|
I think it's fair to say that it's likely (but not certain) that there is some kind of anti-Alison contingency plan. That doesn't mean they've got Alison-killing poison or a team of assassins on tap or anything wacky like that, it just means in some filing cabinet in the DoD there's probably a folder with some report in it that says "here's what we do if Alison goes nuts and starts wrecking things", and most likely the plan is going to involve containment or imprisonment as a first option. This is just something governments do when there's a huge potential threat out there. It's like having a backup plan for what to do if France or Pakistan loses its collective poo poo and starts firing nuclear missiles at us or something.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:I think it's fair to say that it's likely (but not certain) that there is some kind of anti-Alison contingency plan. That doesn't mean they've got Alison-killing poison or a team of assassins on tap or anything wacky like that, it just means in some filing cabinet in the DoD there's probably a folder with some report in it that says "here's what we do if Alison goes nuts and starts wrecking things", and most likely the plan is going to involve containment or imprisonment as a first option. This is just something governments do when there's a huge potential threat out there. It's like having a backup plan for what to do if France or Pakistan loses its collective poo poo and starts firing nuclear missiles at us or something. Not gonna lie, I like the thought that there's a glass case in the DoD somewhere labeled "break in case of France."
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:I think it's fair to say that it's likely (but not certain) that there is some kind of anti-Alison contingency plan. That doesn't mean they've got Alison-killing poison or a team of assassins on tap or anything wacky like that, it just means in some filing cabinet in the DoD there's probably a folder with some report in it that says "here's what we do if Alison goes nuts and starts wrecking things", and most likely the plan is going to involve containment or imprisonment as a first option. This is just something governments do when there's a huge potential threat out there. It's like having a backup plan for what to do if France or Pakistan loses its collective poo poo and starts firing nuclear missiles at us or something. In the event it moves towards ultra violence, the only established way to A) hurt Alison that is B) controlled by the government is Cleaver. Which would again make her decision to approach him with kindness relevant and in keeping with the theme because he's less likely to go through with it. Thinking there is some way completely unestablished way to take her out because you are "absolutely certain" that violence from authority is the solution is completely missing the loving point of the comic. Go read The Boys if you want that. Opposing Farce posted:Not gonna lie, I like the thought that there's a glass case in the DoD somewhere labeled "break in case of France." Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Yes, it is unreasonable because it isn't supported by the work. It would be criminally negligent for all the guys whose job was to figure out "Hey, what are we gonna do about all these kids with super powers?" to not actually ever try thinking up what to do about Allison. Even if that was the case, she was recently caught on camera threatening to murder a crowd while the police watched helplessly. Are you seriously suggesting that no one is sufficiently afraid of Allison that they would try to figure out a way to stop her? Have you actually met a human before? Edit: I suppose it is always possible that they never actually found a way to stop her, though. gimme the GOD DAMN candy fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Serious Frolicking posted:It would be criminally negligent for all the guys whose job was to figure out "Hey, what are we gonna do about all these kids with super powers?" to not actually ever try thinking up what to do about Allison. Even if that was the case, she was recently caught on camera threatening to murder a crowd while the police watched helplessly. Are you seriously suggesting that no one is sufficiently afraid of Allison that they would try to figure out a way to stop her? Have you actually met a human before? Because I can show you several pages that show the government plan to deal with the kids with superpowers was doctors, counselors, and job matching community service. It's a major loving plot point, one that came up yet again about a dozen pages back. But hey, go ahead and show me the Alison killing plan page. I want to see how it is "absolutely certain"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
I think we can accept that "absolutely certain" was a bit of hyperbole. Come on, let's practice some of that approaching-each-other-with-kindness stuff the comic is about. As for whether they managed to come up with a plan, we did have a bit of discussion on that a few pages back. Even assuming no other superheroes are involved, there are things like dropping bombs on her head that might work - right now, we don't know what the limits of her invulnerability are. We know that there are some, because Cleaver managed to hurt her, but we don't know how much conventional force would have to be generated to overwhelm them. (Is a nuclear weapon going to work? Is she immune to radiation if the force somehow doesn't do it?) That said, it's most likely that the government doesn't know what her limits are either, so if they do have a violence contingency plan, it might actually be something that wouldn't work if they tried it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:I think we can accept that "absolutely certain" was a bit of hyperbole. Come on, let's practice some of that approaching-each-other-with-kindness stuff the comic is about. I would guess that radiation would still work on her given that all we know about her anomaly is that it makes her body more durable. A nuke might be a bit excessive though even for Alison. Despite all her strength and defense she's just one person. Gas based attacks should still work against her. Maybe not stuff that works on skin or eye contact depending on how that would interact with her body; but there are a number of aerosol-based tranquilizers and hallucinogens that interact with the lungs and could render her unconscious or incapacitated long enough for law enforcement to properly restrain her. That's assuming a non-lethal approach to stopping Alison.