husband was fired, so he's not in the best position to approve independent studies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
I apologise, I've been super busy at work, so I've had to lay off thread watching for a bit. First of all, rape is always going to be one of the tougher crimes to prosecute, given how often the evidence is pure 'he said, she said'. I completely agree that cases like Steubenville need better prosecution, but without mind reading its silly to think we'd ever be able to prosecute all rape allegations as easily as robbery. quote:I'm not advocating for vigilantism as a general rule, but in specific circumstances, where the State is either incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes, private individuals are justified in stepping in. Moonshadow isn't sentencing these men to death, she is killing them because that is her best way to punish them and stop them from committing further crimes. See, these two sentences together lead to a very frightening state. You have judged our current system of justice a failure, and have allowed individuals to reassess judgement of crimes that have already happened. For example, right now where I live, if some jerkass decides to bust in one of my car's windows in search of money, the cops won't even come by to take a statement. You seriously just phone in the incident. So, by your logic, since the police do not even try to catch these people, can't I bash in the guy's head with a crowbar, given that I cannot imprison the man and am not under the same restraints as the police? Maybe I can also make him beg for his life while on his knees before I blow his brains out with my (also hypothetical) gun? Or even more likely, should I also extend judgment to police who have killed people? We have many situations lately where cops have taken the lives of people who were unarmed, surrendering, and even in their own homes at the time of their death. Since very few if any of said cops are facing prosecution for this, am I also justified in taking the lives of said police officers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Tar_Squid posted:We have many situations lately where cops have taken the lives of people who were unarmed, surrendering, and even in their own homes at the time of their death. Since very few if any of said cops are facing prosecution for this, am I also justified in taking the lives of said police officers? Ask the people who've lost family members or friends to police. Social order isn't worth upholding nearly so much when it doesn't protect you and people like you from violence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Tar_Squid posted:Or even more likely, should I also extend judgment to police who have killed people? We have many situations lately where cops have taken the lives of people who were unarmed, surrendering, and even in their own homes at the time of their death. Since very few if any of said cops are facing prosecution for this, am I also justified in taking the lives of said police officers? That would depend on how egregiously murderous your cops are, I'd say. I'd personally shake the hand of anyone who popped Joe Arpaio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:Ask the people who've lost family members or friends to police. Social order isn't worth upholding nearly so much when it doesn't protect you and people like you from violence. Who do you think will be the winner in a war between the police and armed citizen vigilantes? Hint, it won't be us- society will suffer, and the police will get all the backing from the government to restore order. But police are not wild animals. They're dogs,and the key to solving their bad behavior is to make the ones holding their leashes discipline them. Here in the states, Politicians are happy to sit around and waste time and funding while lobbyists shower them with 'donations'. But so far, they still have to answer to the voting booths at election time. Make Police Violence a big enough issue, rally enough people to the cause, and local politicians will have to do something. Most politicians are happy to throw other people under the bus to save their own hides, so make it clear the community will not stand for more violence and demands justice, and the politicians will clean up house. America is only so bad off because so many of us don't bother to use our right to vote anymore. If we all went and made our voices heard, things can hopefully change for the better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Tar_Squid posted:America is only so bad off because so many of us don't bother to use our right to vote anymore. If we all went and made our voices heard, things can hopefully change for the better.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
May I take your ARMS?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
See, it's crap like this that makes me reconsider whether or not the three laws are even worth a darn. What if a robot actually thinks that arms are like coats and decided to be really polite with someone who doesn't have super strength?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Finally, a character I can relate to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Any Gunnerkrigg would feel right at home
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Kat Donlan would love this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Tar_Squid posted:First of all, rape is always going to be one of the tougher crimes to prosecute, given how often the evidence is pure 'he said, she said'. I completely agree that cases like Steubenville need better prosecution, but without mind reading its silly to think we'd ever be able to prosecute all rape allegations as easily as robbery. When the Supreme Court of a country says "jeans cannot be removed easily and certainly it is impossible to pull them off if the victim is fighting against her attacker with all her force" (and this occurs frequently enough for "the skinny jean defense" to be an actual thing) I'm somewhat skeptical that being unable to read minds is what's preventing successful prosecution of sexual assault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
I don't think better prosecuting would've helped for Steubenville, considering how the perpetrators were convicted and sentenced. It was a relatively lenient sentence, but that's because they're minors, which is a seperate bucket of worms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:13
|
|
