Grrl Power #1157 – Max can’t drive 165
Max’s problem with having a mundane evening is that her car has 700 horsepower and she’s used to casually breaking the sound barrier, so yeah, she has a bit of a lead foot. Or whatever her foot is made of. No, she wasn’t actually going 165 when she was pulled over, but she was going more than 10 over for sure. Normally a 2010 Shelby GT-500 only clocks about 500 HP, but she lets the Arc-SPARQ nerds maintain, tinker, and drive the thing when she’s not using it, so they’ve tuned it up a bit. Possibly totally replaced the engine and transmission. For fun. Because that’s how they do.
Max’s requirements for her “secret identity” was that the first name be gender neutral, and the first/last name combo not be a porn or stripper name. It was her specificity that doomed her. She actually likes the name Harper Lux. It kind of sounds like a superhero’s mundanonym. Mundanym? Somebody either with light powers or… I guess someone who plays a harp? Like an angel or a pied piper situation. Only it’d be like, uh… The Hued Harper. “Pied” means multicolored apparently. As in “Magpie,” which are two-tone birds. They actually look three toned to me, but I guess from a distance they look starkly black and white. Evidently the term “pied” came to mean “two colored,” not necessarily black and white, and from there evolved into just meaning “multicolored,” until it basically totally stopped being used in any form except in the tale of the Pied Piper. But I digress. If that cop was more on the ball, he might be suspicious that “Harper” seemed surprised by her own middle name, but this guy is just out there meeting his quota, and doesn’t care that someone is driving around in a really nice car with a probably fake but professionally done I.D.
I forgot to draw the seatbelt in every panel until I was almost done with the page. And yes, I know normally, a seatbelt would fall between a woman’s breasts, but that would mess up the point of the first panel, which was the Fuzz getting a solid downblouse on Max and immediately deciding to act like an ass. Normally Max is courteous and professional with law enforcement, at least the ones that are themselves professional. She has some strong opinions about those who act otherwise, but she’s trying to stay low key tonight, which means gritting her teeth and bearing it, since there’s basically no recourse for police who act unprofessionally. She’s definitely going to memorize this guy’s badge number for later, though.
The May vote incentive is finally up! Digit has some new and exciting tech to show off, as well as some other things, albeit inadvertently.
Variant outfits and lack thereof over at Patreon, as well as the semi-usual bonus incentive related comic.
.
.
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.
Maybe we should see the motor pool division of Archon and should it be headed up by….
A.The Gallic warrior mascot of the now defunct Antar petrol
https://wiki.totalenergies.com/sites/default/files/styles/12_cols/public/img16215a65c52989e66.jpg?itok=cM810Z_6
–or–
B.The Michelin Man(a.k.a. Bibendum)
https://guide.michelin.com/kr/en/article/features/8-fascinating-facts-michelin-man
https://www.carlogos.org/tire-logos/michelin-man-evolution.png
Anybody read Asterix in Switzerland? The original French edition has the Antar Gallic warrior and the early English edition uses the Michelin Man…
For the record, the zip code 75201 is down town Dallas. There are no houses there, only apartments. That driver’s license should have an apartment number on it.
There is no Sterling Ave. in Dallas, Texas. There is a Stirling in South Dallas near Cedar Hill.
And, since Dave says he copied the “A” endorsement from his license, the address listed on the license does not resemble Dave’s actual address in any way.
there is a Sterling Ln In Mesquite TX in residential area
A Sterling Street in Irving TX by the airport
a Sterling Drive in Richardson in an industrial area.
I thought he might be going for the old address of a strip club somewhere in the Dallas metro area, but those 3 wont have clubs in those areas.
Fairly sure it was meant to be a completely made up address, not an actual address, seeing how this is set in a parallel universe, not our own: some things line up, but a lot of other things won’t
For some reason I have this vague memory of Earth in the GrrlPower universe being mostly the same as our own, geographically, except with Australia being upside down. Probably just a throw away joke, and I can’t seem to find the source anymore, so maybe I imagined it. Or it’s some other comic or story where that’s true.
But yeah, I would expect any specific address we see in the comic to intentionally not correspond to a real address. It’s interesting to see some confirmation that part of the comic is set in Texas, though that’s long been implied.
” except with Australia being upside down.”