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Remember that this is a work of fiction. We can assume someone's found a way to kill Allison that doesn't involve Cleaver nicking an artery when the text brings up the topic. Until then, it's all just reader inference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Show me the page that establishes that they sat down and figured out how to kill her, and that their solution was of course violence. I think it's just a logical backup to have. I mean, obviously they didn't go "Plan A: Kill All Supers", because that would be stupid, impractical, ethically terrible, etc. etc. But I think it would be flat-out irresponsible to assume that your best-case scenario (they all become healthy, well-adjusted individuals) is what's going to happen. I mean, Cleaver was likely put through the same programs as Allison, and look how that turned out. Is it likely that Allison suddenly goes berserk? Nope. Far from it. But in the off-chance that she does, you don't want to be caught with your pants down while a near-unstoppable force is killing civilians because you didn't bother to make a plan B. The plan is probably largely evacuation and containment procedures, some kind of negotiation, and some speculation on what might work if you had to kill her, as opposed to some kind of superscience instakill that was painstakingly researched, but they'd have *something* ready. It's not outright stated, no, but I think as a matter of versimilitude, it's safe to assume that this exists. There's an actual document for "what to do if aliens invade', and we don't even have evidence that they actually exist. In the story, biodynamic people are a given.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Brought To You By posted:I would guess that radiation would still work on her given that all we know about her anomaly is that it makes her body more durable. A nuke might be a bit excessive though even for Alison. Despite all her strength and defense she's just one person. I can't remember, why are we assuming that Alison needs to breath/is vulnerable to tear gas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
I really like this comic, but seriously gently caress this story line. It's like a 15 year old girl who just discovered feminism is writing it right now. Seriously, I even enjoyed the party scene but at this point it's like what issue is not being addressed. It's not that it even makes me uncomfortable just kind of feel that these are issues that could be spread out and dealt with separately. I thought the party scene was particularly on point, but missed the chance to bring up some serious issues regarding Alison and a disconnect with her abilities preventing something that all women have to worry about and maybe she doesn't have to worry about it that much but it could have went so much further.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
It was brought up all the way back in Chapter 1 that her anomaly (at least the super-strength part of it, though I find it reasonable that it would extend to her resilience too) is not biological in nature, which pretty much establishes it as a phenomena external to her biological functions that steps in and overrides the universe whenever it tries to apply silly things like the laws of physics to Allison getting burned, stabbed or whatever. In that case, there's not really any limits on what it can protect against that can be guessed at from our understanding of biology and physics. The injury she sustained from Cleaver suggest the protection isn't flawless. But he injured her in a way that we do know she is extra resilient to, so it just implies that there is a limit to the magnitude or focus of force it can protect against, rather than saying anything about what she isn't protected against. Slashrat fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I can't remember, why are we assuming that Alison needs to breath/is vulnerable to tear gas? Can't speak for anyone else, but the page where Alison takes out Cleaver has a hover-text which says "Invincible or not, you still gotta breathe." Obviously it's referring to Cleaver here, but Alison has been described as having the same Tier-1 invulnerability that Cleaver has. That is definitely not certain evidence, but it's enough to suggest to me that she probably has to breathe. Hollismason posted:I really like this comic, but seriously gently caress this story line. It's like a 15 year old girl who just discovered feminism is writing it right now. Seriously, I even enjoyed the party scene but at this point it's like what issue is not being addressed. It's not that it even makes me uncomfortable just kind of feel that these are issues that could be spread out and dealt with separately. I can see what you're saying here. I'm still enjoying it, but they could have spread things out a bit more. It's possible that it'll tie back together into a single whole by the end, though; guess we'll have to see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I really like this comic, but seriously gently caress this story line. It's like a 15 year old girl who just discovered feminism is writing it right now. Seriously, I even enjoyed the party scene but at this point it's like what issue is not being addressed. It's not that it even makes me uncomfortable just kind of feel that these are issues that could be spread out and dealt with separately. They did bring this up though? I honestly am not sure I understand your complaints. They're very vague, all around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I can't remember, why are we assuming that Alison needs to breath/is vulnerable to tear gas? Both Cleaver and Alison are Tier-one Resilient, but towards the end of their fight she was able to knock him out by choking him with a chain so I think it's reasonable to assume that she still needs to breathe just like anyone else. Like I commented, tear gas may not work because of her unique biochemistry, but I doubt her lungs have the same immunity. There was also the recent bit with Daphne's friends where Alison states that she does not drink. The only reason I would assume that she does so is because alcohol can still affect her just like any other person and she doesn't want to risk losing control of her strength in casual settings. Or that could be an extension of her own stigma regarding her powers so I can't say much more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
