Grrl Power #1024 – A squeaky clean leader
To quote Agent K, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” I assume that line is paraphrased from some ancient philosopher or sociologist, because I think it may be the single smartest sentence ever committed to film.
Deus believes there are good persons, smart, selfless, and/or wise, but realistically, the selfish, hateful, short-sighted persons outnumber them when counted as individuals, and when counted as people, well, people are easy to manipulate with fear, hate, greed, self-interest, propaganda, and tribalism. The larger the group, the more inertia it has, and the more likely it is to subsume the good ones and fall to humanity’s baser instincts.
And that’s why he firmly believes that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, but mostly except for a benevolent dictatorship headed exclusively by him.
The Benevolent Dictatorship sounds like straight up science fiction, but they have (arguably) existed. Wikipedia only lists three, which is a little depressing, and most have some contention and none of them lasted more than a few decades. That’s really the biggest problem with any sort of dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise; legacy. Maybe it’s possible to really have a truly benevolent ruler. But what about the next guy? In a world with magic, maybe you could concoct some sort of test that ensures a positive destiny, (but be very careful how you define “positive”) but without magic, probably the best you could hope for is a generation or two of benign results before selfish and ambitious parties begin manipulating things to a degree that the primary thing being served is greed and ego.
Tamer: Enhancer 2 – Progress Update: It’s done!
Seriously. It’s done! 210K words of weapon building, dinosaur fighting, harem satisfying, lumberjacking, moderate diplomacing, bad guy chopping action. Also some humor.
The vote incentive it updated finally! Lorlara is attempting to break office harassment rules.
Patreon includes some increasingly aggressive fashion choices. I’m hoping to add the usual bonus comic page, but I’m behind on the regular comic now, so I’ll have to finish that up later.
(Yes, I will fix the fact that she has two left feet. Oops.)
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
y’know, it occurs to me that almost everybody can only think of a top-down solution.
trying to find the right or best system to make things better. anything goes in theory and fiction but in real life… it doesn’t.
i mean, we can’t ignore the very basics of human nature which will always be present. those should be the things we focus on and i believe that’s what religion( not the institution) tried to do. christianism, buddhism, and so on tried to instill values that would help our fellow mankind.
now i’m not making a case that religion institutions are the way to go, but it did try to tackles issues of the world at the basic denominator to try and make society work and try to get the individual to be better instead of having it taken care of.
you can find the best system in the world and it still wouldn’t work if the people are ill intended.
on the opposite, any system, no matter how bad would work if people worked together then people could be happy. unfortunately, those seem to only work on small samples at best.
the best approach, in my opinion, is not to focus on the system or forcing changes through forces as it’s all smokes and mirrors, it’ll have a powerful impact that people will eventually forget and move to the next one.
we need to work on the people’s hearts and instill good values, over time, that can transcend superficial barriers that are seen as “differences”. those differences that make people
honesty, accountability, integrity, compassion, tolerance, respect, all in one standard are a few of those ideas i can think of that we could advertise more. and that would lead the world to a much better place. mind you, it would be a very slow process with it’s back and forth, hiccups and errors but that;s what it is to be human. to fail, correct course and try again.
i mean, it’s been this approach has done and successful in the past for better or for worse depending on your point of view.
feminism did it, hitler did it, marx\lenin\stalin did it, the chinese did it millenias ago, the samurais did and so on.
change the people and you will change the world.
Oh, come now. There are a *lot* of people who very easily think of a bottom only solution, by ignoring the very basics of human nature you say we can’t ignore.
I’d say instead that we must not ignore those basics, because doing so results in the disaster known as anarchy, the only form of governance that in reality works for absolutely nobody in the long term.
yes, that’s what i’m trying to say. because those basic human nature exist, and always will, it’s my opinion that we need to teach, and instill proper values to either make use of them or offset them.
we don’t ignore them, absolutely not, but we can work on them.
also, isn’t anarchy the absence of governance? if so, of course it wouldn’t work since there’s nothing to work.
“… isn’t anarchy the absence of governance?”
Er, no. It’s the absence of a ruler. But you’re right, mostly. In an anarchic situation you mostly wind up with a mobocracy until one mob wins out (or is that *in*?) and takes over.
But cast your eyes over Afghanistan as it was around 1800. Aghanistan had a few cities, but the population was spread over many little semi-autonomous villages which pretty well ran themselves. This made life difficult for the Grand Wannabees in the cities, but it was pointless trying to get an army together as the men required would simply go back to their villages…
Unfortunately, Aghanistan is exactly in the wrong place, as everybody wants control of it, so Afghanis became experts at guerilla warfare, and making life hell for the invaders. Also unfortunately, these resistances tended to interfere with the normal flow of life, so essentials like harvest and herd management became problematical.
Even today, NO-ONE in their right mind wants to spend any military time in Afghanistan. It’s too costly, leading to the shit-show we have currently. But we can’t leave it alone, because.
A bottom up strategy would certainly be Dabbler’s style.
In her own words, Dabbler is not in favor of “peon up” strategies. She’s “more of a boss down kind of gal”.
Any political system will work, in theory… until you put any people in it.
exactly, they all work in theory.
this is also why none of ’em are good in reality as well.
the system is mostly not what needs fixing.
Any system can work, if the people in it want it to. Even if it’s by no other way than ignoring the system when it would do the wrong thing, and doing the right thing instead.
So yes, it’s the people that need fixing. But you can measure a system by how well it performs in adverse conditions, how well it works when the people in it are trying to make it fail rather than succeed.
If ALL the people in it want it to, and/or believe they have no other choice.
On the other hand, if alternative systems are known, and/or if people can leave to systems they prefer, and/or if the system cannot prevent arbitrary outsiders from arriving with arbitrary needs and arbitrary ideas about how things are supposed to be and work, then most systems cannot work.
To work, a system has to be both flexible and inertial, and be aligned with actual human nature, not an unrealistic ideal, and have effective control over its borders. (not necessarily physical)
imo i agree that democracy isnt perfect but its the best we can have, even a soo called “benevolent dictatorship” will eventually run into problems and it will need to do some hard choices and some people will not like said choices, what deus is trying to do for example is unsustainable in the long run even if he used advanced alien technology and magic to make himself inmortal trying to govern an entire planet full of people is basically imposible
like there will be plenty of african nations that will reject his idea, other powerful countries like china have their sights in africa and actually have a very similar plan to his and will likely crash against him, when he starts aproaching sub saharan nations he will have to content against the EU and the US, and the posibility that everyone will like to follow him just because he has fancy technology is not absolute
There’s no way to be sure, but religion has a lot of likely causes:
1) Unite a group of people into a common identity
2) Explain natural phenomena for which there is not yet a scientific explanation (e.g. “lightning is from Zeus/Thor”)
3) Provide comfort in times of grief by presenting the idea of an afterlife
4) Justify pre-existing feelings or beliefs, such as “that other tribe over there is bad because god says so and therefore it’s righteous if we take their stuff, murder most of them, and take the rest as slaves or war brides.”
5) Exert control over a group so that the priest class can enrich themselves and have an easy life without having to work. (For two examples, check Exodus 39 and Leviticus 2. Ex39 is all about the nice clothes that Moses said God had commanded the priests be given. Lev 2 talks about how the priests get to keep all grain offerings except for a single handful, which goes to God.)
On the first day, Man made God in His image.
On the second day, Man told God what to do.
On the third day, Man rested.
“y’know, it occurs to me that almost everybody can only think of a top-down solution.”
Probably due to the need for approval from the folks with the most distance to fall. There is a need to provide them with parachutes.
Having said that, the world is slowly creeping toward bottom-up democracy, the real thing where all people get a day-to-day say in the running of the globe. It’s gonna be a while, evolution ain’t nuthin fast, but with any luck we’ll get there. Sometime. If we can avoid global suicide.
BUT.
“feminism did it, hitler did it, marx\lenin\stalin did it, the chinese did it millenias ago, the samurais did and so on.”
No, they didn’t. (FWIW, the samurai were soldiers who served feudal lords.) Marx was a German economist; Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and the Chinese were all top-down-ocrats. But that doesn’t mean we will never get there.
No, the world is not creeping toward bottom up democracy.
It is more firmly in the hands of the elites than it ever was. The level of thought control already in place is ludicrous. (Convincing your own side that the other side is the one that is lying, and any evidence that agrees with them can be ignored, is half the battle.)
Benevolent Dictatorship. Only heard that in Jerry Pournelle novels. He did make a compelling case though. He also wrote a lot of stories where it went horribly horribly wrong. Like really horribly. Like it wasn’t even fiction. It happened.
Really, then you must not read much. 2 off the top of my pointy empty head…Pratchett (whose benevolent dictator found ways ot subvert even criminals) Heinlein, that benevolent dictator has NO power. But if she makes a suggestion others act on it. Rather an interesting concept that one, it’s more anarchy than ruling.
Deus does tend to act more as a guide than a ruler, if you notice. He never seems to take over the political end of things. He always seems to let the country retain ‘sovereignty’ but instead supplements their military and takes over how they manage their economy – with proven records of success. He makes it so people WANT to follow his guidance and except his leadership via this guidance.
It’s rather brilliant but why would anyone expect anything less from the paragon of humanity, pinnacle of the win-win, and savior of the downtrodden, the perfect man, Deus?
Pander, aka Lorlara, probably in a cheerleader outfit. But I won’t claim to be anti-Deus. Yesterday I was accused of identifying with him.
:)
I’m hoping you wrote that sarcastically. And I’m openly anti-Deus.
I’m anti-Indinge Sr. instead. Quite openly. :)
“he makes it so people WANT to follow his guidance” by murdering people who refuse and then saying to the survivors “you sure you want to refuse too?”
He doesn’t act like a politician because he is a despot. Everyone under his rule knows that they benefit from the arrangement only as long as they submit to EVERYTHING he demands at any time he demands it, or they will go from comfortably wealthy to dead on a moment’s notice.
You can’t conquer someone by force then pretend to be their best friend and expect that all will be forgiven and forgotten.
Odd for you to be on the side of people who murder men, women, and children but to each their own I guess. Also Deus has NEVER threatened the helpless and downtrodden. He saves them from people who DO threaten and murder them with impunity.
But hey, you can be on the side of warlords like Indinge, or on the side of failed states like Mozambique which force children to be child soldiers, disappear people for speaking up against the government, and manage things in a way so that 99 percent of the population go without electricity or clean water, and I will be on the side of the person who puts them into a first world-style nation with education, health care, medical care, skills, money, a stable middle class economy, and upwards mobility. :)
“he makes it so people WANT to follow his guidance”
Yes, he makes people want to follow his guidance by actually providing what he promises, and makes sure that you see that the other side, from who he OPPOSES, is only providing poverty, starvation, hopelessness, and death.
Why would you think that’s BAD? He’s providing guidance. The point of providing guidance is to show that the thing you re guiding someone to is better than the thing they are currently in.
“by murdering people who refuse”
Deus has not murdered people. He’s acted in self-defense and defense of others. And he’s killed people in a very legal manner far less often than the ‘heroes’ in the comic. Maxima’s entire job in Afghanistan was killing, or as you’d read it, murdering, other enemy supers. She outright stated it at the press conference. Cora killed, or as you’d read it, murdered, Spackle McWallbits so he wouldnt murder Sydney. Sydney killed, or as you’d claim, murdered, two Squidward Cthulus and about 1000 ships of pilots on Alari Prime. Dabbler and Cora both tried to kill, or as you’d say, murder, Detla because Detla tried to murder (she actually DID try to murder someone at least) Cora. And were all ‘dibs on her sword from her corpse!’
Maxima’s entire explosion of the tank was to say ‘if you break the law as a super, I will kill you. Do not break the law.’ “Our enemies will be incarcerated, in traction, or INTERRED.” Robocop saying “Stay out of trouble or else.”
And I don’t actually have a problem with it. For some reason, because you have put up Deus as the villain, you automatically associate anything he does as being villainous though. Even when he hasnt actually done anything villainous.
Even if you don’t agree with me that he does a lot of things that are downright virtuous, I find it amazing that you don’t at least think what he’s done is good. Or at least NOT BAD THINGS.
“and then saying to the survivors “you sure you want to refuse too?””
He has never even ONCE HINTED at threatening the innocent. Not even slightly, unlike Maxima, who has. Several times. After Indinge was killed, he didnt tell the prince ‘Do as I say or you will die as well.”
He showed him video of his father murdering, raping, torturing, and terrorizing innocent men, women, and children, and ordering his men to make sure that anyone they know get the same treatment. The prince was DISGUSTED by what he saw his father doing. Deus stated out right that he knew for a fact that the prince had no idea of what his father was doing, and considered him to be a good person. Then asked if he wanted to be the richest man in Africa. The Prince rather quickly said yes, not because of fear, but beause he wanted the money plus was NOT a monster like his father was.
“He doesn’t act like a politician because he is a despot.”
No. He doesnt act like a politician because he is a businessman. He is by no means a despot because he does not exercise the power he holds in either a cruel or oppressive way. He does the exact opposite, in fact.
That’s what a despot is btw. One who holds absolute power and exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way. There’s absolutely nothing oppressive or cruel about how Deus has gone about things. He has gone out of his way to be open about it, in fact, because what he’s doing is NOT cruel and NOT oppressive.
“Everyone under his rule knows that they benefit from the arrangement only as long as they submit to EVERYTHING he demands”
Again untrue. You have no reason to assume this. Deus has shown, many times now, that he respects people who speak up to him forthrightly as long as they have good ideas and are competent. He tries to work WITH them, not against them.
“or they will go from comfortably wealthy to dead on a moment’s notice.”
Completely untrue as well. DaveB outright even stated so in how he handled hte people standing in the way of making Galytn the utopia it’s becoming. He did make sure they would stop skimming and being corrupt, but he did not kill them. He instead made sure they realized how working with him would make them rich. It’s not ‘within a moment’s notice.’
It’s ‘Don’t go around killing people and stealing their money – you can get rich through good works in the system which I’ve set up instead. If you try to hurt and kill people for your own benefit, that is breaking the law, and breaking the law has repercussions. Now I know that you might not be used to this because before I came around, EVERYONE was corrupt, but that’s in the past and I’m trying to help you get into the future. So just work with me, or at least don’t be a criminal who abuses people and robs them blind, so everyone can benefit okay?’ And they did work with him. And it all worked out.
“You can’t conquer someone by force then pretend to be their best friend and expect that all will be forgiven and forgotten.”
Most of what Deus has done is NOT by force. That’s sort of the point. It’s by economics. The people he punishes by force don’t need to pretend to be his friend because they’re not alive afterwards. Fortunately, those people tend to be the worst of the worst, evil monsters who torture their citizens, or who defend those who do torture their citizens. And even those people would not be dead if they instead just TALKED to him and negotiated in peaceful diplomacy, which is always what Deus seems to do FIRST.
Deus would rather buy something than negotiate. Deus would rather negotiate than fight. Deus would rather fight than kill. And Deus would rather accept a surrender than deal with victory by attrition. Every single time, Deus tries to take the path of most peace to achieve his goals.
“then pretend to be their best friend and expect that all will be forgiven and forgotten.”
You ignore what’s actually happening IN THE COMIC though. These people not only forgive him for what he’s one, they THANK him for what he’s done. When the Allies came into Germany and freed the jews from Auschwitz, do you think the German Jews were ‘We forgive you for capturing or killing the German army and german leadership’?
No. They were THANKFUL because those people were ENSLAVING AND EXTERIMINATING THEM. You are conflating the people being tortured and killed with the person at the top doing the torturing and killing. If you kill the person at the top doing the torturing and killing, the people who were being tortured and killed are not going to be angry at you, for crying out loud. They’re going to be grateful. Because you are a hero to them, not a despot. Unless you wind up then doing the same thing – which Deus IS NOT DOING.
What makes Deus no better than the tyrants he’s displacing is that he still does not take no for an answer if it is within his means to force a yes. He’s the kind of villain who leans hard on technicalities and plausible deniability to get away with what he does, and you have clearly fallen into it hook line and sinker, but when push comes to shove if he hits a hard wall he always defaults to “Its too bad you aren’t cooperating. Maybe some violence will change your mind”
The only times we have ever seen him “graciously” accept a no has been when the no is coming from someone who he can’t threaten. That’s it. We have never seen him accept a failed negotiation in which he could get away with being violent, and him choosing not to go the route of violence. The fact that he happens to negotiate almost exclusively with villains does not mean it’s fair to assume he is a completely different person off-screen than he is on-screen. (and in fact, it would be just bad writing to solve the problem of Deus by saying “actually he’s a great guy, we just didn’t show you the parts where he was noble and pure”)
I’m nto going to be addressing your post point for point though, as you wrote three *pages* of text and nobody has time for that.
“What makes Deus no better than the tyrants he’s displacing is that he still does not take no for an answer if it is within his means to force a yes.”
So by your reasoning, if a suicide prevention worker prevents a person from committing suicide, or a police officer tackles someone before they can jump off a building, they are tyrants because they refused to accept no as an answer from the person trying to commit suicide.
Not to mention that Deus is DECIDEDLY better than a tyrant because his version of ‘force’ is to make life so wonderful for you that your own general sense of ‘this is good for me’ makes you think ‘I’m going to do this because it’s better for me than not doing it.’