Yes, and in Australia everyone has to keep a tether attached to themselves and to the ground so they wont go flying off into outer space.
problem is those dropbears really like to unhook peoples tethers. its how most tourists die. i lost 3 friends that way when we were visiting aussie land as a port of call in the navy. very sad times.
They only fly off into space if they dig down too far. Australians standing on the surface of their continent can look up at the sea from Land of the Lost. (Or, was it Voyage to the Center of the Earth? It’s been a few decades since I read those.)
Also, it protects some actual folk’s tranquility.
You know if I had her government job and her superpowers, I’d pull over for the cop.
Then I’d pick up my car and fly away.
What are the odds that the cop is going to follow up and come after you?
So your first instinct would be to commit a misdemeanor (unlawfully fleeing a police officer in the third degree)? :)
Pretty sure that would bring a whole ‘who watches the watchers’ problem with Supers in the grrlpower universe if the super law enforcement officers decided to break the law so casually.
If she is in a flying vehicle without a transponder, colored running lights, and flight plan she is also violating federal law.
Ultra lights, para-sailors, and hang-gliders don’t have them, and she’d be under it, not in it. Those rules apply only to fixed-wing craft and I don’t see any fixed wings on either the car or Max. An ultra-light is about the same size as that car, the smallest fixed-wing plane has a wing span almost twice the length of that car.
That’s not necesarily true, helicopters and certain lighter-than-air craft require them. It has a rear spoiler. That could be considered a wing of sorts. I would press the point if I worked in the FAA.
FAA regs say lights are only required during night-flights, so if she turned on the lights of the car, she’d be legal (mostly, no red/green lights or strobes)
I think the choker has a transponder in it, based on what she told Sydney a few lessons ago.
Also I think the filght plan is based on how high you are flying. Again something I think she mentioned to Sydney. :)
Actually, Max said that the wrist thing she gave Sydney was the transponder, plus maps and other things.
Ah okay. You’re right.
I wonder why only Sydney has that and not the other fliers (Maxima, Hiro, and Heatwave).
I believe that’s been addressed :)
OHHHH! Good recall! It’s on their phones.
*thumbs up*
And it helpfully tells her, “Warning: You are being punched.”
Such a helpful pipboy! I think she lost it somewhere on planet X though.
I also suspect that, in the Grrlpower universe, they’ve probably made a law or two for superhumans that can fly now that it’s public.:)
This does remind me of the Flash short comedy bit by Blinky500… where a traffic cop gives Flash a speeding ticket for going 450 miles (which is over the speed limit where he was running).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4aMWSl1SX0
Daredevil would tear this ticket apart. The posted speed limit applies only to motor vehicles and bicycles; there is no law limiting how fast a human can move. Perhaps a ticket for high speed jaywalking could hold up, but not for speeding.
Also, the police officer had no way to measure Flash’s speed, and is not an expert witness wrt speeds other than vehicular traffic in a narrow range of speeds (0-75 or so). He was also not looking the same direction that Flash was… he turned his head after Flash passed. At that estimated speed, Flash will have traveled about 1/4 mile in the time it took the officer to react and turn his head.
“Daredevil would tear this ticket apart.”
Flash, not Daredevil. :)
“The posted speed limit applies only to motor vehicles and bicycles; there is no law limiting how fast a human can move.”
The skit actually has that as one of the arguments made by the Flash, but the cop is not having any of it. :)
“Also, the police officer had no way to measure Flash’s speed”
Apparently he used a radar speed gun. :)
“and is not an expert witness wrt speeds other than vehicular traffic in a narrow range of speeds (0-75 or so).”
He’s a traffic cop so he actually would be categorized in court as an expert witness. :) Also there’s no ‘narrow range of speeds.’ If a car was going at 200 mph, it would still be considered speeding for vehicular traffic.
“He was also not looking the same direction that Flash was… he turned his head after Flash passed.”
It’s actually more ridiculous than that. He claims to have been chasing him for like 10 blocks. Which seems implausible, but funny still. Remember, it’s a joke skit.
“At that estimated speed, Flash will have traveled about 1/4 mile in the time it took the officer to react and turn his head.”
Yes. It’s still a humorous skit. :D Watch it – it’s funny.