As far as anti-Alison contingencies go: given that Cleaver is as strong and durable as her and they can keep him locked up, it's reasonable to assume the government has the ability to contain her as well. (Whether they can subdue her is another matter, but once they do they should be able to hold onto her.)Hollismason posted:I thought the party scene was particularly on point, but missed the chance to bring up some serious issues regarding Alison and a disconnect with her abilities preventing something that all women have to worry about and maybe she doesn't have to worry about it that much but it could have went so much further. But they did bring that up? And the chapter's not over yet. It's also not really the most "serious" issue here, because no one in real life is invulnerable. It did serve as a good commentary on people who comment about oppression without personally experiencing it, but that might be as far as they can take it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:If you're paranoid about your superheroes, you probably don't set up contingencies involving your superheroes' close friends to counter each other. Well I mean if they were actually set on killing her I doubt they would TELL pintsize that, but his Melatonin Wash is probably one of the easiest solutions to a lot of supers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Of course there's a plan the dead world changing supers are Chekhov's retain the status quo murder plan and will be implemented by the third act.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
I agree with Hollismason that the comic is kind of laying it on heavy with the social issues bit. If the next scene has Allison getting cat-called by construction workers, who she then lectures on heteronormative values, it wouldn't really be out of place with the current pacing. I forgive it for that though, because it's a bi-weakly web comic, and if it really wanted to go into detail on all these issues, it might as well declare 2014 "The Year of the Rape Culture" and get nothing else done. I'd rather it be a bit expedited than becoming a slog.
Pavlov fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
I can understand why the latest scene with the judge is so heavy-handed - he's alive for less than two pages, need to establish him as a villain before he dies. I guess the question is why. Is IVS punishing him for the abuse shown here, or is his personal life unrelated to her motives? If it's unrelated, is it for the sake of making her vigilantism more palatable? Does it succeed? This chapter had introduced a lot of elements and hasn't started bringing them together yet, so I guess we'll find out. I assume it'll tie in to Alison's essay about the difference between being defined by what you have vs what you do. Both the IVS and Alison at the party did things other people wouldn't dare to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
I'd just like to go back to that discussion of Alison and the disconnect from reality her abilities give her. I thought it was going in that direction. I kind of thought it was kind of weak writing to make it clear that the Judge was in fact a terrible person, when it was already established that he was a terrible judge anyway. It's kind of like instead of beating his wife they also showed his collection of little shoes in the attic then he like ate a puppy. Just to make sure you knew he was super evil. I just find it a little heavy handed and any issues regarding Alison are very brief which I find a more interesting discussion than this whole revenge murder plot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
I feel like we're still setting up the dominoes in this chapter. The meat of things is going to be the actual conflict between Alison and the IVS (not necessarily the physical conflict, but once she realizes they're in opposition). If this issue's the same length as 3, we're only a third of the way through it, so there may still be time to flesh that out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:Of course there's a plan the dead world changing supers are Chekhov's retain the status quo murder plan and will be implemented by the third act. This is a pretty good point, and it might go this way, but I hope the comic dares to just go on with all the ubermenschen being already dead because the Powers That Be took them out on Turn One. Among the fairly heavy SJW elements, that was an awesome little gem that gave me genuine chills.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I'd just like to go back to that discussion of Alison and the disconnect from reality her abilities give her. I thought it was going in that direction. I kind of thought it was kind of weak writing to make it clear that the Judge was in fact a terrible person, when it was already established that he was a terrible judge anyway. It feels sort of like these two pages have their story flowing backwards, minus the slashing. "Why don't our daughters visit us anymore, Jim?" "WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY TO ME" "I'm sorry, Margaret. This trial's got me in a sour mood. You know i'm just a harmless old windbag, right?" "Well, I brought you some cornbread" "No butter?" "I didn't feel like going to the store today, Jim.." *camera pans up to reveal black eye* And then he gets slashed. As a whole, it feels like the scene is cheapened by establishing that he's abusive before anything gets said. Niton fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