There’s a big difference. Deus does not use a heavy hand unless he has no other choice, and even when he does, he’s very quick to use alternatives that benefit both sides instead. He always seems to want to arrive at an outcome which puts everyone in a much better outcome than they were in beforehand. The only unusual thing at all is Deus is consistently capable of meeting these outcomes positively. This is NOT tyrannical behavior.
“He’s the kind of villain”
He’s not a villain and you’ve yet to show that he is.
“who leans hard on technicalities”
You just described a good businessman, a good scientist, or Batman.
“and plausible deniability”
Now you just described a good businessman or a good lawyer. Unless you think all businessmen and lawyers are villains. In which case I hope you never need a businessman or lawyer to help you with anything.
“and you have clearly fallen into it hook line and sinker,”
I’ve ‘fallen for’ the fact that every time he promises to do something that makes life better for everyone, he winds up doing so. That’s called ‘general observation’… not ‘being tricked’ or ‘falling for it.’
He’s yet to do anything evil. He consistently tries to be as peaceful as possible, even when dealing with incredibly evil people. The people he helps are incredibly grateful for his help, and others around him beg him to help them as well. You seem to ignore this because you are invested in the concept that he is a villain merely because he likes villainous tropes, but Deus clearly likes subverting those villainous tropes and likes deconstructing the villain archetype. But everything he’s done, every move he’s made, every intention he’s had – none of them have been villainous, and it’s been very easy to describe EVERYTHING he’s done as being GOOD instead.
“but when push comes to shove if he hits a hard wall he always defaults to “Its too bad you aren’t cooperating. Maybe some violence will change your mind””
This is again untrue. He does not always resort to violence. In fact, he almost never resorts to violence. Even with violent people – he did not with Sciona. The only time he seems to use violence is in defense (and yes, Mozambique residents were begging him to come into the area to help them, which coincided with his own plans), or when he realizes that defense will be necessary because he knows his opponents well.
“The only times we have ever seen him “graciously” accept a no has been when the no is coming from someone who he can’t threaten.”
Again, he does not use violence as a first ,second or third step. He barely wants it as a final step even. Although if you believe that ANY NEGOTATION IN HISTORY, or any nation in history, has ever been successful without having violence as the absolute final step, then I’d love to hear an example of that. Deus is unique in that he goes out of his way to avoid it and does not WANT violence. If anything, Deus does not like the idea of violence in general. He likes the idea of agreements for the betterment of both sides.
“We have never seen him accept a failed negotiation in which he could get away with being violent, and him choosing not to go the route of violence.”
That would be because he has yet to fail any negotiations. If he does not think he can succeed in a negotiation, like with the Alari at first, he just sits and waits, and lets other parties play against each other instead, as Lorlana described it. Don’t let the fact that he’s brilliant make you assume he’s also malevolent.
“The fact that he happens to negotiate almost exclusively with villains”
Again, you are wrong. He’s obviously negotiated with non-villains as well – he’s in a partnership with ARCHON. All of the people of Galytn, aside from Indinge, were NOT villains. But he is more likely to take a harder stance when dealing with villains because villains are less trustworthy than non-villains, and there are less qualms about being harsh with a ruthless villain than a well-meaning government agency or hero.
“does not mean it’s fair to assume he is a completely different person off-screen than he is on-screen.”
Your assumptions on what he is like off-screen is not canon. From what we’ve seen on-screen, he always tries to use a peaceful means first. He only resorts to violence when absolutely necessary, and always with people who are willing and WANTING (and about) to kill him as well.
I’m basing everything on what I’ve actually seen in the comic. I’m basing it on what I’ve seen, and build up my view of Deus from there. You’re basing it on what you’d want to see since you automatically assume he’s a villain, then try to fill in the blanks to make that work. It doesnt work because if a villain, Deus is a VERY badly done villain. He’s a rather interesting hero or anti-hero though. At best, Deus is a antagonist on the side of good. Again, very much like David Xanatos is post heel turn to the Garygoyles, while Demona or Thailog (or arguably Oberon) are villains.
” (and in fact, it would be just bad writing to solve the problem of Deus by saying “actually he’s a great guy, we just didn’t show you the parts where he was noble and pure”)”
Apparently you might not read the comic carefully, because they’ve already shown multiple times where he’s QUITE noble. The ashtray girl. His giving $500 million in Deus Stocks to the poorest americans, quite altruistically, And in general what he’s done for the people of Galytn when he could have achieved the same goals a lot quicker, with a lot more evil means. That he probably still could get away with if he wanted.
“I’m nto going to be addressing your post point for point though, as you wrote three *pages* of text and nobody has time for that.”
Why not? I respond like that to others’ posts all the time. And I’m both working on several cases AND dealing with a severe case of viral bronchitis (I am on so many meds so that I can continue breathing that it isnt funny) as I write this. :)
Honestly, I have to take issue with one thing here. Not in the comic, but in the commentary by DaveB. I find it genuinely infuriating, insulting, and offensive… not to mention 100% wrong, a flat out LIE.
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”
That is the kind of arrogant, condescending, odious lie that gets foisted upon us by elites suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. The “and you know it” part makes me want to do VIOLENCE to Tommy Lee Jones’ character, it is so incredibly offensive.
I live in the city that had the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. A multi-millionaire opened fire upon a packed crowd at a concert. The police response was abysmal; they refused to enter the shooter’s hotel room to confront him, leaving him free to continue attacking the crowd. In the aftermath many of the wounded had severe difficulties in paying their medical bills… y’know, after being shot for funsies by a multi-millionaire. The “elites” who claim that “people are dumb, panicky animals” failed on every possible level.
But you know what the crowd did? Well… they demonstrated how the quote from “MIB” is such a pathetic lie. See, the “crowd,” the “mob,” the “group” never actually existed as such. It was simply a large collection of individuals, who reacted as best they could given the limited information available to them. At first they assumed they were hearing fireworks (which we see a lot of, around here. Especially at the casinos). Then, when they realized they were being fired upon, they did their best to flee in as logical a fashion as they could. Many of them placed themselves in further danger because they chose to help others, getting them to safety.
A few even took the opportunity to do some carjacking… so they could drive the wounded to nearby hospitals. There was even one guy who, being too drunk and too pissed to do anything more, settled for glaring up at the shooter and flipping him off.
That movie quote is an offensive and disgusting lie. It was created by an industry run by liars, frauds, and criminals who take pride in their ignorance while assuming their audiences are too dumb to function by themselves (I’ve worked with some of them. They really ARE that bad). And it is a quote from a movie where the “heroes” are a secretive government organization that deliberately conceals important information from the public and violates civil liberties, without any oversight from elected officials.
Yeah, no. I’ll agree that Hollywood is full of liars, and that movies have no ultimate “truth”.
But the rest of that is a hilariously bad take.
Running away in various directions and ways is not wrong, but you would be lying if you claimed that what most of the crowd did was not “panicking”. When mortal danger occurs, random panic is a statistically useful strategy. So they did it, and it worked. (Although some people were injured *by* the panic as well.)
Your repeated rhetoric that the crazy shooter was a “multi-millionaire” is interesting, but to what degree to you actually believe that the guy’s money determined anything regarding the response to him, **before anyone knew who he was**?
Do the police have wealth-detectors built into their emergency response procedures? Really?
No, they don’t.
Any time you propose that any response of police and other authorities that you attribute to Paddock’s wealth, you are engaging in a level of bullshit that has to be intentional.
He was *dead* by the time his wealth was known. You know this, so you are intentionally bullshitting because you irrationally hate wealth or the wealth.
Why not focus on the fact that Paddock was an auditor? They are evil by nature, right? Or a drinker and gambler? That’s immoral and lacks impulse control. Or that he was twice divorced? Definite loser.
Why focus on the fact that Paddock had at one point saved up some money? It’s obscene and disgusting to be that envious of wealth.
Get over your politics and be honest with yourself. You’ll make less stupid claims.
No, I am telling the simple truth by stating that the majority of the crowd did not panic. They did the best they could in a bad situation. “Random panic” is not a thing. The closest anyone comes to that is “hypervigilance,” where extreme stress leads to tunnel vision or freezing in place.
I note that you then spend the rest of your comment ranting over my mentioning that the shooter was a multi-millionaire. Along with some… truly ridiculous statements. For instance, at no point did I propose that the pathetic police response was in response to Paddock’s wealth. Seriously, all you did was reinforce my point that anyone who thinks the MIB quote is anything other than a disgusting lie are in fact secretly aware of it, but are really really desperate to feel superior to someone. ;)
you may not agree but there is a merit to that sentence.
there are socio-psychology studies that shows that when in a group, especially an stirred one, people will become high on emotion and trade off a bit of their logical minds and become a bit more primal in their actions. monkey see monkey do type of setting. if someone see somebody else do something, at the back of their minds, they’ll use it as a justification to do it as well. individuality becomes muddled and group thinking becomes a thing. now, mind you, of course not everyone become susceptible or become affected by it. this usually is mitigated by a strong sense of self or values but if enough people, especially empathetic people, are exposed to a stimuli then the odds of it spreading like wild fire becomes much higher the more people react to it. like a wild fire.
it’s a very vast and complex topic but to make things short, it is a thing.
this is why we see protest turning into riots and not the other way around. this is how mobs happen, this is how ordinary german police forces become mass murderers in WWII.
this is also how a card game encouraging backstabbing can turn into a very honest one if the first move set the tone into honesty, or how one person doing the right thing encourages more people to do the same or, to put it a name, leading by exemple. this is how an organization can get volunteers or raise money. by setting the tone, people will follow.
we are very complex thinking creature but at the end of the day, we are also animal rules by hormones, emotions and sometimes, logic.
“this is why we see protest turning into riots and not the other way around.”
No, we see that happen due to instigators. This was seen repeatedly during the last few years in particular, with protests from all sides. Though it’s hardly new; it’s been a tactic used since the 1960s at the very least, probably longer. Present the protestors as deranged rioters, and discredit their position.
“this is how ordinary german police forces become mass murderers in WWII.”
Not really, no. The Gestapo had their morally principled members replaced by those willing to “do the job.” And even then, they didn’t fill any mass graves, they arrested ‘undesirables” and sent them to the camps (where others, who were already very willing to do the job, converted innocent victims into ashes in ovens).
I do however completely agree with you regarding the effectiveness of positive examples. As you said, we are ruled by emotions – and everyone wants to be a hero. We want to be the good guys. This is why most attempts to manipulate people are based not on invitations to be awful, but on the demonizations of others as awful.
What exactly do you mean by instigators? People opposing the the goals/demands of those protesting and trying to discredit the protest by sparking a riot? Or those who don’t care about the cause and just want to riot? Or those who think that “just a protest” is not enough? In any case instigators can succeed only if others let themselves be instigated, if they join.
Instigators can be agent provocateurs, people who are opposed to the movement and pretend to be a member of it in order to incite others to violence or commit violence in the name of the movement in order to taint its public perception.
They can also be trigger-happy cops who show up and start tear gassing and beating on peaceful protestors. When the protestors fight back it’s not called self-defense it’s called rioting…because obviously the police are always the good guys, right?
Which is not to say that protestors are always blameless and that protests don’t sometimes turn violent without instigation. It’s a lot less common than people believe, but it does happen.
Incidentally, if you’re looking for examples:
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
Summary:
93% of all BLM protests have been peaceful
The 7% includes incidents of fighting back against the police as opposed to instigating violence.
The reason you think the percentage is higher is because there have been active disinformation campaigns to convince people that BLM is violent. https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/adl-debunk-disinformation-and-the-blm-protests
Another example is the guy who showed up to the Canadian protests with a Confederate flag, trying to make them look bad. It was fucking Canada, what kind of idiot thought THAT would work? The Canadian truckers shut that guy down immediately and then identified that he was there specifically to make them look bad.
And guess what? Despite the fact the guy was caught out and shut down immediately, Trudeau later claimed in Parliament that the protesters were happy to stand alongside swastikas and Confederate Flags.
this
How do you think instigators work? A protest is completely peaceful, then one person dressed up as a fellow protestor throws a rock, and within moments a vast majority of the previously peaceful protestors are now screaming and throwing rocks.
Each person did not go “Oh hey, that one guy threw a rock. Is throwing a rock a good idea? Let me weigh the benefits and risks of rock throwing” they all just begin to copy the behavior without thinking about it.
That’s why people are dumb panicky animals. In a group, humans become considerably less rational than they normally would be alone in order to act as a group more effectively.
Oh… there’s a LOT more to it than “one guy throws one rock.” Some examples seen in the last few years:
Cops infiltrating the crowd and then shoving them towards the line of riot cops, creating a pretext for the resulting beatings, pepper sprayings, etc.
Bringing in violent types and encouraging them to go wild in areas the police have publicly declared they will not patrol, before declaring, “see? This is why you need us! Look at all that violence that happened when we weren’t there!”
Agents infiltrating groups, suggesting violent and felonious activities, and literally doing everything from providing all the necessary gear to paying for food and drinks while pressuring the “conspirators” to go through with the plan (before arresting them at the last minute).
Oh, and of course inflammatory imagery on the news, depicting the target group as dangerous, criminal, and outright evil.
I have yet to see people turn into “dumb, panicky animals” without intense and concerted efforts to try to make them behave as such, in order to advance a typically nefarious agenda. I HAVE however heard lots of people claiming “people are dumb, panicky animals,” with the inevitable subtext of “except for me, of course. Cuz I’m so much smarter than everybody else.”
In short, humans are not herd animals, they do not hand over thought to the herd and they do not automatically follow either. They will in a panic run with the crowd but not because they are dumb panicky animals but simply because trying to go against a tide of people going one way (away from the danger) tends to end up very badly for the person trying to go against the flow.
But humans /are/ pack animals. In stressful situations we do have a strong tendency to unite around a leader, and literally follow the lead. From sufficient distance this may look like ‘dumb and panicky’ but it is a vastly different psychological and sociological mechanism at work here, and using, or countering, it takes different techniques than controlling a mob of people.
“That is the kind of arrogant, condescending, odious lie that gets foisted upon us by elites suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. The “and you know it” part makes me want to do VIOLENCE to Tommy Lee Jones’ character, it is so incredibly offensive.”
It also sounds like exactly the kind of shit a character in a secret government agency whose entire existence is predicated on the idea that they “know better” than everyone else and that they have to keep important facts about the universe secret from normal people would think. K’s mindset is fundamental to the MIB as an organization.
“A few even took the opportunity to do some carjacking… so they could drive the wounded to nearby hospitals. ”
And from there comes one of the key parts of the elite panic that exacerbates these situations – one of the most common things that’s done that creates real violence and panic is the prioritization of the protection of property.
So this feckin richer shot all those people and then shot himself? All the feckin wankstain did was get the order wrong.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times. Eat the feckin rich.
I find that people who say things like that have never actually taken any steps to actually make it happen.
the only reason anyone really has for eating the rich is that you are what you eat.
Well they are the best fed of us, nicely marbled, well maintained and healthy. Probably yummy.
Apparently no one remembers the movie, ah well.
I find it curious to get so worked up over a line from a comedy film. The whole movie does not take itself seriously. A LIE? No, it’s just a Line.
Oh look here is the liberal in the room. You do realise they were set up by “elected officials” to start with. And there are loads of incidents especially in murica in real life where things are done without oversight of elected officials, not that you should put any stock in them either. Take the CIA, they do as they please.
Well, yeah. In the end that phrase is just a cheap justification for the hidden aspect of the MiB universe.
Not actual psychological advice based on evidence.
I’m kind of cheering for Deus to take over the world. I’m sure he’ll abuse his power somewhat and just use this as a springboard to get into interstellar politics, but he’s not abusing it as much as others would. Sad but true, if he ups the living standard of the average person and gives them enough certainty that tomorrow will be somewhat like today, he’ll get most of the populace with him. Stability and certainty are a big part of our psyche.
A police state where you can be arrested for the suspicion of disagreeing or being a ‘deviant’, whatever that means at the time, does not offer stability. Only uncerrtainty and fear, which is not a stable situation. Seems like Deus understands that.
People also need some chaos to feel like their choices in life matter, that they can reach above their level. Otherwise you stifle innovation and create discontent with the people who feel they could have more, but the system keeps them down. You’ll have that anyway, because people are people, but it’s a matter of smaller or larger groups.
Anyway, cheers
Perhaps he is planning to take the route in Ender’s Game of leading the main party and also running the group counter to his more obvious one. That leaves a feeling of their being competition without resorting to violence.
How about Meritocracy with Benevolent Oversight. I would be for a system that used testing scores for intelligence and knowledge related to a subject to allow a person to join a pool of persons certified for government positions, then lottery the heck out of it to be in the position for a year. The quality of life improvement or loss directly effects your year-end bonus with direct failure resulting in execution –there should be no cowards in the leadership. Allow someone to bow out instead of serving but that also takes them out of the pool for that position.
‘ I would be for a system that used testing scores for intelligence and knowledge related to a subject to allow a person to join a pool of persons certified for government positions, then lottery the heck out of it to be in the position for a year.’
first. define intelligence so we can measure it. bear in mind that you need to be able to adjust for simple things like how a hearing impairment mucks up language comprehension permanently. (hint its a triad of broad options not a duality)
second, who defines competence in a given area? how do you prevent the inherent corruption of using only insiders?
next I’d argue for staggered multi year terms – this helps preserve knowledge and keeps the blood fresh.