Daredevil’s a lawyer.
Yes but the video was about Flash and-
OHHHHHHHHHH
I see what she meant. That the ticket had so many legal problems that Daredevil, a lawyer, would easily be able to get Flash out of the ticket.
D’oh. Totally went over my head with that one.
It’s my headcanon that fliers count as ultrlights and may not require registration.
On the other hand, doing 300mph at 8 thousand feet should require all the paraphernalia of a small private aircraft flying under visual flight rules. Radio, transponder, whatever that collision avoidance gaget is.
Flying cross country should require a flight plan.
Maybe there’s a Super FAA that takes care of all the details.
Guessing there would be some basic FAA rules developed pretty rapidly for safety and privacy, similar to the rules slapped together for drone pilots. E.g. no-fly zones around airports, restrictions about flying over/near residences, altitude restrictions without coordinating a flight plan, etc.
And that’s what makes super stories a context with the potential for exploring law, ethics, and morality. Who is willing to follow the laws when they can’t be forced to? Who is only held to them because of the threat of violence?
Also, it ignores the whole point of her going out in disguise as a filthy Mud-blood
“And that’s what makes super stories a context with the potential for exploring law, ethics, and morality.”
Well that’s the difference between someone like Homelander or the Comedian (who abuse their superhero status an are left unchecked) and Superman or Spiderman (who still believe that with great power comes great responsibility – plus in Superman’s case has Batman with contingency plans just in case).
It’s also the whole theme behind DC variant worlds like Earth 49 (Injustice: Gods Among Us Earth) and Earth-3 (Crime Syndicate of America Earth) and Earth 50 (Justice Lords Earth) – in which there was either no one to keep the Justice League in check, some heroes in the Justice League stopped caring about being held to legal standards.
However I somehow don’t think Maxima is going to go Injustice based on a speeding ticket and a cop who is being unprofessional by stupidly pointing out that her fake name is DEFINITELY a porn star name (which it is).
I could argue that the cop is NOT being unprofessional by pointing out that the fake ID has a fake name on it.
Given her physical stature and her chosen name, the odds were good that she was literally a porn star, so it would be like saying to Bill Gates, “Oh, cool, that’s the name of that computer guy!”
Really? Your reasoning that his comment is not unprofessional/sexist is that “any tall woman with a nice figure and a name that can interpreted suggestively most likely works in the sex industry?” o_0
And you don’t think that stance maybe undermines your argument?
sec let me do the math on this…carry the five…and done. ive known 0 people with a porn/stripper name that had that name legally since birth. Shocking i know, but parents dont name kids after porn stars. Did know a dude who him and all his siblings were named after whatever there dad was on the night they were born. which was both hilarious and horribly disturbing at the same time. his name was jack(jack daniels) had a brother named Jim(jim bean) a sister named Mary Jane(pot) and another sister named Crystal(crystal meth).
commenting on it doesnt make it unprofessional, and certainly doesnt make it sexist. Only if he reacted one way with a female stripper name, and did not act that way with a male stripper name/driver would you then be able to compare if the interaction was different. As for the “unprofessionalism” your take is that cops are not allowed to have a sense of humor and find stripper names funny/amusing? Only everyone else can but not cops..that would be unprofessional!
tl:dr – one point is out and out stupid, the other lacks any sort of context to be taken as offensive…but im sure you wont let that stop you.
“I could argue that the cop is NOT being unprofessional by pointing out that the fake ID has a fake name on it.”
It’s a fair enough argument to make, although the fact that he starts with ‘cool’ seems to imply that he thinks it’s …. well… cool … that she has a porn star name, instead of it’s suspicious that she has a porn star name.
And it doesn’t occur to you that a beautiful woman might not be thrilled for someone to assume that she’s a porn star if she’s not?
I often get the impression that you confuse Legality with Justice.
Which is *really* strange for someone who thinks Deus is a hero…
Knows Deus is a hero, not thinks. :)
Do I think the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? No – I know it does. :)
All praise Deus, amen.
I don’t think I confuse legality with justice. Heck, lawyers have rules of professional responsibility (ie, the rules of legal ethics) that are usually taken pretty seriously (less so than in the past unfortunately as more and more politics encroach on the system of jurisprudence, but I still take it seriously at least).