I do like the storyline but just felt like there's to "much" going on, I super loving liked the Party stuff and just wanted more of that and could not give a poo poo about the other stuff. To me at least that was really interesting and I enjoyed it , just a little disappointed as this seems to be going down a "good vs. evil" show down between Alison and the IVF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Niton posted:As a whole, it feels like the scene is cheapened by establishing that he's abusive before anything gets said. Yes, it would have been more ballsy not to paint him as a huge prick who beats his wife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Yes, it would have been more ballsy not to paint him as a huge prick who beats his wife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Presenting the IVS victims as terrible human beings to the reader (and only the reader) is just an attempt to delay the reader's realization, that the IVS herself is in fact a terrible person committing murders based on an arbitrary definition of "Justice", by distracting the reader with possible justifications that are not actually relevant to the character's motivation. How effective that narrative device is in this case can be debated, but its a valid way to tell a story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:Yeah right now it's hard to feel upset about him dying because he's a bad person in addition to the whole judge matter. A bad person did a bad thing and they were punished. If he had been an otherwise good person, it would have been interesting. His death would have been more jarring if it hadn't been a lovely wife abuser getting his throat slit. I think that's sort of the point, that IVS is a possible endgame for Allison's current behaviour and uh, problem solving skills. That IVS's targets are at least somewhat "deserving" of retribution absolutely invites a parallel to Allison picking up that dude by the throat, even if he's a lovely human being who I got no sympathy for. Like no, I don't think anyone thinks the slasher is justified in unilaterally cutting some throats but a great many (including me, mostly, to a degree, I think?) are of the view that Allison was justified manhandling that party dude but you gotta think where is the line, is she moving closer to it, would/could Allison do something similar to the slasher, I mean she already straight up merked that bomber dude even if he deserved it as well. Eventually she'll do something that leaves everyone, in-comic and out, going woah woah holy poo poo that is not ok, even if whoever she does it to is just terrible all-round. Stare not into the abyss and all that, right? Basically if the assassin's over the line, Allison's toeing it and both we the audience and presumably Allison herself are going to see this over the chapter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
I don't agree that it would make the IVS more interesting to kill not-exactly-bad guys. It makes a simple narrative where Alison has no reason to question that what IVS is doing is the wrong thing and can stop it with out questioning herself. Do you stop someone that kills the truly evil is a deeper moral quandary then do you stop someone who kills people that are jerks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
All acts of violence are not equal. The story may try to draw parallels between what Alison did and what the killer did but they're just that, poor comparisons. It's just not the same morally. Morality isn't some absolute thing that all wrong acts weigh equally. Of course I'm a pragmatist so that may affect how I view the situation. It's basically the slippery slope argument or the argument that power corrupts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:Do you stop someone that kills the truly evil is a deeper moral quandary then do you stop someone who kills people that are jerks. The definition of what exactly is evil is the interesting part. If it's blatant, e.g. not only does he acquit a bunch of gang rapists but he also punches his wife in the eye and yells mean stuff at her, it's a pretty straightforward matter (it isn't really but wifebeaters are pretty easy to write off for the comic's SJW target audience).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
I feel really stupid for this to take so long to occur to me to ask but, why does the invisible throat cutting person kill the judge anyway? What about the jury? The judge just determines the sentence, he doesn't deliver the verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:I love this thread, two opportunities to link to LawComics in two pages. Once more, with feeling!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Ha, I actually had read your post before I read the comic page and uh, yeah I'm even dumber than I thought I was, thanks! I still don't really get it though, there is no indicator in the story that the judge set aside the verdict or anything. I guess it was just much simpler this way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Ha, I actually had read your post before I read the comic page and uh, yeah I'm even dumber than I thought I was, thanks! I still don't really get it though, there is no indicator in the story that the judge set aside the verdict or anything. I guess it was just much simpler this way? And there's an indicator that our murderer is administering punishment exactly in proportion to the victims' actions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:I feel really stupid for this to take so long to occur to me to ask but, why does the invisible throat cutting person kill the judge anyway? What about the jury? The judge just determines the sentence, he doesn't deliver the verdict. And, again, why do you assume she's not going after the jury as well? Chapter is not over yet. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:And, again, why do you assume she's not going after the jury as well? Chapter is not over yet. Why do you assume IVS knows to go after the jury? It would be pretty in line with the comics "Powers alone dont change poo poo" theme is the killer was too flat out ignorant to go after anyone but the obvious targets (ie, the rapists and the judge).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
It's implied that IVS is only going after people who they get the names of, from the victim. So if no one said the names of the jury, then why would IVS go after them? So Kaylee could have also blamed the judge, and stuck his name in there. Or it's the judge's daughters asking for help from IVS. You know, the ones that 'don't visit', and bringing up made the judge act defensively? Just because we've only seen one 'client' meeting of IVS, doesn't mean there aren't others. Kaylee and her family had to hear about IVS somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
So on this page, Patrick says he doesn't "really identify as a person". That hasn't been revisited since, but on the second page of this chapter IVS says "I am not a who". Wonder if that's narratively significant as a connection between them, or if it's just a broader social trend among the biodynamic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:28
|
|