‘The quality of life improvement or loss directly effects your year-end bonus with direct failure resulting in execution’
Metrics! who defines the metrics! who checks? Imagine the abuses of power that will happen with putting someone’s life on the line….
>but he’s not abusing it as much as others would
The Entirety of Human History: “Yeah, that’s what they all say.”
Deus taking over the world, barring a bloody world War, just won’t happen.
Leaders are too prideful of their position to give it up and enough of the populace would naturally be too cautious of him
Fortunately, even if Deus does not take over the whole world, he knows that there’s a lot more out there to own than just Earth. So maybe he’ll just have majority holdings on a lot of different worlds instead of total control of one.
But Deus does seem to be implying that as time progresses, he’s hoping that people will WANT to join, which means it’s not conquering like the Klingon Empire – it’s more like the United Federatrion of Planets.
Depends on what changes happen to his spreadsheet.
“more like the United Federation of Planets” (an organization/nation made up of members who applied to be permitted to join)
Except he explicitly says “membership will be compulsory”. I wish him luck in “compelling” Texas to join his benevolent dictatorship. He’ll have to use those aliens, demons, and supers to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Texans before it’s over. And keep it occupied by an enormous number of troops to make it stick. And that’s just Texas. Again, his words. He said “it will take quite a while before I get to the so-called first world nations” (so he’ll be forcing Ethiopia and Kenya to submit or die, first) and “membership will be compulsory”. So he’s eventually going to be killing soldiers from a nation that *doesn’t* have child soldiers, or slaughter its citizens, but simply has no desire to be a part of his wannabe “friendly” empire. Not to mention the militia of those nations and states, made up of ordinary citizens. Will he still be the good guy then? Personally, I like his style, I even kind of like him, but I think he’s a wannabe Alexander the Great. And if I lived in the Haloverse/grrlpowerverse and I was still me, from where the real me is from, I (and most of my family and friends) would die on my feet before living on my knees under his benevolent rule. We don’t serve kings, however benevolent. We kill them, and replace them, or we kick their armies out, and off our land, never to return. Live Free or Die! (New Hampshire doesn’t own the expression… they’re just renting it. Lol)
“Except he explicitly says “membership will be compulsory”. I wish him luck in “compelling” Texas to join his benevolent dictatorship.”
I wish people would read the entire comic before taking one part. It’s a matter of branding. He does not plan on getting to first world nations for some time. By the time he’s at the point to make business deals with first world nations, it would be at the ‘We would like to petition to become a part of your alliance’ point – much like the United Federation of Planets. The compulsory part seems to be in reforming the African Union in order to get it to compete with China, the United States, and the European Union. And even then, it’s all about branding.
Why on earth do you think Deus would go hardball with the United States, let alone Texas? What in his entire history or his above speech had made you think that’s even remotely in his plans?
“He’ll have to use those aliens, demons, and supers to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Texans before it’s over. ”
This entire sentence is completely ridiculous, and isnt even remotely close to what would ever happen. You are literally just taking stuff COMPLETELY out of context, so let me put things back in context.
First, he said he would be building a coalition of countries that are currently third world nations, and develop THAT COALITION into an economic superpower. Once you join that coalition, membership would be compulsory.
Where do you get from that that he would go to the United States and Texas and say ‘join us or die.’ Is Texas a third world nation in Africa, a failed state with a starving population and no freedom for its citizenry, poverty stricken? No. It isn’t. You’re making stuff up.
He wants to have a coalition of nations in order to COMPETE with places like the US. He’s not making the US part of that economic coalition. And like Deus also says, which you seem to ignore, “He expects countries to petition to join on their own.”
He’s going to make them offers that are too good to refuse. And not in the Al Capone way. In the ‘You’ve just won the jackpot’ way.
He hasnt even discussed how he plans on dealing with first world nations. For all you know, it’ll be a set of mutually beneficial alliances. Again, much like the UFP, without needing ‘compulsory’ anything. You don’t know, because that hasnt happened yet and he hasnt discussed his plans beyond sub-Saharan Africa yet.
So no, you didnt use ‘his words.’ You used your words. Or his words taken GROSSLY out of context.
“So he’s eventually going to be killing soldiers from a nation that *doesn’t* have child soldiers”
I must have missed the part where he said he would be killing soldiers from nations that don’t have child soldiers. Can you point out where that is said? Oh wait, no, you can’t. Because its your own headcanon.
“Not to mention the militia of those nations and states, made up of ordinary citizens. ”
Oh wow. So far in EVERY EXAMPLE of ordinary citizens, they’re the ones who constantly WANT DEUS TO COME IN TO HELP THEM. If anything, the militias, if any, would be on Deus’s side against a corrupt government regime torturing and abusing them.
“Personally, I like his style, I even kind of like him, but I think he’s a wannabe Alexander the Great.”
While Deus admires Alexander the Great, he is clearly a lot less prone to wanting war than Alexander the Great.
“And if I lived in the Haloverse/grrlpowerverse and I was still me, from where the real me is from, I (and most of my family and friends) would die on my feet before living on my knees under his benevolent rule.”
Again, you would not be in that situation if you were in the Grrlpowerverse anyway, because if you’re from the United States or a first world nation, his plans involving those areas are going to be VASTLY different than his plans involving an area run by corrupt warlords that torture its citizenry.
And btw, I’m all for the whole ‘fight on my feet rather than live on my knees.’ The problem is that, with Deus’s Galytn, they don’t seem to be on their knees at all. They are on their feet already. They were on their knees BEFORE DEUS ARRIVED, and Deus helped them to get onto their feet.
“We kill them, and replace them, or we kick their armies out, and off our land, never to return. Live Free or Die! (New Hampshire doesn’t own the expression… they’re just renting it. Lol”
Again please stop comparing Deus’s plans for sub-Saharan Africa with plans involving first world nations like the US. We don’t know what those plans are yet, or if we’d agree or disagree with them yet.
Heck, it’s possibly I’d disagree with them. But I’m also not clairvoyant and don’t know what those plans are yet, since he hasnt said what they are yet.
What do you think he means by “membership will be compulsory”? Particularly with how he’s comparing it to the EU, it suggests that once you’re in, you can’t get out.
“What do you think he means by “membership will be compulsory”? Particularly with how he’s comparing it to the EU, it suggests that once you’re in, you can’t get out.”
Possibly. Like Deus said, it depends on framing. Also, this compulsory element will ONLY be for the African economic superpower he creates to compete with the other big boys. It might not even be ‘truly’ compulsory, but rather ‘really really difficult to get out of once you’re in it.’
You know what else is really really difficult to get out of once you’re in it?
The United States. Once you become a state, it’s not easy peasy to get out of being a state. For a state to secede from the union, it requires one of two things.
1) The War/Revolution Remedy
The reason is that unilateral secession is NOT constitutional. Nope, not even for Texas where it’s in the State Constitution. In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
2) The Constitutional Remedies
2a) ‘Ask Politely’
This has actually been tried before, as recently as 2012. To which the response was ‘No.’ by the Obama administration. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies how a state can gain admission to the United States. There is no stipulation, though, for the reverse. Even if Obama wanted to let Texas go — a thought that probably appealed to him for at least a second — there’s no mechanism for him to do so. There’s no mechanism for Congress to simply say, Sure, off you go. Once you’re in, you’re in. The United States was born an expansionist enterprise, and the idea of contraction, it seems, never really came up.
Note that Congress did allow part of Virginia to secede — the part that became West Virginia. There are a lot of things about this that are unique, including that Virginia, at the time, had declared itself outside of U.S. Jurisdiction. But also note that Article IV, Section 3 specifically allows Congress to do this: “[N]o new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.” Congress consented to the creation of West Virginia as a new American state.
2b) Amend the Constitution
So if the Constitution doesn’t allow you to back out of the union, there is a fix: Amend the Constitution.
This is not an easy fix, as such. Amending the Constitution requires approval of the amendment by either 1) two-thirds of each branch of Congress or 2) two-thirds of states at a specially-formed constitutional convention, with the amendment then being ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is difficult enough that it has been done only 17 times in 227 years, excluding the passage of the Bill of Rights shortly after the Constitution itself was ratified.
2c) Get mass agreement by the states to go their separate ways.
This is basically meaning the collapse of the American experiment of the Union. It’s not exactly secession insomuch as it’s a ‘peaceful divorce.’
Other than that…. Once you’re a state, BEING A STATE IS COMPULSORY with very few possible exceptions, the likelihood of which is almost nil in almost all cases. To the point where it’s never happened in the entire history of the United States.
So if you have a problem with Deus’s description of his economic African union membership being compulsory once you’re a part of it…. well….. you have a problem with the existence of the United States as a union of states as well.
Saying there were only 3 Benevolent Dictatorships seems a little bit disingenuous. A lot of monarchies in the Classical and Middle Ages seem to fit the ticket. Xerxes comes to mind, from what we know of him.
You seem to get some success by picking a successor and then training them from birth, although it’s far from failure-proof.
The problem is always how you define “benovelent”.
Every decision from a ruler ever will get disagreement somewhere and just trying to keep the majority happy will result in scapegoating like with Nero and the Christians, medieval europe and the plague and modern Europe and the immigration crisis.
Also there is the problem of outside forces: does Napoleon lose his chances for the title for his military actions in the rest of Europe. He would argue he was spreading the amazing enlightenment of the french revolution. Do the viking kings lose, because they ordered raids outside of their borders? Their people benefited from it. Does Xerxes lose his position for attacking Greece?
“Benovelent”, alternate spelling of “benevolent”.
More seriously, it’s pretty simple. The man running the tax department wants to maximise your profits because he is effectively on commission. If he is smart, he acts in your interest whenever possible. Benevolent.
Where it goes wrong for most governments is taxes on things other than profit. When the tax comes from transactions, the tax department makes more (in the short term) from optimising for more transactions rather than more profit. Taxing transactions is a slippery slope entered because it’s easier to hide profits than transactions.
Xerxes? The same benevolent fellow that attacked the Greeks using conquered soldiers (slaves) as fodder at Marathon? I would tend to disagree if he counted as such outside of Persia, especially with how he tried to make everything in sight part of Persia. The closest example of a Benevolent Dictatorship I can think of lasted just a few years ==George Washington as President refusing a crown, making everything he did for the good of the people (and rejoining the people group right after).
George Washington voted and argued for multiple pro-slavery bills and was a slave owner, since his eleventh birthday and allowed for multiple attacks on natives under his rule.
No leader will be uniformly be seen as benevolent, because every decision has a loser and a winner, due to resource limits. The closest you can get is making sure the loser is not under your rule.
George Washington did own slaves, although he became a lot more pro-abolitionist about slavery later in life.
I wouldn’t call him a benevolent dictator since he was NOT a dictator in the first place. But he is pretty extraordinary in that he turned down the ability to BE a dictator or emperor with absolutely no benefit to himself. He could have EASILY been Emperor of America, or President-for-Life, but he voluntarily chose not to, because he believed that citizens should run for office, become leaders, then after a set period of time, go back to being citizens so they would have to live under the laws which the helped to create and pass.
At the end of the Revolutionary War, many people in America and Europe thought Washington would retain the reins of power to become the leader of the new nation, or even king. When told by the American artist Benjamin West that Washington was going to resign, King George III of England said “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
Largely because it was unheard of to voluntarily walk away from so much power from a population who would have been totally willing to have him be their leader for life.
Soooo… no he wasn’t a saint. He did own slaves even if he became more of an abolitionist near the end of his life. He did allow for multiple attacks on natives, but most of those attacks were not unprovoked so it’s not like it was a ‘US is evil, natives are peaceful’ scenario – both sides had skirmishes back and forth, including skirmishes between different native tribes.
But as far as Presidents go, he was definitely one of the top ones.
Hrm. There’s our problem right there. It doesn’t actually work that way once people realize that they can write laws with built-in exceptions to whom they apply to.
Well yes. That’s sort of my point. A republic is only good when the law writers have to live under the same laws as everyone else. That’s how Washington felt about it, publicly, which is a reason he was a rather good leader.
My point is that a law can be designed such that it applies differently to different people, creating a situation under which all people are subject to the same text, but some of them live under different rules. That’s what I’m getting at when I ask what the law actually is. De jure is distinct from de facto.
I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. We seem to be saying the same thing.
What do you mean by “same laws”? The same text, or the same consequences for their actions? Because there currently are no safeguards to prevent people from writing laws that do not apply equally, which undermines the entire structure.
The point of a constitutional republic is you are supposed to have one set of laws, under which ALL citizens, whether they are in the government or are the general citizenry, live under and have to abide by.
So yes, the same text AND the same consequences for their actions. And yes, there are safeguards to prevent people from writing laws that do not apply equally. It’s called the Judicial Branch.
I do agree that, when the judicial branch does not have the guts to actually do what’s right, like when the judges are activist judges instead of strict constructionists, you wind up getting laws that are NOT written equally, and are therefore unconstitutional until a judge or SCOTUS actually bothers to do what’s right.
Again, I’m not sure why we’re arguing when we seem to be in full agreement.
Also Torabi, I think you need to understand that the Constitution ITSELF does not have statutes in it.
It has a Preamble, Sections and Amendments for Rights and Duties of different parts of the government and how the nation is to be set up.
All laws (statutes) anywhere else need to be somehow derived FROM what’s in the Constitution though, or at the very least they need to not VIOLATE what’s written in the Constitution. The Constitution itself is inviolable, unless it is amended to be changed. And the Constitution has a section in it that ALLOWS for it to be changed, somewhat. IE, it allows for amendments.
You seem to be treating the Constitution as if the statutes are IN the Constitution. That’s now how it works. When I say things like 1 USC 9080, ‘USC’ does not stand for US Constitution. It stands for US Code. The United States Code is DIFFERENT than the US Constitution, although they cannot VIOLATE the US Constitution. The US Code is a consolidation and codification, by subject matter, of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. All states have something similar as well, on their state levels, which are prepared for their state legislatures. The same goes for municipalities.
I hope this explains things a bit more, because I think you have a general misunderstanding of how the law is structured, and this explanation might help you understand better. Just try not to overthink it.
“that’s now how it works’ = I meant ‘that’s NOT how it works.’
Wish I could make corrections.
Consider a law that contains a clause that either explicitly or implicitly declares “This law does not apply to Pander”. Everyone would be subject to the same text, but the law would have disparate impact.
Or, for a real-life example, Florida’s Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which exempted companies that own a theme park or entertainment venue larger than 25 acres in the state.
How is the judicial branch a safeguard against such a law? What compels them to rule against it? They may be empowered to do so, but how do we ensure that the people in those positions will do what’s right? What recourse do we have if they don’t? If it all just boils down to electing the right people, then the whole system is built on sand.
If there’s a weakness, people will find and exploit it. A government isn’t worth anything in the long run unless it has actual, structural safeguards that prevent bad actors from taking over. Otherwise, they slowly accumulate enough power to rewrite the laws to increase their power, which continues without bound until they replace it with a totalitarian form of government. The mechanisms of the electoral process and the judiciary are both prime targets for subversion.
“Consider a law that contains a clause that either explicitly or implicitly declares “This law does not apply to Pander”. ”
That law would be unconstitutional.
“Everyone would be subject to the same text, but the law would have disparate impact.”
Yes. If you make a law that’s unconstitutional…. that law is unconstitutional. And therefore should not be a law. Because it’s violating the basic tenets of what a Constitution IS. A written set of laws under which everyone is supposed to be held towards. Unlike the old way of doing things, where the governed have less rights under the law than the governing.
And yes, this is unfortunately something that does happen in the U.S. It’s unconstitutional that it does happen, but there are a lot of cowardly activist judges who refuse to do the right thing. Not to mention a LOT of cowardly legislators who refuse to bring it up to court, since they have legal standing to do so. For example, the way that the law protects Representatives and Congress from many of the penalties from insider trading. It’s BLATANTLY unconstitutional, but with the exception of Rand Paul and a few others … on both sides of the aisles, though primarily on Republican side (a few non-Neo-cons), no one dares to challenge it. It’s sort of disgusting to me, and one of many reasons I refuse to be an ideologue for either political party.
“Or, for a real-life example, Florida’s Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which exempted companies that own a theme park or entertainment venue larger than 25 acres in the state.”
Congratulations – I don’t think that should be constitutional either. You can make things HARSHER as exceptions, but you aren’t supposed to make things easier as exceptions. But again, blame lobbyists for that one.
“How is the judicial branch a safeguard against such a law?”
Because if you can get someone with legal standing, you can sue and oppose that law, to get the courts to declare it unconstitutional.
“What compels them to rule against it?”
If the judge is a strict constructionist or a constitutionalist, then their adherence to the Constitution will compel them to rule against it. If they’re an activist judge, then they will likely not want to rule against it.
“They may be empowered to do so, but how do we ensure that the people in those positions will do what’s right?”
We need less activist judges who are ruling based on personal political preferences, and more judges who rule based on the wording of the Constitution and statutes themselves, regardless of whether they were appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, and regardless of what party, if any, the judge belongs to.