I might not be clear on what you think is justice and what is legality, perhaps? I’m very big on definitions as you know. :)
Here’s what I’ve learned from my studies on the subject. Proper justice does require legality within context. If the application of justice does not have ANY sort of legality involved, then it’s going to be different for every single person, even when applying the same exact law, with the same context, to different people. Which ironically means it would NOT be justice at all, since justice requires fairness, reasonableness, and equal application under the law. It’s just going to become a rubber stamp for whoever is in charge to do whatever they want, and then they can ‘call’ it justice, even if it is not (ie, if the same law in the same context was applied to them, they’d want it to not come down on them in the same way it comes down on someone they do not like).
Justice is more of the ethical aspect of the law, while legality is more of the objective logic aspect. Proper application of justice (just laws) needs to both ethical considerations (the philosophy of the law, so as to apply fairness), objective considerations (the legality of the law so as to provide for equal application) and context (so as to apply reasonableness).
What I’ve mainly been talking about is overall jurisprudence (the philosophy of law, including the ethical boundaries and consideration). If I was just interested in legality alone and ignored any application of ‘justice’ (ie, fairness and reasonableness), then I’d be more fine with the so-called heroes in comics like The Authority, instead of recognizing they’re tyrants. Which I’m not – since I recognize them as tyrants.
Jurisprudence is the proper application of legality to achieve justice, taking context into account. The study of legal philosophies, theories, and perspectives in order to figure out how law should be applied.
Superman does in Injustice is ‘legal’ once he takes over. But it’s not justice. It’s the legality of a tyrant, but it does not treat people fairly and reasonably by the law, hence there is no justice. Just cold application of law to achieve a desired result by the people in charge… without the ethical limitations that the law needs to account for.
Hence the title. Injustice.
Superman is the law there (because he defied what the law WAS, and set up his own regime in its place)… but he is not applying his current sense of ‘legality’ in a fair and just manner (for example, when he murders Billy Batson for just speaking up about what there doing was wrong – at which point the Flash finally starts to realize that he was on the wrong side). Honestly I’m surprised more people did not turn on Superman after that point, like Cyborg or Hal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KnhPGbhCP8
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oAx28Z5bfhY
Like Billy said, “There has to be limits. Even on us. ESPECIALLY on us!”
There’s a whole world that existed prior to the creation of laws. And still continues to exist. Morality does not depend on law. They’re independent. Something can be legal, but immoral, or moral, but illegal.
“There’s a whole world that existed prior to the creation of laws.”
A whole world that existed? Yes.
A civilization that existed? No.
A civilization requires laws in order to be functional. The larger the civilization, the more important it is to have laws in place. Anarchy in a society beyond anything EXTREMELY small, like a family unit, is always a transitory setting. And even in a family unit in a primitive setting, there’s a very basic set of verbal laws in place.
“And still continues to exist.”
Please give me a REAL example of a stable civilization that exists devoid of laws in place.
“Morality does not depend on law.”
STABLE law is dependent on systems morality, and the need for a system of morality being enforced upon the masses is the CORNERSTONE of law, and the only way to enforce morality among any sizable group is to have some sort of set of laws in place.
We are again at a similar argument we’ve had in the past – Hobbes vs Rousseau. Are humans naturally good in a state of nature, or will humans, without any system in place, fall into a state of war because of the inherent need for competition, distrust, and the desire for glory (ie, humans have natural passions that will cause violence when completely unrestrained). I don’t think human beings are going to be naturally good in a state of nature – they’re going to be like any other animal – out for their own self interest or the interest of their IMMEDIATE small group, in a Darwinian fight for survival.
Law and morality are linked if you want a stable system of jurisprudence. Any system of justice is going to require three things in the law if you don’t want it to eventually crumble – reasonableness, fairness, and equal application. A perceived lack of any one of those aspects is why legal systems invariably fail.
“They’re independent.”
I think you and I have a different idea of the definition of ‘independent.’ I’m a legal positivist – there is a social scientific approach to the law, and law is a social fact. While laws and morals are distinct social phenomenon, they are interlinked. Within any open, free, democratic and plural society, there are differing moral codes and beliefs. Moral principles are incommensurate and will invariably come into conflict with one another. To address this problem, a system of rules (dogma in religion, laws in society) needs to be put into place to prevent constant violence and destruction of the civilization.