I don’t like activist judges. I never have. I consider them to be violating their oath of office when they put more emphasis on their personal preferences than to the law which any officer of the court (myself included) swears an oath to uphold. I dread the idea of ever having to argue in front of a judge known for being an activist judge. Fortunately, IP Law doesnt have me have to go in front of judges that often like I used to, and in many of the lower courts involving basic legislation (at least back when I was in court more often), they tend to be a lot more tied to the statutes than personal preferences. The courts are not meant to be a political game.
“What recourse do we have if they don’t?”
Paying attention to the elections of judges and voting against them when they’re activist judges. Paying attention to who our representatives, Senators, and Presidents appoint or support as judges, and voting them out if they appoint activist judges who do not follow the Constitution in their rulings, or at least try to give a Constitutional basis for their rulings.
“If it all just boils down to electing the right people, then the whole system is built on sand.”
Well when we get right down to it, it is built on people being informed voters. And yes, that’s a problem because a lot of people are NOT informed voters. Even many people who are probably very smart, and even some people who are politically informed, are likely not aware of the judges in local elections. Let alone bother voting in those elections. Many people only vote once every 4 years. MAYBE once every 2 years when it’s an important mid-term election. Most definitely do not bother to do even the slightest bit of research on anything below a Senator or President. MAYBE a representative sometimes. Lower than that, they tend to just vote straight party line, because of political tribalism.
“If there’s a weakness, people will find and exploit it.”
A good reason to start teaching civics in school again.
“A government isn’t worth anything in the long run unless it has actual, structural safeguards that prevent bad actors from taking over. ”
We do have actual structural safeguards. We just tend to not have a lot of politicians in power who are willing to risk their careers to enforce those safeguards, and we do not have a media willing to report fairly regardless of which party is in power, although new tech media does have a lot more chance of that happening because they’re harder to regulate by the existing government (regardless of the party in power).
What specifically makes such a law unconstitutional? Some laws, particularly criminal laws, are going to limit who they apply to with conditional clauses. How do you clearly delineate between ‘unfair’ conditions and fair ones? It seems like it would be awfully hard to write a grammar that could be applied to a law to systematically identify whether or not it’s fair.
And how much influence do you think political parties and elected government officials have over whether or not voters are informed? Over whether we teach civics in school? In which direction do you think their incentives lie?
It’s not an actual, structural safeguard if it requires people to enforce it. We have nothing in place to ensure honesty or integrity. No matter how good a government we might have inherited, people will vote it away in pursuit of their own power and selfish ends.
Any system without some kind of fundamental, unbreakable immunity to corruption or rot will eventually fall. It only takes a single crack, which just gets wider and wider until the whole thing breaks. Or at least you need an active system that cleans or repairs itself to counter some level of assault.
Everything we’ve got is no more than direct democracy, covered up in layers of illusion in the hopes that people don’t notice. None of it will matter in the end; our constitution is too weak to defend itself.
“What specifically makes such a law unconstitutional?”
I’m confused Torabi. Are you asking me what makes a law which treats different people differently based on who they are rather than the actions they take? Because… THAT. That is exactly what makes a law like that unconstitutional.
For example, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution says you can’t have any bills of attainder. Basically you can’t make a law that singles out a single person or group of people based on something having nothing to do with their actions.
It’s usually the reason I give for why, in X-Men, the Mutant Registration Law is unconstitutional, and why in Marvel’s Civil War I, the Superhero Registration Accords (or whatever they’re called) were also unconstitutional.
The basic concept of a Constitution is, simply put, everyone has to be subject to the law. If you’re making exceptions based on inherent characteristics of those people, it is unconstitutional.
“How do you clearly delineate between ‘unfair’ conditions and fair ones?”
Torabi, this is literally what we have a judicial court system and a Constitution for. Doing THAT.
“It seems like it would be awfully hard to write a grammar that could be applied to a law to systematically identify whether or not it’s fair.”
Which is why you should strictly and NARROWLY interpret laws, which is what strict constructionist judges do. And why you should not go broadly or just ignore the Constitution when ‘interpreting’ laws… which is what activist judges do. If you can even call them judges. The more activist a judge is, the more completely inept they seem to be when it comes to understanding basic principles of law.
“And how much influence do you think political parties and elected government officials have over whether or not voters are informed? ”
Too much, actually. Mostly because there’s a REALLY huge tie between the organized media, big tech, lobbyists, and the two major political parties – especially the Democrats, who have gone above and beyond with mixing up politics and media – but the Republicans (especially neo-conservatives) are not squeaky clean on this either, so no one label me a partisan. There are only a few Republican or Democrat politicians who manage to steer clear of this tie-in, and that works against them since it’s a rather big propaganda machine when media, tech, and politicians are all working in concert to make the courts biased (which ruins them).
“Over whether we teach civics in school?”
Um… politicians have an unreasonably large influence on what we teach in school. That’s a big problem right now, in fact. And has been for a while as well. The type of problem just changes based on which party is in power.
“In which direction do you think their incentives lie?”
Usually with whoever’s paying them, or whatever their personal ideologies are if they are representing their own wills instead of the wills of their constituents.
“Everything we’ve got is no more than direct democracy, covered up in layers of illusion in the hopes that people don’t notice.”
I sure hope you’re wrong about this…. because a direct democracy is horribly corrupt. It’s basically mob rule or a posse of 20 townsfolk deciding to lynch some guy without a fair trial becaues they’re the majority and the poor guy’s outnumbered.
The Founding Fathers knew this. Which is why they put up so many roadblocks against a direct democracy the larger the population and government gets, in order to TRY to keep ‘direct democracy’ at the most localized levels only.
“None of it will matter in the end; our constitution is too weak to defend itself.”
Guess we’ll see. I hope you’re wrong, but I can’t say you are definitively given what’s been happening lately.
So you’re saying that the United States constitution is itself unconstitutional. That is a novel view, which I doubt is held by very many people. I suspect your understanding of the word “constitution” is shaped very strongly by how law is practiced in the United States, rather than a broader understanding of the concept.
I… just don’t even know where to begin tackling this. You have an enormous blind spot, where you just expect magic to occur. And I guess the whole system fundamentally relies on everyone having that blind spot. Turns out they don’t, particularly the people currently set on destroying the whole system.
Corruption is either impossible or inevitable. There is no option where it’s possible, but just magically doesn’t happen. If politicians can influence voters, or education, or the media, they will. If they can’t currently, but it’s possible to alter the system so that it does become possible, then they will do so. If there is a path from a fair government to one that benefits the few at the expense of the many, someone will find it. If you expect people to somehow prevent that outcome, then you’re ignoring that people are just part of the system that can be manipulated.
If everyone in the country stopped believing in the law, or states, or the constitution, they would cease to have power. Perhaps even if just a significant majority stopped believing. They could choose to believe in something else. And that’s what fundamentally makes it a direct democracy. It relies on a majority continuing to believe in it and give it power. The law doesn’t exist outside people’s heads.
“So you’re saying that the United States constitution is itself unconstitutional.”
… how on Earth did you get that from anything I said? I have read that first sentence 5 time and I’m bewildered at how you came to this interpretation of my post.
No, the United States Constitution is not itself unconstitutional. I have no idea why you think I said that. I think you need to re-read my post because you definitely read it wrong, or I did a REALLY bad job of explaining it to you.
Unconstitutional means that it violates the rules written in the Constitution. Therefore, if it’s directly written in the Constitution, and/or can be traced back to something written in the Constitutional, then it is not unconstitutional.
I can’t even respond to the rest of your post because you completely somehow got the completely wrong idea of what I was saying in the first place.
….
Let me try again with something.
Laws in general only have force so long as the population AGREES that they have force. Not the government agreeing it has force. The POPULATION agreeing it has force. The masses. Laws derive their power from a mandate from the masses. This is what the Founding Fathers figured out.
That’s the part where we agree.
When you say “If everyone in the country stopped believing in the law, or states, or the constitution, they would cease to have power.” – this is correct.
But you’re acting like that means the Constitution is meaningless on its face. It’s not. No Constitution is meaningless if a sizable portion of the masses want to follow it. I need you to please re-read what I’m writing. Carefully. Because your first paragraph was REALLY weird to see you interpret as what you thought I was saying.
Once a sizable portion of the population does NOT want to follow it, THAT is when the Constitution becomes meaningless and the American experiment falls apart.
The United States Constitution itself treats people of different races, ages, and sex differently, or at least has been interpreted to not require them to be treated equally by the law. You seem to be suggesting that such a thing is incompatible with the very concept of a constitution, which would suggest that most, if not all, of the constitutions in the world are unconstitutional.
I think you have a problem distinguishing between “is” and “ought”. You attach a lot of boundaries to a concept that are not actually inherent or binding, and as a result, I don’t think you’ll have a response to people violating those boundaries other than to stand there sputtering that they’re doing it wrong. They don’t care. That’s why our country is falling apart right now, because people have been picking at loose threads, sticking wedges in those cracks, seeing just how much they can violate those unstated norms without people calling them out on it, and break the rule of law against itself without ever violating the letter of it. Their strategies aren’t so different from Deus’, but their goals aren’t nearly so noble.
“The United States Constitution itself treats people of different races, ages, and sex differently,”
No it doesn’t. 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments fixed that as it relates to race and sex. As for age, age is not an unchangeable aspect of a person. People age as a natural function of biology, so yes, the Constitution treats people of different ages differently. Ie, there are certain minimum age requirements for becoming President or voting or holding different offices. This is not treating people differently though. ANYONE who reaches that age is treated the same way, period.
Since everyone ages, everyone is treated the same under the law, at least as far as the writing is concerned, even if that doesnt always happen in practice.
“or at least has been interpreted to not require them to be treated equally by the law. You seem to be suggesting that such a thing is incompatible with the very concept of a constitution
”
Interpretation is different than what’s in the writing of the Constitution. People can interpret things wrong. That doesnt make the writing itself wrong. It might make the writing ambiguous and need clarification, via an Amendment, but it doesn’t make it wrong. Your problem is with people and how they incorrectly interpret the foundational law. Not with the foundational law itself.
“You seem to be suggesting that such a thing is incompatible with the very concept of a constitution,”
No, that’s again not what I said. I think you are having a hard time separating people from the writing though.
“which would suggest that most, if not all, of the constitutions in the world are unconstitutional.”
Again, that sentence makes NO sense. A constitution cannot, by its very definition, be unconstitutional.
“I think you have a problem distinguishing between “is” and “ought”.”
It’s funny because I think that’s actually the problem that YOU are having. :)
“You attach a lot of boundaries to a concept that are not actually inherent or binding, and as a result, I don’t think you’ll have a response to people violating those boundaries other than to stand there sputtering that they’re doing it wrong.”
Actually, I attach no boundaries to it. I am very okay with a strict constructionist mentality of the Constitution. If something is vague or ambiguous, get an amendment to fix it. Otherwise, interpret is EXACTLY as it’s written, period. None of this activist interpretation stuff. Activist judging is trying to reinvent the CONCEPT of the wheel 100 million times when there’s a perfectly good concept of a wheel in existence. Sure, you can improve the wheel, but the basic concept is the same. The wheel is round. What it’s made of might differe, what’s attached to the wheel might differ, but a strict constructionalist will say ‘no matter what else, the basic premise is this – the basic concept of a wheel is that it is round.’
Meanwhile, an activist judge will say that’s unfair to people who think the wheel should be able to be a square or a triangle. They might say ‘but what about ridges, that makes it less round and more of a different shape. to go up rocky terrain, you might need points on it! Round doesnt have points!’ To which the strict constructionist will respond ‘Yes, but you still need to have it be as functional as possible without giving up its basic premise of being as round as possible.’
Then the activist judge will demand it be a rectangle or trapezoid or irregular rhombus and destroy the entire axle in frustration, then blame it on someone else.
“I don’t think you’ll have a response to people violating those boundaries other than to stand there sputtering that they’re doing it wrong.”
Of course I’d have a response. The response is if enough of the masses agree with the person violating the law, then the law will be changed. If they don’t, and the lawbreaker keeps breaking the law, then controlled violence ultimately is necessary. If controlled violence doesnt work, then the system breaks apart, uncontrolled violence happens, anarchy happens because you don’t want a constitution or law in place, and some new constitution or law will eventually fill the void if you EVER want any sort of progress or civilization.
“They don’t care. That’s why our country is falling apart right now, because people have been picking at loose threads, sticking wedges in those cracks, seeing just how much they can violate those unstated norms without people calling them out on it, and break the rule of law against itself without ever violating the letter of it.”
People have been doing that for centuries. Millenia even. You’re being a bit short-sighted.
Have you ever read a story by Michael Hopf called “Those Who Remain?”
There’s a quote in it that’s pertinent to this argument we’re having.
“Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
And, weak men create hard times.”
We might just be at the ‘weak men create hard times’ portion of that cyclical vision of history.
It’s happened before. It’ll happen again. Nothing stays static forever. Best we can do is try as long as we can. If we don’t, then it’s nonstop chaos and anarchy. That’s what the law is. It’s a stopgap against anarchy.
“Their strategies aren’t so different from Deus’, but their goals aren’t nearly so noble.”
You know what I actually love about Deus, from a theoretical point? Everything he does seems to result in a win-win scenario. That doesnt usually happen. But he does things usually so perfectly that it DOES happen. So with someone like him, something better than the normal historical cycle might occur. Or at least it will take a lot longer before it breaks down again.
So I imagine you’re of the opinion that an equal rights amendment is entirely unnecessary. But the 14th certainly doesn’t eliminate the disparity for sex, considering that it only guarantees men the right to vote to, while stating:
No part of the constitution, or any other form of law, is unambiguous to someone sufficiently motivated to believe otherwise. And yet most people believe it unambiguously aligns with their particular interpretation.
I’m glad that we both agree that “A constitution cannot, by its very definition, be unconstitutional.” Here’s where I got the impression that you might think otherwise:
Because a constitution certainly could make exceptions based on inherent characteristics, and again, the United States Constitution did at one time.
The idea that there’s a clear distinction between an “activist judge” and a “strict constructionist judge” is an insane right-wing talking point, used to disparage decisions they disagree with. All language is ambiguous. It does not map cleanly to irreducible elements of reality. It changes over time, and between social groups. To claim to know the unambiguous meaning of another’s words is simply a power move.
Yes. I know. People have been doing that for as long as there have been people, and will continue until something very significant changes. I’ve been trying to communicate that to you for a while.
From my perspective, these brief moments in between are hardly distinguishable. The belief that this cycle is somehow good and correct is nauseating. Better to end it all permanently if it can’t be fixed permanently.
I’ve never read the book, but I’m familiar with the quote. However, I’ve only seen it used by people in an attempt to justify authoritarianism, so I find it a bit suspect.
Ehhh, the persian empire in general was pretty good. Cyrus the great is probably the definitive benevolent dictator of the Persians. He was even canonized as a messiah by the Jews because he helped them return to Zion and build the second temple. xerxes and co are not as good as Cyrus, but they definitely weren’t as bad as most of the other monarchs plus or minus 500 years range. Like 80th percentile at least in terms of general benevolence compared to the range.
Also, I can’t find mention that the Persians used slaves at Marathon. I saw that the atheniens used slaves, but not persians. Like seriously, Cyrus the great banned slavery in the persian empire, so really interest in knowing your source for slaves being used by the persians.
I don’t think the Persians used slaves at Marathon. Persians mostly followed a religion called Zoroastrianism, which I believe outlawed slavery. However, because their central government had massive power under a central ruler, it often looked like the conquered nations were essentially ‘slave nations’ for the king.
I’m pretty sure that you’re correct about Cyrus also. When Cyrus the Great captured Babylon, one of the things he did was to free the enslaved jewish population of Babylon. The whole perception about the Persians and slavery mainly came from forced subjugation of conquered nations, NOT from individual ownership of slaves (which is something the Greeks did instead, although Greek slaves were more like ‘slaves + some rights’ which is weird for people in modern times to conceptualize).
Okay, what’s the difference between ‘forced subjugation of conquered nations’ and ‘individual ownership of slaves’?
Trying to think of apt examples, I think the first would probably apply to Tibet. The second was America of course, historically; a current one … maybe Japanese salarymen, it hits some of the criteria of people living their lives for the company, but no, not really slavery. Prisoners in the penal systems of many countries tick some boxes too, forced to work, restricted movements and activities, limited or no compensation for work; but again, maybe not. It is the individual ownership that doesn’t fit. People are still slaves in many countries, but not explicitly owned at least in a legally defined sense. People aren’t silly enough to say publicly, “I own this other person”
I’m not sure how much of a difference there is honestly, at least from a modern perspective, but I try to not use modern perspectives when describing ancient laws and ways of existing.
I’m just explaining why Tempo accurately is stating that Persia had no slaves, while Scott is describing Marathon as the Persians using slaves (despite slavery being outlawed under Persian law). It’s a matter of perception.
Although it is also a little hypocritical, at least for Sparta and Athens, since Greece DID have slaves.
Worth keeping in mind that there have been pretty horrendous rulers throughout history who BEGAN as benevolent then, for some reason or another (paranoia often playing a part), then went completely Dark Side.
there was fine print in the wiki. it listed “modern” examples.
I wonder why Ashoka didn’t make the list? He was benevolent enough, so maybe not enough singular power?
Here are the wikipedia articles about a couple of books relevant to *why* benevolent dictatorships are almost non-existent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail
I like Eliezer Yudkowsky’s take on it: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/v8rghtzWCziYuMdJ5/why-does-power-corrupt
I think it is a bit of both “power corrupts” & “power attracts the already corrupt”
Not having read any of those books, nor studied the subject in great detail, but my take on it would be that benevolent dictatorship is rare and generally will not last because the two forces described by the term pull in opposite directions.
Not diametrically opposite, which means that it can work to a small extent. Benevolence means putting the welfare and well-being of others at the center, while dictatorship means putting the will of one above all others, violently if necessary.
There is a small region where there is space for ‘mother knows best’, but we all know from the movie how that tends to end up. (and yes, I am aware that Mother Ethel was never benevolent though she gaslighted Rapunzel into believing so. The metaphor is imperfect but I believe still relevant)
Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.
-Plato
I would not join a club that would have me as a member
-Groucho Marx
Deus should be praised for his efforts. Advancing humanity, crushing torturous tyrants, creating green and renewable energy. Its no wonder the corrupt capitalist bootlickers in America would never capitulate. They want to keep anyone down that is seen to be better than them. Their mantra is keep them poor, keep them dumb and uneducated, keep them ill. Their government now spending millions on keeping a super force that could be used to help rebuild their country like Deus does, but no. Hopefully Deus found some form of immortality, I for one am rooting for him, for a better tomorrow!!
He is NOT the enemy!
Your wisdom and obvious charm fills me with joy. And I am sure you are incredibly handsome and suave as well.
I thank you for your wonderful post. All praise Deus, amen.
“He’s not the enemy” until you disobey his will. Then I’m pretty sure he’s the worst kind of enemy.
““He’s not the enemy” until you disobey his will”
Maxima doesnt obey his will. They’re not enemies.
Lorlana frequently does not obey his will, to an annoying extent sometimes. They are not enemies.
Vale sometimes does not obey his will because she’s not his goddam secretary. They are not enemies.
The woman on macroeconomics does not give him a pass on ANYTHING. He seemed to enjoy the interview anyway.
Are you referring to Indinge? Why are you protective of Indinge, a murderous warlord who raped, tortured, disappeared, and murdered his people for funsies, then made sure that their friends and loved ones were told that the same would happen to them as well? Why would you EVER be on the side of a monster of a man who squandered the money of his nation so he could live in luxury while his people starved to death? Why be protective of a Hitler-esque cretin who literally had NOTHING to lose by getting help from Deus, since he was surrounded by enemies in wars on ALL sides, by his own admission, by his own fault?
Seriously, I don’t get the protectiveness of Indinge even more than I don’t understand people who want Vehemence to be a good guy. At least Vehemence sometimes acted civilized. Indinge never did. The only way Indinge could have been presented as a worse example of a so-called human being would have been to change his moustache to let him twirl it evilly as he tied a woman to train tracks.
“Then I’m pretty sure he’s the worst kind of enemy.”
Yes, I am very sure that Deus would be the worst kind of enemy to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Caligula, Mugabe, Idi Amin, etc. I’m not sure how that’s a bad thing though.
Not doing what he says is not the same as disobeying his will
No one is protecting or defending Indinge, but you have to stop defending SmugD on how he handled Indinge
“No one is protecting or defending Indinge,
It really seems like people ARE, though. The best way for evil men to win is for good men to do nothing.
“but you have to stop defending SmugD on how he handled Indinge”
Oh I definitely do not have to stop defending Deus, paragon of humanity, pinnacle of the win-win scenario, savior of the downtrodden and hope for a brighter tomorrow in how he handled Indinge. There’s only so much you can do when trying to deal rationally, reasonably, and HUMANELY with someone with a Hitler-esque mentality.
No, most people are saying that Indinge was a murderous bastard that deserved to die, you seem to be the only one who disagrees that SmugD went there with that in mind
Yes, he tried to get control without killing, but he damn knew that that was a long shot concerning Indinge, which is why he chose Indinge (and had all that film ‘evidence’ conveniently on hand to back his actions up)
“you seem to be the only one who disagrees that SmugD went there with that in mind”
Because he didnt go in there thinking that Indinge HAD to die. He just went in there realizing it was a definite possibility, based on Indinge’s history and psychology and how Indinge is prone to violent and murderous attempts on those who anger him or do not do as he wants.
If Deus went in there thinking ‘This guy will die’ then he would not have bothered with any of the formalities. He would have gone in there. Immediately killed Indinge, taken the Prince, shown him the tape, and convinced the Prince instead. But no….
Instead, Deus tries to first reason with Indinge. Makes offers with Indinge. Very very generous offers. But stops short at offering a blank check because he’s also HONEST with Indinge about what he thinks of him as a person. And offers that he can be a better person for Galytn’s people and its future by letting Deus do what Deus does best, while Indinge would just get rich as a result, which is what Indinge wants. But Indinge also wanted power over people – power which he continually uses to hurt other helpless people, and did not want anyone else to benefit under him.
“Yes, he tried to get control without killing, but he damn knew that that was a long shot concerning Indinge, ”
And yet Deus still tried the long shot first. There is no reason to try a long shot FIRST when it comes with great risk. But Deus still did make that attempt. And even then, Indinge had ways to say ‘no’ without it resorting in (and I’m steelmanning here to make your argument stronger) mutual death threats.
“which is why he chose Indinge (and had all that film ‘evidence’ conveniently on hand to back his actions up)”
Yes. He knew that the Prince, unlike his father, was a decent human being who would have been disgusted by what his father had done. He might have even turned on his father had he known in advance, but that would have risked the Prince’s life.
Again though – Deus tried every step of the way the path of least death, most risk for HIMSELF, and best outcome for everyone involved.
Have you ever watched Batman/Superman: Apocalypse? It’s based no the comic book series ‘The Girl from Krypton’ about Supergirl’s arrival in New Earth DC comics.
At the end, Batman ‘negotiates’ with Darkseid. By arming all the hellspores on Apokolips and telling Darkseid to release Kara Zor-El from his control and foreswear her forever, or he will not give Darkseid the disarming codes, which would wind up destroying all of Apokolips. The main difference is Deus isnt going to let Indinge knock him around, unlike Batman with Darkseid.
Batman went into it with a plan. But apparently was willing to destroy an entire world. But that was not Batman’s plan, because Batman knew Darkseid’s psychology and what was more likely to happen as a result.
Batman’s not a villain. Why is Deus considered one? Deus never threatened to destroy an entire world – just a single, horrifically evil person. As an absolute last resort. And not until he was at a point where he WOULD have killed Deus if Cthilla was not there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5uBNiHJV2I
Kirk: We come in peace (Shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill!) We come in peace (Shoot to kill, shoot to kill, men!)
The Firm (Star Trekking)
There’s Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow.
There’s Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape em off Jim.
Analysis, Mr. Spock
It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it’s life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.
since the lyrics were are out of order I though id link this…. utterly insane version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vPWE2Ebz48
sadly the redshirt counter breaks during the song. that’s what you get for hiring an Orion to make it.
now I totally want to hear the insane version mixed with clips of The Big Bang crew doing the scissors paper rock lizard Spock game
given that the insane thing is that the visuals are a cross between the flintstones and star trek, I suspect the cast of big bang theory will only make it saner.
There is a sane version of that video? O_o
Only know the Claymation version
sanity is relative. there are many places on the internet. a few are even funny.
Thanks so much for that. I havent heard it in years. Good times
TBH I don’t see any real difference between Deus and most of our presidents, TFG excluded. They’re trying to raise all boats, just like Deus, just some more than others. Deus has it figured out that he can take a smaller share of a huge pie and still come out ahead, because making the pie bigger means he still gets more pie than he had before. The big problem with that is usually the person in charge can’t help trying to improve his lot at the expense of others, as exemplified in extremis by TFG.
Because $2.00 a gallon gas was sooo terrible, and the improvement in the economy was totally cancelled out by mean Tweets, right?
(Homer Simpson voice) In case you can’t tell, I was being Sarcastic.
> Because $2.00 a gallon gas was sooo terrible, and the improvement in the economy was totally cancelled out by mean Tweets, right?
Repeating the claims of a washed-up actor like Kevin Sorbo, eh? https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1392841747533860867?lang=en
Adjusted for inflation, gas prices have been relatively flat but trending slightly downward for this entire century. The rate was basically linear that entire time, so Trump had no particular effect. (Honestly, what ability do you think the US President to influence the price of gas?)
The economy cratered under Trump, losing more jobs than under anyone since Hoover. That’s largely due to the pandemic and how garbage his handling of it was. If he had gotten behind the vaccines and masks the whole thing would have been basically over in 3-4 months with minimal losses. Instead, he politicized it and got hundreds of thousands of his followers to essentially commit suicide. See the current death rates for evidence: They are almost entirely among the unvaccinated.
Even not counting the pandemic, Obama inherited the Great Recession and cut unemployment from almost 10% to roughly 5%. Trump continued the downward trend at a slightly slower rate.
Under Obama the debt grew from ~$10T to ~$19T but the rate of growth was slowing. Under Trump it went from $19T to $28T with an increasing curve.
Implying that Trump was some economic wizkid and made things better is simply nonsense.
This forum restricts posts from having too many links in them, so here’s a document I put together that collects sources for all of the above facts and more: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KWELXt0FH2IbnM5YxjKzxOQZ0u_-UZyD0JW0JUgJWRk/edit#heading=h.pkiahtejrlre
I don’t want to get political about Trump and Obama because it really doesnt have much to do with the comic.
“Implying that Trump was some economic wizkid and made things better is simply nonsense.”
To be fair, Trump’s debt problem was largely due to the last year, which was largely because of COVID and most of the governors voluntarily shutting down the economy a lot longer than 15 days (not to mention the entire world shutting down its economy as well).
While the National Debt went up to 27 trillion in 2020 at the end of Trump’s presidency, it was only at 22.7 trillion at the end of 2019.
Sooooo…. let’s be honest when assessing the situation without reverting to political tribalism. Without covid, the debt was increasing at 1/3rd the race as under Obama.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
rate not race. I wish there was an edit feature.
He added 2 trillion~ to the debt completely unnecessarily with the tax cuts and jobs act, a bill which noticeably lowered taxes for everyone (initially) but had a delayed effect of raised taxes on the middle and lower class. He also had the longest government shutdown also completely unnecessarily. Tax cut and jobs act is factored over course of 10 years, and otherwise he added 2.6 trillion to the debt not including the pandemic. So in total he raised the debt by about 4.6 trillion, again, not including the pandemic.
“He added 2 trillion~”
He did not have a Congress which was helping him during most of that time actually, and this number is incorrect, by the way. You basically used the same number twice, here and later on in your reasoning.
Also 2 trillion (or more accurately, 2.6 trillion) in 3 years is, again, a LOT less than 9 trillion in 4 years. It’s difficult to make a comparison when Obama did not have something like COVID happening and still managed to have the same jump in national debt somehow.
“unnecessarily with the tax cuts and jobs act,”
But the jobs act worked. Unemployment went to all time lows, far below what Obama thought would be possible. Not sure how that’s unnecessary.
“but had a delayed effect of raised taxes on the middle and lower class.”
It did not. It doubled the standardized deduction rate, which is what helps the middle and lower class a lot more than the upper class.
I’m fine with dumping on Trump but I have a hard time doing so on economic matters for the first three years, because he did a pretty good job on economic matters up until COVID.
“He also had the longest government shutdown also completely unnecessarily.”
That would be because of Congress, not the President. I’m fine with dumping on the Republicans in Congress (although the Democrats were also to blame since it take two sides to reach a compromise, and a compromise involves actually moving ones position from both ends). If Trump was to blame about any of that, it’s that he did not have a strong coalition on both sides capable of breaking the stalemate. Trump’s primary problem was that he was a polarizing figure. And yes, someone probably should have told him to stay off twitter more often because it did him no real favors in the long run.
“Tax cut and jobs act is factored over course of 10 years, and otherwise he added 2.6 trillion to the debt not including the pandemic.”
Um… yes, that’s what I said. 2.6 trillion over three years. Obama had almost triple that over a three year period. If we leave out the last year for each President (because COVID messed everything up), Trump did a better job on economics. If you want to attack Trump, it’s probably easier to attack him on social messaging or professionalism, or not being able to build coalitions well, rather than economics. You could even attack him on how he handled COVID after around… May or June… and you’d have a better argument than what you’re saying right now.
“So in total he raised the debt by about 4.6 trillion, again, not including the pandemic.”
Where are you getting the additional 2 trillion? The tax cuts and jobs act did not add $2 trillion plus another 2.6 trillion – they wound up HELPING by lowering the unemployment to record low numbers and increased new jobs by record high numbers in almost every metric available. You are literally adding the same number twice. Most of the national debt was from the LAST year under COVID.
Btw, even if I was to use your numbers (which make no sense unfortunately, 4.6 trillion would still be less than Obama). But I can’t use your numbers because they are not accurate.
I’m not entirely sure why this thread is talking about Trump in general though. I don’t even understand what any of the thread has to do with Opus’s original post.
If I was to argue with Opus’s post, it would be that his post is talking about a closed circle of wealth creation instead of an open one. Capitalism is not about taking ever smaller slices of an existing pie. It’s figuring out how to create additional pies so everyone can have more pie continually.
I have no idea why discussions about Trump or Obama became part of this.
Opus mentioned a president referred to as “TFG”. I believe this stands for “the former guy”, and somehow this refers to Trump, though I don’t know the origin of it.
Just another manifestation of TDS.
That, however, I can easily recognize as a flippant attempt to discredit legitimate criticism without actually providing an argument.
I still don’t understand why this thread is about Trump or Obama.
Oh. TFG. I never heard that term before.
Okay well then I’m going to avoid this entire thread since it has ‘flame war’ written all over it :)
> Also 2 trillion (or more accurately, 2.6 trillion) in 3 years is, again, a LOT less than 9 trillion in 4 years. It’s difficult to make a comparison when Obama did not have something like COVID happening and still managed to have the same jump in national debt somehow.
Obama started with the Great Recession and was saddled with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who served as TS from 2006-2009 under GWB. The EESA was signed by George W. Bush. It created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which authorized up to $700B worth of spending to buy up toxic assets as a bailout for the major banks. The amount was later reduced to roughly $450B.
> I’m fine with dumping on the Republicans in Congress (although the Democrats were also to blame since it take two sides to reach a compromise, and a compromise involves actually moving ones position from both ends).
Please don’t try to claim that lack of compromise is in any way the fault of the Democrats. It is a gross inaccuracy. Every Democrat-proposed bill gets filibustered and the Republicans refuse to vote for it even when it’s as important and popular as COVID relief or infrastructure+school funding. Obama proposed Merrick Garland as a compromise SCOTUS appointment and the Republicans wouldn’t even let it come up for a vote because they preferred to steal the seat. Shoot, they didn’t even show up to the Fed appointees confirmation this week, despite the fact that we desperately need a working Fed in order to manage inflation.
The Republicans are the ones who are refusing to compromise, or to even do their jobs.
> [Trump lowered] the unemployment to record low numbers and increased new jobs by record high numbers in almost every metric available.
Nope. I don’t know where you get your information, but Obama did vastly better with unemployment.
Obama inherited the Great Recession and ~10% unemployment. Let’s compare with Trump, remembering that in the first year of a Presidency the budget and general policy is still that of the previous administration
Obama
Jan 2009: 7.8% [takes office, the Great Recession is ramping up. GWB’s policies are still in effect]
Jan 2010: 9.8% [one year into his Presidency, height of the GR. Obama’s policies start to take effect]
Jan 2013: 8.0% [end of first term, is reelected]
Jan 2014: 6.6% [four years since Obama’s policies took effect]
Jan 2017: 4.7% [Obama leaves office]
Total reduction from when Obama’s policies went into effect: 9.8-4.7= 4.1%.
Reduction in second term: 3.3%
Trump:
Jan 2017: 4.7% [takes office, Obama’s policies still in effect]
Jan 2018: 4.0% [Trump’s policies start to take effect]
Jan 2020: 3.5% [pandemic is just getting started]
Apr 2020: 14.7%
Jul 2020: 10.2%
Oct 2020: 6.9%
Jan 2021: 6.4% [end of first term, leaves office, is not reelected]
Total reduction from when Trump’s policies went into effect: increase of 1.3%
Reduction when not counting his handling of the pandemic for some reason: 0.5%
Even if we give Trump the most favorable interpretation he still loses.
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
(From your earlier response to me)
> Sooooo…. let’s be honest when assessing the situation without reverting to political tribalism. Without covid, the debt was increasing at 1/3rd the race as under Obama.
You linked to statista as your source. Not sure why, since they won’t show their sources unless you pay. Instead let’s take a look at what the government self reports. I think I’m running up against the limit of links I can put in a post so I’ll obfuscate this one: datalab dot usaspending dot gov /americas-finance-guide/debt/trends/ It’s based on data from the Treasury and you can download the raw data.
You can see quite clearly that the debt was increasing at a lower rate under Obama then under Trump, even when you ignore the massive spike from COVID.
> If we leave out the last year for each President (because COVID messed everything up), Trump did a better job on economics.
First, if we’re leaving out the last year because Covid then how about we leave out the first year because Great Recession? Obama inherited a cratered economy and helped it recover. Trump inherited a successful economy and he didn’t do as well, even if ignore the year in which he did everything he could to make the pandemic worse, thereby causing ongoing economic harm and almost a million deaths.
I see this ridiculous assertion about Trump being successful so often that I’ve compiled links about it. I’m confident that the forum won’t allow me to include many more links in one post, so please go read my compilation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KWELXt0FH2IbnM5YxjKzxOQZ0u_-UZyD0JW0JUgJWRk/edit# I started assembling that list back in 2020 so most of them do not include the pandemic.
Summary of the sources I linked: No, Trump did not “do a better job than Obama”. There are certain metrics where he succeeded and certain metrics where he failed as compared to his predecessor. Unemployment is one of the ones where he failed.
Hey eaglejarl, even though I think we probably disagree on about….. maybe 60% of stuff involving economics, I think your posts are well argued. Arguments I’m pretty sure I could refute well, but still really good arguments. I just don’t want to get off on tangents on this thread. But if you ever want to discuss this stuff elsewhere let me know and we can probably talk on a discord or something. I think we agree on enough that we’d get along very nicely. It probably helps that I’m not actually a political ideologue. :)
Dabbler attempts to play matchmaker…
Dabbler is hungry and wants a snack.
Xuriel is a spoilt brat.
well, my oh my. that shower scene with Deus is really nice (I could argue that you should have made it MORE spice, like barely sfw, just like Dabbler spell)
There’s an anthropological concept called Dunbar’s Number: the human brain can only reasonably form between 150-300 meaningful relationships, ones where you know current details about the other person and the other person stays current with you. So friends on Facebook who would have to catch up with you if they ran into you at the Shake Shack don’t count as meaningful relationships.
This is used to explain groups throughout history. Medieval villages often capped at 150 people before people felt crowded and went off to colonize somewhere else. Close-knit church congregations tend to be the same. And the founder of Gore-Tex capped the staff of each of his factories at 150 people, building another mini-factory next door instead of adding to the Us vs. Them feeling with more employees.
Once you get beyond 150, people have to take your word that your actions are benevolent, because they don’t really know you. But smart politickers can shape the rough ways we have of categorizing people outside our 150 and use our biases to benefit themselves.
So, good luck, Deus. Let’s hope the aliens and demons keep you in their 150 instead of using you for their own ends.
yeah deus is obviously smart and has this planned but he seems to be understimating human nature a little too much here, simply speaking even if his actions are benevolent and he tries to present himself as the saviour of africa there will be people who will not like his rule and will fight tooth and nail to stop it, and at the end of the day if he sends invisible super assassis to kill said people then how is he better than everyone else who does that
There are plenty of benevolent rulers with absolute power (or neat absolute) to the extent through out history whose legacies were tainted to the point of societal collapse by corruption to the point its basically a real world trope. The problem I’d say would be using the word “dictator” in the search causing a filter. Kings, Emperors, cult leaders, new religious sects, dynasties, ect…
there is even the repeating pattern of the heroes of today being the ancestors of the tyrants of tomorrow; where one group defeats the tyrant and then the people want these rebel leaders, heroes, with their grand ideas to be in charge, a few generations pass and those born into power are corrupted by it and begin the cycle all over again.
this is the legacy issue, even conqueror out to unite the known world have famously had their empires collapse in just a few generations as their children and grand children fought over who was in charge of it. *Mongol for examply*,
but back down on the benevolent side, this is one reason why most governments have an average life span of around 25-50 years. You get the one with the person with good ideas that the people like, or people think is some living god, or whatever; they die, or turn corrupt, but then you have the case of the asshole prince, the grandchildren put into positions of political power because the king who was kind believes he raised his family to be like him, when behind closed doors they are completely different people and the king couldn’t see past this.
honestly this pattern is so old that even famous works are based on it, even if this element was weirdly lost later.
Plato’s Atlantis, is an allegory of this. setting aside the Athens hell-yeah elements he put in to grab his audience; the main crux of the story was of a kingdom that was prosperous under its first rulers, but as the generations went on they moved further and further away from the ideals and became more and more corrupt till they caused the collapse of their civilization.
This was actually more gradual than it usually takes, it can take as little as ONE bad ruler to schism an entire religion, country, or culture.
and as some have been pointing out, Deus is increasongly adding elements that are incompatible with his vision and each other that unless he is trying to bait another power to act to replace them will be seeing these same problems the moment his influence waynes either by his departure, absence *even just through expansion as one person can’t be everywhere* (heck a kind and good ruler can even see their kingdom begin to crumble as they can’t handpick everyone in every position and eventualy you end up with asshole corrupt magistrates, enforcers, some local baron or count, ect..that the people just absolutely hate and a local rebellion spreads and the king is either declared to be corrupt wearing a mask of kindness or equally bad as an incompetent ruler who can’t reign in their own officers (even if realistically with a massive empire or nation they can’t do that and kinks in the chain of command down the way will cause these problems).
honestly if not for how much things are/can be televised now some problems likely would have escaluated moire locally as word spread by mouth and pockets of the empire had to act on their own.
we live in unprecedented circumstances today and ever since the 1970s have been seeing these elements drastically changing something to the point its hard to tell exactly how the pattern will work going forward, but
I can say, inviting elements of two empires, both of which would want exclusive control over your own empire and beyond it to join your ranks under your leadership (even behind the scenes for them) is inviting trouble sooner than later.
see, the issue here is that in order to truly benefit from the benevolent dictatorship, your leader must be immortal and immune to the ravages of time as well so that his legacy cannot become corrupted
Even then a single being’s reach only goes so far. Even with enough power to be declared a god, beyond that one needs administration. So either you keep a small kingdom and control it like a Princess Bubblegum or Princess Peach, some small kingdom kept prosperous and stupidly happy under their rule. Failing that one may need to create others like themselves, a pantheon to rule, but even then no guarantee these won’t be given to vanity, greed, lust, regard themselves as supperior to those they rule and demand worship. Gods, dragons, and elves. We go from perhaps in a generation or two a better ruler may come, to under the heels of conflicting immortals.
he also needs to be beasically omniscient and omnipotent, and even then there are such things as hard decitions where no one wins or where only one side can win
If a ruler were omniscient (so that he knew all of the suffering in the world) and omnibenevolent (so he wanted to fix it) and omnipotent (so he had the power to fix it) then there would be no problems for anyone. That’s what ‘omnipotent’ means. Since there is in fact suffering in the world then we can be confident that no tri-omni being exists.
Eventually there will be two groups. The first world and the third world. But by then the meanings will have flipped.
Can Dabbler shapeshift to look like Maxim? I know she can make herself look human but I forget just how specific her powers are. If she can manage that level of craft, SHE can join Deus in the shower.
Be the Maxima in the shower with Deus you wish to see in the world!
George Washington. Most benevolent dictator ever: he converted the country to a functioning democracy and then resigned.
(You may say “he wasn’t a dictator”, but that’s only because he made his intentions clear from the outset. The people were going to put him in charge no matter what he did.)
There may be some question over how much of that ‘conversion’ was Washington’s doing per se, and how much of it was him as the figurehead for a wider and ongoing movement. The title of ‘Dictator’ implies that this one person is the single driving force behind the governing philosophy, not just the head of a Party.
I’m one of the people who would say he wasnt a dictator in the first place, but your argument is a really good one. He COULD have been a dictator if he wanted to be. But he was elected both times.
In 1788/1789, he was elected with 69 electoral votes. The remaining 35 electoral votes went to 10 different candidates, one of whom was John Jay (9 electoral votes). And I believe Adams had 34 electoral votes. The only three states that did not vote at the time was New York (they did not choose their electors on time), and North Carolina and Rhode Island (who did not ratify the Constitution at that point in time).
In 1792, he won again with 132 electoral votes, while Adams got 77 electoral votes, George Clinton got 50 electoral votes, and two other candidates got the remaining 5 electoral votes.
So ….. I might be wrong on my opinion because it was pretty obvious he was going to win, but it wasn’t a runaway election either time so I don’t see how he was actually a dictator. Just that he could have been one, had he so wished.
George Washington won the electoral college unanimously. The electoral votes you’re talking about were for Vice President.
No he didnt Eaglejarl. Back then, the person with the most electoral votes became president, and the second most became vice president.
I hope that people notice the Deus talks about this so openly because what he is doing is not remotely evil, just ambitious. He’s going about ‘world takeover’ in the most legitimate way possible. He’s basing it on economics, rather than warfare and belligerence. His goal is to get people to WANT to join him, not him forcing others to join. Unless you’re a murderous despot who tortures, kills, rapes and disappears your people for jollies, and even then he tries to offer the carrot before bringing out the stick.
When you join something willingly, you are invested in its success. When someone forces you to join with no upside for yourself, you are invested in its failure. Deus wants win-win outcomes, so he wants the former, not the latter. That’s how the US became a world power. That’s how Japan went from the ashes of World War 2’s loss to being an economic superpower today (without even having an army anymore).
Also the thing about a benevolent dictatorship is Deus isnt going about it like most dictatorships. The main problem is obviously that:
1) They only last as long as the dictator lives; and
2) They can change on a whim if the dictator stops being benevolent.
Deus is not like other men. No, Deus, Paragon of Humanity, Pinnacle of the Win-Win Outcome, Savior of the Downtrodden, is cut from a different cloth. He recognizes tropes and is extremely genre-savvy. He may have a plan for ensuring that even after he dies, his form of leadership can be somehow ensured to live on. Otherwise, why bother doing it for something so fleeting.
Yes, fleeting. Taking over the world is a fleeting victory for one of Deus’s magnificence if it reverts back into chaos after a few short decades, and Deus is a VERY long-term thinker. He already thinks decades in advance, so he’d have planned on a response for the fatal flaw of a benevolent dictatorship in a way which, again, will be a win-win outcome for everyone involved.
All praise Deus, amen.
All Hail Emperor of Earth Deus!
I like your style.
But Emperor seems so imperial and Deus didnt exactly care about the moniker of Lord even when Lorlana calls him Lord Deus. :)
Maybe God King Deus. :)
I could quote Vespasian pretty decent roman emperor with dark sense of humor:
After their death, the Julio-Claudians had created a pattern of being deified, as the people turned them into gods and worshipped them after death. Hence, when he was dying of dysentery, he quipped, “Oh dear, I think I’m becoming a god!”.
“When you join something willingly, you are invested in its success. When someone forces you to join with no upside for yourself, you are invested in its failure.”
What you’re leaving out here is that other nations _aren’t joining by choice_ any more than a shopkeeper chooses to pay protection money. They’re joining under duress. I thnk Deus made that pretty clear several times, and drew a line under it with his threat that membership in his economic club will not be voluntary. Joining unwillingly, _even if_ there’s some benefit, still is not “benevolent”. Signing the contract because there’s a gun to your head is not “voluntary”. Joining because he leaves you no other choice is not “voluntary”.
Deus is a villain with good publicity.
“What you’re leaving out here is that other nations _aren’t joining by choice_ any more than a shopkeeper chooses to pay protection money. ”
Which other nations? Mozambique? Mozambique is a failed state with a government that is incapable of doing anything for its people except letting them suffer. And it’s already been made clear that the people in that region WANTED Deus to come in to add his infrastructure to their lives. Deus represents their will, not the will of a corrupt government of a failed state that doesnt care about if the people are starving and living in squalor.
What other nations are you talking about? Give an example.
“They’re joining under duress.”
Who? What other nations are joining anything under duress? Mozambique lost a war. A war that they did not have to be in, which they were already in even before Deus was in Galytn. Deus did not react by taking them over completely, which would be very consistent with history of most conflicts of EVERY civilization, including a significant portion of history of the United States (including our founding and expansion)
What other nations are you talking about?
“I thnk Deus made that pretty clear several times, and drew a line under it with his threat that membership in his economic club will not be voluntary.”
1) Part of the problem of multi-national coalitions is that usually only a few of those nations actually contribute, and the rest coast by. NATO. the EEC / EU. The African Union. Which makes the coalition weak and meanlingless, and is unfair to the nations who ARE contributing. Because the ones that are not are not being told ‘Either contribute or you are out of hte coalition.’ That’s what it means to be compulsory.
2) The one thing I’ve disagreed with with Deus’s plan is that he seems to be comparing it to the UK leaving the EU, via Brexit. He attributes it to xenophobia, when this was not the reason for Brexit. Also the UK was a major contributor TO the EU (I believe 9%, which is only behind Germany and I think France) So the UK was contributing, and they were not getting as much back FOR that contribution because many other nations were not contributing and the EU was engaging in forced economic decisions which made NO sense, and which was harming the UK’s economy instead of helping it. In short, the EU was forcing on the UK a win-lose scenario, not a win-win one. This would likely not be the case with Deus, who seems to have a history of making sure everyone gets a win-win outcome. But Deus unfortunately does not exist in real life.
“Signing the contract because there’s a gun to your head is not “voluntary”. Joining because he leaves you no other choice is not “voluntary”.”
What gun are you talking about? You are again conflating the people who WANT Deus there with the corrupt government that is abusing the people who DONT want Deus there. It seems odd that you’d think that Deus woul have the same strategy with a peaceful and decent, albeit possibly inefficient, government of a people with a lot of upward mobility and a strong middle class, as he would with the incredibly corrupt and evil government of a failed state in which the people are suffering.
“Deus is a villain with good publicity.”
Deus is actually ridiculously upfront about his plans. He doesnt try to hide or fake what he wants to do. He goes on national TV to not only tell people what he wants to do, but the exact way he wants to do it. He details it, piece by piece, to Maxima, to her face, explaining exactly how he wants to do something because nothing he’s saying is actually evil and all of it is at the very least plausible as a coherent plan.
And we’ve already seen that when things mess with his plan, he doesnt rant and rave about it… he just fixes his powerpoint spreadsheet when his projections are thrown off.
He literally said, in panel two of this very page, that membership into his New Order will be compulsory ie they won’t have a choice in the matter
When people mess with his plan, he fixes the problem by having them removed
“When people mess with his plan, he fixes the problem by having them removed”
Once again you’re just reading into things. QUITE unnecessarily, my good friend G. Who has Deus removed that got in the way of his plans, aside from Indinge who had a very good way to NOT get removed by not being a Hitleresque monster who rapes, tortures, murders, and disappears men, women, and children before wanting to kill Deus?
Deus prefers economic threats. Deus prefers making scenarios backed with strength, but not actually USING that strength, and as soon as the need for using strength is over to immediately help the people he was using the strength on.
And when people have messed with his plans in the past, he hasn’t removed them – he just alters his plans.
Like he had to when the Fel attacked ARCHON and aliens became known to everyone on Earth.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-770-reactions-are-mixed/
Deus’s response? “Hmm. This is going to affect my timetable.” Then he started annoying Vale to ask for help on how to fix his powerpoint presentation.
And you are ignoring things, again
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m looking at everything in complete context.
Perhaps the problem is that so many people have been conditioned to fear a “New World Order”, no matter what shape it actually took, or how it came about.
Yes. Because in all current cases, people trying to start a New World Order have been legitimately evil or outright incompetent (but sometimes with a lot of eloquence).
Deus is different because he’s not evil, and hypercompetent. Which admittedly is not something we’ve seen for people trying to do what he’s doing in real life.
If this was real life, I would be obviously suspicious. But in the comic we can see that Deus is legitimately following through on his promises, consistently so. And barring making up scenarios in our head that have not happened and we have no reason to assume will happen, Deus has been doing a VERY good job.
Oh, what cases would those be? Because I’m not aware of any actual attempts to start a New World Order, just a lot of fearmongering nonsense.
‘. . .people trying to start a New World Order have been legitimately evil or outright incompetent (but sometimes with a lot of eloquence).’
are we talking real life? or in fiction?
because too much of what pretends to be factual is actually fiction.
I think it’s funny how often people ignore all the things we can learn from fiction, while simultaneously treating it as a valid historical reference.
Fiction is great for understanding how people think, what they believe about themselves or others, what they value. But it’s useless for determining how people will actually react, or how systems will function.
Life imitates art imitates life.
I’m talking both fiction and history. They play off each other.
In history, examples of New World Order attempt are things like The Nazis, ISIS’s plans for a worldwide caliphate, Lenin/Stalin’s communism, Torquemada’s Spanish Inquisition, etc.
Then we can get to New World Order scenarios in fiction.
1984.
Brave New World.
Anthem.
The Hunger Games.
Logan’s Run.
Not to start a fight here, but…
I went to the Benevolent Dictator page in Wikipedia. Where I find they list Josip Tito…
Now, I’m an old man – I remember things that get glossed over sometimes. I have to express some doubt that Tito belongs on that page (I know NOTHING about the others), as executing 500,000 people to get and keep his position (3% of the population) seems to violate ‘benevolent’.
If 3% trips your button, what about Ataturk? The _instigator_ of the event that coined the term “genocide”.
Yeah, the only benevolent dictator I was taught in school was Captain John Smith, who rescued the failing Virginia colony by eliminating the privileges of the nobility. (They had been gold hunting instead of contributing useful work.)
Of course, there was that Roman who went back to the fields after he won his war. That should count.
That page is SORELY lacking… (of course, we ARE talking about Wikipedia…)
I generally try to avoid using Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information. It’s a good ‘starting off point’ at best, but you really need to trace the sources and citations used. There’s a reason most professors won’t allow it as a citation on a thesis.
Lucius Quintius Cincinnatus (519 – 430 BC) is the Roman Dictator you’re thinking of. I scrolled down to the comments to see if anyone had pointed him out, especially given that he was the primary influence on George Washington in openly stepping down from and setting key precedence for the office of the POTUS.
The man got actively screwed over by the country: he had to sell everything to pay off his son’s fine for murder (his son killed a guy and ran from the law), was slandered for losing everything and his son’s actions, and was forced to work the fields at an old age to make ends meet. Despite all this, he was asked to come back as dictator during a military crisis because he was the best equipped military leader despite his slandered reputation. He accepted the power and promptly resolved the war in a matter of weeks…then returned the powers back without any other action and stepped down months early to go back to his farm. Then, just a few years later, he was re-asserted as dictator due to an internal political crisis, which again he resolved in short order before handing back his power early and returning to his farm.
Due to his example as Dictator, he was hailed as a model Roman citizen and exemplar of the proper leader that would not abuse his power. The fact that he could have easily held the Dictator title for much longer, even within the legal bounds of his appointment, yet handed essentially unlimited power back without having used it for self gain despite having been abused by the Roman political system previously was mind-boggling and inspired the world for generations to come.
I always found it interesting that a great leader’s most resounding influence comes not from how great his use of power was, but instead from his willingness to step away from power and return to the citizenry as an equal.
OK, I am sold on Dues’s plan. Sign me up for his United Earth plan.
Really, he is a better person than most politicians. He hasn’t done anything that most other nations hasn’t also done. The only questionable thing he has done has been to hire some off-world mercenaries, I would rather see human’s because the Alien/demons should not be stealing our jobs like that. (we can kill each other on our own, thank you very much.)
Well, the Yanks keep hiring non-Yanks to help them (pull their asses out of the fire) out in their Vikings against weaker nations. So what makes Deus different?
Gorblimey, just wondering, you might have mentioned this elsewhere but I can’t figure out where…. but are you from Australia?
Erm… Yes? *looks nervously around* Mostly.
What tipped you off?
I’m going to guess… how nothing you say makes any sense, despite appearing to be written in English.
I mean, there are plenty of other clues. And I think you’ve admitted it in the past.
Yes. But I also still find reading his posts enjoyable to read despite not knowing what the heck he’s saying half the time.
:)
Thank you both for your kind words.
“nothing you say makes any sense”/”not knowing what the heck he’s saying”
I’m trying to supply adequate and illustrative context to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, by the time someone has navigated to the end of the thread, the word “context” becomes, well, nebulous. Not to mention what happens when sub-threads take on their own importance.
You may not be aware, but you use a lot of words specific to an Australian dialect of English.
Also, the “illustrative context” you supply… assumes the reader knows a lot of things about Australia that most people outside of Australia probably don’t.
So both the words you use and the things you talk about serve to mark you as probably Australian.
Well I’ll be a Cockatoo’s squawk! Damned by my own tongue :(
It’s cool. Keep using your Ozzie-isms. I enjoy it, even if it makes me scratch my head.
Two of my favorite minor characters on Snowpiercer were the Last Two Australians. Mostly because of the speech patterns.
That’s ‘Ockerisms’
Yeah, what most ‘Strayans don’t remember is the the “Australian Accent” is fathered and mothered by the Cockney English found in London’s East End. In its geographical and cultural senses, Cockney is best defined as a person born within hearing distance of the bells of St. Mary-le-Bow (“Bow Bells”), Cheapside, in the City of London, but the accent has spead far and very wide.
Cheapside Street or West Cheap was the site of a great medieval food market. West Cheap and East Cheap were the two principal market areas of London, both created during King Alfred ‘s program of urban renewal in the ninth century.
I’ve shamelessly lifted from everywhere here as they say it better than I can, so I’m not bothering to cite.
Whatever they’re called, I like ’em. :)
To take the logic of Agent K and turn it against itself: if a person leads people, people will not be a group of persons – they will instead be the panicky animals that struggle to make smart decisions for themselves and others. No matter how smart a person is, they are still only one person and limited to a single brain and body. A struggle of a democracy is to bring the persons out of the people, while dictatorships strive against that struggle to instead stomp persons back down into the people.
A benevolent dictatorship is an oxymoron.
Malevolent dictators “stomp persons back down into the people” as you put it. A benevolent dictatorship wouldn’t do that. It’s not an oxymoron, it’s just not a stable form of government as a dictator only has as much power as he or she has the loyalty of those who make their dictates happen.
The ruler of this town or that town doesn’t have to follow the rules put forth by the dictator. Ruling representatives like that are referred to as “keys to power”. A democracy attempts to make every individual the keys to power, which means having to do what’s best for the people, or at least that’s what it means on paper. In practice, however, there are multiple strategies to corrupt the democratic process such as breaking the people up into blocks and moving the borders of those blocks i.e. gerrymandering, instituting rules about who even can vote in the first place, and convincing the people that what is bad for them but good for you is good for them such as with trickle down economics which is just an elaborate advance fee scam (a confidence trick to get people to give up current value for the promise of a higher future value that never comes) built into economic policy.
If a dictatorship has local rulers that don’t have to follow the rules of the dictator, then either it is not a dictatorship on that level, or the dictator’s power is weak. The very definition of a dictator is that they or their closest group rule, and if their rule can be ignored then it hardly is a rule, is it?
The most benevolent you can get is that the dictator has support from the people and thus can keep their active malevolence on the low while still keeping their power – but the people will still not be persons. Or, I guess, if you do it like the Romans did with 6-month periods of a dictator supported by the overarching political structure that in itself isn’t a dictatorship, but I believe you can argue that would be a dictator in a system that in itself isn’t a dictatorship.
So what I’m trying to say, I guess, is that you might be able to have a benevolent dictator, but you cannot have a benevolent dictatorship.
You know what, scratch that, I was not really replying to what you wrote, but to my idea of what you wrote.
I agree with it not being stable, and I think it isn’t stable because of it being an oxymoron. The two things do not mesh at all, making it an oxymoron as well as unstable.
Yes, I agree democracy is terrible. A famous adage is that it’s two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Which is why a constitutional federal republic, America’s for example, is so far the best we’ve got, because it works. It’s impossible to get a system that everyone is happy with by the nature of humanity, but republics are time tested that they ensure everything is at least fair and free.
Medicine anyone? Get paid for your 10-year internship anyone?
and those things can and will likely change in time once enough pressure is put, just like how the women where able to vote and how overt discrimination was illegalized, the thing is that this is an ongoing process that takes time and effort
the problem many have is that they want changes NOW, right this instance and yeasterday would have been better but again, it takes time to make such changes and you can break somethings trying to fix others
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to want to benefit from those changes themselves, rather than just settle for the possibility that future generations might get to.
yeah but that is the problem, we humans are wired to want inmediate rewards because, well, we dont live long lives, and a lot of problems come from that thinking
in fact part of what makes deus plan good is that he doesnt think in inmediate rewards he thinks in the long term, im sure he may be alreay thinking in making himself inmortal using all the alien tech and magic that he has now and that is why he can give himself that benefit (hell, maybe he is a super with the ability of inmortality or something like that) but things in the real world take time, sometimes years, other times decades, some changes are faster yes but they need to be well planned because otherwise you end with a half cooked system that ends up doing more harm than good
now dont get me wrong there IS a lot of red tape and idiots who opose certain changes based on pretty stupid reasonings, but not everyone is like that and every change that you can think about that you may believe could be a overall positive has some unseen consequences or something that you likely are unaware about that need to be adressed before it gets passed and aproved, because whn you are dealing with a country of hundreds of millions that is th size of a continent you really need to take everything into account
its not perfect but nothing is
the problem is that when you deal with a country where hundreds of millions live and its the size of a continent every change no matter how benevolent it may look like at first glance can and will likely have unintended consequences and those need to be discused, analysed, find solutions to said problems if they exist or at least find a way to minize the consequences if there are no posible solutions available, then they need to be aproved, implemented and analyzed to see if they are working as intended, is a long and laborious process that takes effort and resources and those can take years if not decades
and dont get me wrong, there IS a lot of red tape and idiots who oppose positive changes for all the wrong reasons and politicians with bested interests or rich guys that want to keep exploiting the current system for their own benefit, all of those certainly exist, but not everyone is like that and usually even in the most beningn changes there are hidden little problems that you may not even be aware that they exist but that can create a lot of trouble, this things take time they will eventually happen probably sooner rather than later, but people sometimes talk like they are NEVER going to happen just because they havent happened yet
the real world is complicated like that
Definite Sydney-style “Oops!” moment. Max has been hanging around with Sydney for too long. :)
A stable benevolent dictatorship is a pipe dream. The keys to power inevitably depose the benevolant dictator because they aren’t getting their corruption boner on. CGP Grey has a good video on this subject and why benevolant dictatorships are rare and cannot last long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Mind you, having supers backing you up is a great way to ensure the keys to power can’t depose you, but it’s best if you yourself are a super because otherwise those supers could be pried away from you… because as CGP Grey puts it, loyalty is everything.
It’s an entertaining video but simplistic to the point of being utterly wrong.
Would you care to elaborate on how it’s wrong, exactly? Or is it just wrong because you feel or say it’s wrong?
Finally. someone is asking a really good question. rather than debate weather a benevolent dictator has ever existed or if Dues is one yet. ask why dictators and such are so often assholes when it seems so obvious that they don’t need to be. its in the conclusion that we see why this video seems so vague. Its covering an obscenely broad definition of ‘those in power’. so now, who are Dues ‘keys to power’? everyone has them. find Dues’s keys and we can predict his rule. it is not the people of Gatlyn at least not directly.
I look forward to the high priestess of Dues either ignoring this post or telling us that Dues is his own keys to power. hopefully I’m wrong about the priestess.
Democracy and Republics are strongest systems of Government when the vast majority of the public participate in the Government in some way (teachers, mail carriers, road builders, public officials, social workers, public safety officers, fire fighters, National Guard, Armed Forces, and all the other possible jobs that make civilization bearable and livable). High informed voting and education rates are also absolutely necessary. Corruption should be heavily punished and Monopolies beaten to a pulp. Multi-National Conglomerates should be treated warily and assumed to be Monopolies unless proven otherwise. Income Disparities should be avoided and those with vast wealth should be heavily financially penalized (use those taxes to make the nation more stable).
No government is going to last long if the “vast majority” of public are being paid by taxing producers.
I’m not saying that we don’t need a sizable government (I’m no anarchist), but really, the government is EXTREMELY bad at allocating resources.
Look what happens in states where it controls them all.
USA makes every effort to bankrupt them until it can topple the government?
It would help if the Democratic Republic could actually pay its employees decent incentivising salaries.
I used to hang out with some US exchange teachers, both genders. ALL of them were sorting what they had to do to come back to Oz and go for citizenship — purely for the (by their standards) huge salaries. Oh, and no weapons in class.
I’m not sure whether Deus’s words in panels 1-3 are DaveB making a deliberate dig at the UK or not. Can’t exactly fault his position, but please remember it was only ever a minority who actually wanted to “shoot ourselves in the economic foot”, and most of them were misled about the degree of foot-shooting involved. Plurality-based political systems have a lot to answer for.
“… and most of them were misled about the degree of foot-shooting involved.”
Doesn’t say much for their cranial capacity, does it?
Says more about how easy it was to sell one vision to one person, while also selling dozens of completely contradictory ones to their neighbours, and have them all bundled together as ‘Change’ to balance against ‘Status Quo’. All the while having no intention or even idea of how to deliver any of them.
Any sane organisation would make such a decision in a two-stage process, that’s Business Management 101. First decide whether the concept of ‘Change’ is interesting enough to be worth looking into, then work out the details of a single viable proposal, then set that proposal head-to-head against the Status Quo. Our Government decided to treat a dodgy version of stage 1 as if it were Gospel-backed stage 3, and they’ve spent the past six years making it increasingly obvious that stage 2 never existed.
I read it as a fairly blatant reference to the UK and laughed. Unfortunately it was a majority of the electorate who bothered to go out and vote even if it was a minority of the population.
Though yes, had labour followed through on ditching fptp back in the late 90s it’s likely the whole referendum would never have happened.
It’s worth remembering that Voluntary Voting — in the absence of a “None of these Turkeys” check-box — is a founding principle of “democracy”: you have the right to not care. Complaining after the event *is* stretching the lakky too far but.
“And that’s why he firmly believes that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, but mostly except for a benevolent dictatorship headed exclusively by him.”
Democracy isnt a great form of government the larger the population becomes. Because it usually becomes mob rule, which was the problem that the Founding Fathers had with the idea of a pure democracy. They feared the tyranny of the majority almost as much as the tyranny of the minority, which is why they fashioned a two-house legislative branch – one which was based on state populations and one which was equal for every state regardless of population. The individual states are usually closer to actual democracies but even with them, there are usually districts.
The smaller a population you get, the easier it is to have a democracy without worry about mob rule of a large population trouncing over the rights of a minority population, especially a minority population in an area MUCH different than the area of the majority population, which might have vastly different needs than the majority population.
It’s also why the United States is a constitutional republic with votes based on a representative democracy.
As the story was told and retold on the House floor, Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”
To which Franklin responded, with a rejoinder at once witty and ominous: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
sometimes I wonder if we were to somehow bring the writers of the constitution forward to now; and time to adjust to the shock, if the first thing they’d say is they never intended the country to get this big (population/geography) without getting major rewrites to the structure of government.
They didn’t. They also did not think we’d stray so far from the original intents in the Constitution.
Well… Monroe would be surprised at least. He was surprised when at least one major ‘rewrite’ (not actually a rewrite but a reinterpretation and creation of ‘judicial review’) happened to the Constitution happened during his own lifetime, because of Marbury vs Madison.
As for size, they were very against a consolidation of too much federal power. That’s why they tried to make it very clear that the power was supposed to reside primarily on the local level, then within the states (using the 9th and 10th amendment to try to double down on that idea). Mainly because they did not trust the idea of a population that was too large being able to be adequately governed by a central authority without squashing citizens’ liberties and rights.
Yeah, the US is far too big to adequately govern everyone without stepping on a few (dozen) necks in the process, largely because different regions have different needs and problems, and what works in one region to sort them won’t work in another
The US needs to do a USSR and splinter
“Yeah, the US is far too big to adequately govern everyone without stepping on a few (dozen) necks in the process, largely because different regions have different needs and problems, and what works in one region to sort them won’t work in another”
G. I am framing this post because we agree completely about what you say here. :)
“The US needs to do a USSR and splinter”
I really hope it does not come to that. But it could happen. :(
I think it could be fixed if people just acknowledge that government in a large nation works best when it’s from the bottom up, rather than the top down. The best way to have anything large is to have interdependence among many different small groups, not a single big group dominating everything (which again was the main problem with the EU, and is reason the United States Constitution’s 9th and 10th amendments are so important).
Just meant, each state should be allowed to govern itself, because most states know what work for them
Like, what works for California isn’t going to work for New Hampshire, and trying to balance both means both get screwed in different ways
“Just meant, each state should be allowed to govern itself, because most states know what work for them”
I completely agree. Wonderful post. Very well articulated, G.
ps- This is actually the entire reason for having two houses in Congress (Senate for the states, representatives for the people), and an electoral college system for national elections, as opposed to state elections, btw.
I suppose it’s too late to change things much, but consider the Oz setup:
Oz has six states, none of which fully trusted any others, and two (New South Wales and Victoria) were bitter competitiors. All states were sovereign and the big issue was trade. Historically, the concept of Federation was a non-starter, although many realised it was only a matter of time (“Not in MY time!”). New Zealand and Fiji were invited to consider themselves invited, but — wisely IMNSHO — politely rejected the offer.
The elephant in the room was the constitution, which had to be pared down to trade-related provisions just so it could be considered at all. Among others, the Australian Constitution forbids the closing of borders to regulate trade; however the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1919 forced the adoption of very strict quarantine measures and eventually all States closed their borders. Apart from that, the Constitution consists mostly of provisions for the National (Federal) Parliament. There are no human rights provisions in the document, as these were seen as State matters.
There are also no provisions for common standards, which (naturally) led to the adoption of different rail gauges… Many are surprised we have a common electrical voltage even! (FWIW, many rural properties used a well-accepted 32V generator system, which lasted until around 1970-ish.)
The Top End (Northern Territory) and the ACT (Canberra) were carved out from South Australia and NSW respectively and made Territories a few years after Federation; the NT due to its sparse population and the ATC because while it had to be in New South Wales, it could not be seen to be part of NSW (rather like the District of Columbia, yes?).
The Commonwealth has only one judiciary, the High Court. This tries only civil cases that transcend State boundaries, and any such that the State Supreme Courts fail to resolve. Its decisions apply across the Federation.
The Coonstitution is protected extremely well. It requires a majority of votes in a majority of States to alter it, and this can be incredibly hard to achieve. Only 8 of 44 proposed amendments have carried, the most notable being the status of Aborigines in 1967.
Of interest, John Hawkins’ federal gun control legislation was deliberately introduced outside the Constitution, due to the need to maintain and upgrade it in a current state. Essentially it prohibits the access by civilians to military-grade weapons and provides for voluntary surrender and buy-back of forbidden weapons. Handguns (I think) were included, but most States already had their own hand-gun control. There have been no mass killings in Australia since 1996, and inidental gun crime is probably lower than the Canadian rate. We should note that Australians can own and use firearms. All you need is written evidence you have a suitable place to use them, and a secure place to stash them.
“I suppose it’s too late to change things much, but consider the Oz setup:”
I don’t really want to go down this particular tangent because Australia currently has a lot of problems on the ‘liberty’ end of things which happened rather suddenly, and I have a lot of things I’d disagree with you on your last paragraph, but it’s all tangential to the current thread, and I only have a cursory understanding of Australian gun control history (so I’m not going to make long-winded arguments about something where I’m admittedly ignorant, until I know enough to give a good argument anyway).
What I do know is a lot of Australia is completely barren – the entire continent has less than 26 million people. While the United States population on ‘roughly’ the same area (about a million square miles larger with Alaska) has about 329 million people. What works in one nation isnt always going to work the same in another.
Bringing it back to the comic for a moment…. this is why Deus’s plans are intelligent. He is not using a single strategy for the entire world. He uses different strategies for Galytn, for spreading around Galytn, for sub-saharan Africa, etc. What works for one part of his plan will not necessarily work for other parts.
So I find it amusing when people hear ‘compulsory’ and think that has anything to do with Step Z, when he’s on Step B and talking about Step C or D.
“What I do know is a lot of Australia is completely barren …”
Yes. The lack of water is the killer here, and there is no good (read: easy and cheap) solution. Almost all groundwater is hypersaline, often to 150%.
“Australia currently has a lot of problems on the ‘liberty’ end of things which happened rather suddenly …”
Yes, fundamentally as soon as the convicts stepped off the ships. Governments in Oz have always been… not *actually* authoritarian, but sufficiently paternal you’d be hard put to see the difference. Compulsory Voting is a classical example, as class warfare was slowly diminishing the turnout rate to the point where it could have been very difficult to form a legitimate government.
So the current “liberty problems” are no more than an extension of what we have always lived under.
I have a few friends (online friends) in Perth, and one in Sydney that I went to college with before he went back, but my knowledge of Australia is very lacking. I really want to visit for a few months in the future.
But… not in the current political climate.
I’d wait for Covid to be less of a thing, then the political climate will probably have changed, probably for the better. And protective gear like masks *should* no longer be necesssary.
Having said all that, most folks here don’t see what all the “liberty” fuss is about. We wear masks and self-isolate because it’s a sensible thing to do, but a few bloody galahs* think it clever to “protect their freedom”.
Just remember we drive on the correct side of the road, so all your reflexes will be backwards… :>
* A “bloody galah” is a complete idiot. Real galahs only act like idiots, and can fly at 60Km/H forever. Nearly.
“I’d wait for Covid to be less of a thing,”
I do think Australia went insane about COVID. And I say that coming from New York City, where … we went insane also about COVID. And no to everyone, I’m not saying covid’s not real or anything. I’m just saying there was pani c… and then there was panic in Australia or Canada or New York City, which was like…. a lot more panic than any reasonable panic to the point of curtailing constitutional freedoms (although I admit I don’t know how the constitution works in Australia but I know the US consittution and many of Canada’s guarantees on freedoms were blatantly violated. For all I know, Australia didnt do anything against their nation’s foundational laws. I’m not an expert on Australian law or even an amateur at it. :) I’ll leave that learning to you.
“Having said all that, most folks here don’t see what all the “liberty” fuss is about.”
Yeah well… you were all convicts. Just kidding :) I kid because I love, my Ozzie friend.
“Just remember we drive on the correct side of the road, so all your reflexes will be backwards… :>”
No. I refuse. I’m an American, part hawaiian, and part asian so you all have to fear me when I’m on the road. No matter what country I’m in. I might even bring a bald eagle in my car aka Peacemaker. Lets see how the Road Warrior deals with that.
“A “bloody galah” is a complete idiot.”
Seriously, thank you for making this asterisk because I was JUST about to respond to ask what a galah was, then saw the asterisk and saw this. I love Ozzie slang so much. It’s so cool.
I’d count Juan Carlos de España as a benevolent dictator for a short time : he was raised to be the successor of Francisco Franco, an authentic dictator of the usual brand and given full power after his death in 1975. Instead of starting his own career as an oppressive dictator, he slowly worked toward a democratic evolution, managing to almost fool the “old guard” of the regime (see the 1981 incident) and finally managed to make Spain a modern constitutional monarchy (= the king reign but doesn’t govern and is mainly a symbol) without bloodshed or civil war.
I’m less familiar with the history of Thailand, but according to what I read about Bhumibol Adulyadej’s efforts in favor of his people and how loved he seemed to have been, I think he may qualify to.
On an other note : cool to see Lorlara making it to vote incentive of the month. :)
At least he’s openly honest about his plans. if not all that he’ll do behind the scenes in the process. It’s a refreshing change in any super universe dealing with a billionaire
I’ve heard the 20-20-60 rule applied to cops; out of the force, 20% are basically decent, fundamentally upstanding, take their responsibilities and authority seriously, don’t take bribes, etc. Another 20% are the opposite, always on the take, bullies, abuse their power constantly. The other 60%? Depends who’s in the car with them. That’s basically us as a society. How good are we? Who’s in the car with us?
And that’s why cops have such a bad reputation. When you’re talking about a profession that involves carrying lethal weapons and having authority over the rest of the population, you do NOT want 20% of them to be bad, and another 60% ready to turn bad the moment nobody decent is watching over them.
The theory simultaneously validates both the belief that 80% of cops are good guys, and 80% of cops are bad guys.
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”
OH! Well then there’s a very simple solution.
1) select the ‘smart’ people you value.
2) Kill everyone else.
Seriously, how is this not the natural conclusion of such idiocy? If individuals are the only humans with merit and the aggregate is a detriment then wipe out the surplus. That is literally the logic of Hitler, who certainly thought HE was the benevolent dictator, doing what had to be done for the good of the German people!
Democracy works fine the more protected it is from special interests of the wealthy. ‘I know best, trust me’ is not a political philosophy.
THANK you. Seriously, the “and you know it” is the part that really sets me on edge. It’s the sneering arrogance of… well, this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnowNothingKnowItAll
So the deal is EVERY tyrant thinks they’re doing the right thing. Ghengis Khan thought slaughtering everyone that refused his ‘generous’ offer was the right thing to do. He was benevolent to even OFFER a chance to be peacefully pillaged. Hitler. Mussolini. Every autocrat thinks they’re the good and virtuous person making the hard and necessary decisions for the GOOD people. Because groups of people are just a statistic. They’re just an abstract.
Some people have moaned about ‘tyranny of the majority’. Well you know what? Most democracies aren’t that tyrannical until you get some rich dudes wanting to protect their fortunes (like slave owners) or wanting to blame someone for a shitty economy because it’s easier to blame than it is to deal with the people wrecking the economy (usually because they want to be more rich.) Most democracies make rules like ‘hey, lets not kill each other or steal from each other. And sure, they’re not perfect. Fascism and nationalism are always a risk when you have shitty economic systems, but they’re not guaranteed.
The cynic says ‘democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner’. Bullshit. Because the lions aren’t stupid and know if they eat the lamb today, they’re eating each other tomorrow, and one of the two lions probably doesn’t WANT to get eaten tomorrow by the bigger lion. So maybe they don’t vote to eat the lamb today. Maybe the vote to invest in some food sources they can all enjoy so no one gets eaten. Cause one thing all three of them probably agree on is they all wanna eat something, and they all don’t want to BE eaten by something.
Eh? The point of that phrase is that the same persons who can be perfectly be smart on their own become daft in a group.
It is not at all true that what is ‘smart’ in one place and time is ‘smart’ everywhere else.
everyone has moments of sheer brilliance (I HATE it when they do it to me) and also moments of complete idiocy (this is where all too often I find myself) so there’s no way to separate the ‘smart’ from the ‘dumb’. this is why in my professional life I try to talk to people who might have insight or perspective on what I’m working on.
Intelligence is almost as poorly defined as love.
Wrong. The point of that phrase is that there are ‘special people’. A person CAN be smart. Which implies that there are people who aren’t smart. “PEOPLE are dumb” is categorical. It’s not “People can be dumb.” which would imply that sometimes people aren’t dumb. The idea that some people are better than others is insidious. It’s the logic that kept nobles and clergy in charge for century. It’s the logic that military leaders have used to destroy democracies, which is the only empowering form of governance ‘people’ get to enjoy. ‘I’m smart (cause I say so), and anyone that disagrees with me is wrong, and therefore, worse.’
Here’s the deal. I may be smarter than some people, but I don’t think I’m BETTER than some people. I try to be best at being me. I’m not better than a Trumper… but I am right and I have philosophies and facts to support my position. A trumper being wrong doesn’t make them worse than me. A trumper being stupid doesn’t make them worse than me. We’re equal. And we might take actions with consequences, but a good consequence doesn’t elevate me and a bad consequence doesn’t diminish them.
It would appear that you interpreted the phrase differently than others. How do you know your interpretation is correct, or even dominant?
where do you get the idea from my statement that some people are better than others?
I didn’t. My response was to SteveK, not you. I agree with you.
It’s utterly beyond me how so many people here seem to see Deus as some kind of hero.
He has usurped the leadership of one nation, invaded another, and he’s outright stating that he wants to bring the entire world under his control, whether the world wants to join or not.
Someone mentioned Lord Vetinari as an example of a benevolent dictator. The difference between Vetinari and Deus is that Vetinari knew he only survived as long as the city found him benevolent. Almost all of his time was spent arranging matters so that he was more valuable alive than dead. His dictatorship consisted of letting people do what they want 99% of the time; the key was influencing them to want the same things he did. The only thing they were not free to do was threaten the city.
And very notably, Vetinari had no territorial ambitions. Ankh-Morpork might economically rule the Discworld, but only because the rest of the world has become so commercially intertwined with her that the city is indispensable. Sort of the way Vetinari is politically indispensable. AND he profited from it not at all. Vetinari was the hardest-working person in the city.
Deus is the villain. Because he’s polite about trying to take over the world, doesn’t mean he is not trying to take over the world.
What is inherently wrong with taking over the world? I’m sure a lot of people believe that, and probably believe the reasoning is so obvious that it doesn’t require explanation, but maybe someone should spell it out.
For me?
Because any attempt to do so will inevitably lead to unnecessary slaughter and misery.
Deus’ dream of everyone joining willingly is a pipe dream of the highest order.
And what if everyone did join willingly? Would that make it not wrong?
If you can imagine a scenario, no matter how unlikely, that alters the valuation, that invalidates the inherent nature of the property.
Yeah, it’d be fine if everyone agreed to it.
But everyone being in agreement is kinda fundamentally in conflict with human nature.
My question was “What is inherently wrong with taking over the world?” I guess your answer is “nothing”.
No, my answer is; facts and human history.
If something only isn’t stupid & harmful when completely divorced from reality, then there’s not “nothing inherently wrong with it”, it’s still a stupid and harmful idea.
Do you understand what the word “inherent” means?
Put a smiling, charismatic guy in front of people that says “I super duper promise not to abuse power and take care of all your problems” and some people just turn completely pro Dictatorships.
And here i am. Just thinking “Ok. So he admits he will use force to gain political power and someday overtake the earth. I have it recorded/witnesses. I think that’s enough to label him a terrorist and threat to the United States. Time to kill him”
Uhm. Well, in a narrow sense, for someone to be a terrorist he has to incite terror by the use of deadly force. Typically in indiscriminate style. In a broader sense, it’s the use of force for political gain, especially as a non-state actor against non-combatants.
Since Deus now effectively runs two governments, it’s going to be rather difficult to make that “terrorist” label believable without redefining the term into a shape even more resembling a pretzel than it already does.
It’d be rather hypocritical too: States inciting terror in their own population aren’t called “terrorist”. Supporting such states even was (and apparently is) a policy goal of the United States government, as long as it is convenient for them (or gets them out of an inconvenient pickle, buggering off and leaving a shambles behind).
You may well be right that the US will try and kill Deus, but I’d not see that as legitimate. But then, they’re rather apt to do whatever the hell they please, nevermind the consequences, and fuck everybody else. That too is a well-known trait of US foreign policy. In going on eighty years they’ve learned diddly squat from their mistakes to boot. Time and again, somebody else got stuck with the bill.
With attitudes like these, I’d actually rather have Deus running the show than whichever smooth-talking, incoherent, irrelevant, or senile sockpuppet the deep state puts up this week. If there is one thing he isn’t, it’s being coy about what his motives and his goals are.
I’d still prefer own rule, of course. But given that the main achievement of over half a century of “development aid” is putting Africa off wanting that European and American aid and instead preferring getting fucked over by the Chinese, it’d be bad in the extreme for the US to try and meddle with an actual honest-to-God African success story.
Of course, Deus is cheating wholesale with the alien technology thing. But there are other things to do about that.
“senile sockpuppet the deep state puts up this week”
Now i’m not surprised anymore why you would side with a crazy, narcisist who only cares for power and money.
I like your reply for its simplicity. “Keyword spotted! Pigeonhole identied! Thinking effort spared!” And off you trundle for your morning can of beer. Beware of fridge logic, though.
It’s been long known or at least suspected that riches give you more influence on policy than voting does, in the US as well in other places, and this was recently backed by a study with some science and numbers. Though I can’t presently find it. So if you’re prepared to look beyond the tin foil hat brigade use of the term, the observation becomes quite a lot uncomfortable.
This may be why tin foil hat afficionados tend to conflate all sorts of things, true, alleged, and entirely made up, into one big black hole of badness. And why non-afficionados are only too happy to let themselves get triggered into ignoring the entire message on the strength of a single keyword.
So I think that your lack of surprise is really more of a relief, “oh right, well now I no longer have to think about it, problem solved, discomfort averted!” Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
I still don’t think that the US’ hobby of killing other countries’ statesmen is agreeable. In Deus’ case, all the US would have to do is show that they’re just as well of as his subjects, without him in charge. And the US has a goodly headstart. What do you have against a little competition, eh?
“It’d be rather hypocritical too”
Lol, we’re talking about international politics, not a debate.
No one cares about hypocrisy on that stage. They care about some idiot openly not playing the game and honest to God trying to take over the world.
At which point being isolated and sanctioned, beyond maybe a few under the table deals, is the likely outcome.
Somehow, I don’t think other nations would necessarily find “being a threat to the United States” to be an inherently immoral trait deserving of immediate execution. What gives the US the right to take such action on soil not their own, and if they have such a right, why doesn’t Deus?
But “Being a threat to EVERYONE” would legitimize it.
You seriously think Deus wouldn’t go after russia, the EU, iraq, iran, Israel, China etc?
No leader in the world would let themselves get kicked out of office and power if they had a superweapon like Maxima that could solve that issue permanently for them.
I think the rest of the world would gladly wait while he conquers their enemies, hope that he’ll target them last, and hope someone else does the work of taking him out before they need to.
I’m honestly a little surprised that Dabbler hasn’t pounced this guy yet. It’s not like he’s off limits like the team is.
The comic doesn’t show every moment of Dabbler’s or Deus’s life
We’re reaching the point where it *might* be possible to devise some sort of benevolence (+competence) test for a dictator and also we’re probably better at creating one correctly than previously if we put our minds to it.
Choosing your legislature by lottery and letting them select the Executive (democratically) strikes me a much more reliable than large-scale democracy. Any group of 600 or so is likely to be dominated by people who are basically decent if they have equality imposed amongst themselves.
Throw on a Head of State with a veto (over-ruled by Referendum) and maybe an elected or appointed Second House to taste.
I must confess the concept of election by lottery seems to have much to recommend it.
I would like to see it as applicable to all of-age citizens, and compulsory: if the lottery chooses you, you go to parliament/congress/duma.
I would also like to see a single-term with repeats after two terms — or something similar — and terms lasting two or three years.
And a separate lottery for Head-of-State, with the term set at 150% of the congressional term; again, single-term with repeats after two terms.
I’m looking at repeats, just in case a person is selected for the n-th time.
I definitely agree with Dabblers administrative outreach via shower doinking policy.
He seems closer to the idea of enlightened absolutism (or despotism) than benevolent dictatorship
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/12/to-properly-explain-the-eus-bendy-bananas-rules-yes-theyre-real/?sh=79f04a1a6fc9
Dabbler really needs to just go do it with Deux just to put him in his place so far as sexual prowess is concerned….
That really would be about the worst thing they could do to him. Allow Dabbler to ruin him for human women by allowing him to remember the encounter.
It would be genuinely kind of funny if it turned out Deus’ inevitable heel turn were caused by an obsession with getting Dabbler in bed a second time. If nothing in his book of sexploits had actually prepared him the way he’d assumed it would, and it wrecked him and he became entirely unhinged.
Hasn’t Deus also had sex with a lot of non-human women though?
But presumably not succubi, who are designed to be good at sex, and presumably not just better than human women, but most, if not all, non-human women as well.
I wouldn’t put it past Deus to say that his little black book doesn’t have a succubus in it.
Heck, being with a succubus might be one of the reasons that he HAS the little black book. He had a succubus, now he doesnt just want human women. And worked his sex game so that he can be extraordinarily good with ‘more than human’ women.