In this respect, morality is NOT independent of law/rules being set in place, even if morality and law are distinct concepts. Again – any time you have more than one person, there will invariably be differences of opinion on what is and is not moral. That’s where laws come into play unless you want constant war.
“Something can be legal, but immoral, or moral, but illegal.”
This is completely true, but also does not remotely mean the morality is independent of law. It just means that law is not always applied in a stable manner. When it’s not, the system will eventually fail and crumble. Law REQUIRES reasonableness, fairness, and equal application to be long-term stable, and if it is not, it will either crumble or evolve to GAIN reasonableness, fairness, and equal application of the law, specifically because the whole point of having a set of laws is to have a stable society. When the society is not stable, it has no choice but to either crumble or BECOME stable through the evolution and adoption of new rules/laws to fix the aspects of jurisprudence which are causing the instability.
If something is legal but immoral, it will eventually cause instability and people will rebel against it.
If something is moral but illegal, it will eventually cause the society to make it legal by indoctrinating it within the law.
Come on, Pander. You know that the first set of written codified laws were LONG after civilization started.
It can be a civilization where the basic rule is “Do what the guy with the biggest club says”, or it can have customs handed down moth to mouth, as long as it has any crafts and method of trade.
https://www.oldest.org/culture/civilizations/
Before I post this I hope it’s not coming off as rude. This is just how I write when explaining stuff. I apologize in advance. I think you are not understanding what a civilization is. You might be defining civilization as ‘a group of humans together.’ This is not the definition of a civilization or indicative of how human beings advanced to be able to FORM a civilization.
“You know that the first set of written codified laws were LONG after civilization started.”
The first civilization was the Mesopotamia civilization. Which was where Hammurabi was from (during Babylon, after the Mesopotamian civilization first was created). Long before Hammurabi, there were still laws under the first leader of the Mesopotamian Civilization – Sargon of Akkad. And under Ur-Nammu, King of Ur. Also the other ancient civilizations ALL had laws as well – the Egyptians, starting with King Menes; the Harappan Civilization (which had the first central government without a definitive central leader, WHICH DID HAVE CODIFIED LAWS in order to simply function at all); the Catahoyuk Civilization (which again had codified laws); etc. They all had codified laws.
So yes, there were written laws that WERE codified before the Code of Hammurabi btw. Sargon of Akkad had a set of laws put in place, and then Ur-Nammu (again, LONG before Hammurabi) created a written set of laws as well. Then 200 years before Hammurabi, there was the Sumerian Code of Lipit-Ishtar, which itself was based on written laws hundreds of years before that. In fact, the Code of Hammurabi was largely similar to these earlier codified laws although it added a system for retribution, which will be explained below.
So no. The first civilizations had written, codified laws from its inception. That’s why the Mesopotamian civilization was considered a civilization. Hammurabi’s code was not the first set of laws. However, it WAS the first set of laws to have the concept of lex talionis – ie, law of retribution. Basically, retaliatory justice (an eye for an eye). Which is why it’s often thought of as the first written codified laws. It wasn’t.
“It can be a civilization where the basic rule is “Do what the guy with the biggest club says””
You might as well argue that two male mammoths fighting with their tusks to be the leader of the herd, or two lobsters fighting for their higher place in a hierarchy, or two mussasaur dinosaurs fighting for right to lead a herd, or two silverback gorillas squaring off for a fight for leadership of the troop, are examples of civilizations if ‘might makes right’ is all that’s required for a civilization.
It might be a method for choosing a leader but it’s not what makes a civilization. Which is my point. Laws are a requirement for a civilization. Otherwise you’re just a group of humans with one human bonking others on the head with big club if others want his place in the hierarchy.
Just like a group of humans roaming around during the bottleneck periods 50,000 years ago then again 12,000 years ago were not a civilization. The word ‘civilization’ is sometimes incorrectly used to describe ANY group of people. But without certain advancements, humans in a group are not a civilization any more than a pack of wolves or a herd of mastodons or any other pack/herd/troop/tribe/group animals are. We sometimes forget that human beings are animals that tend to group into packs (or troops or tribes for lower primates – gorillas, chimpanzees, baboons, bonobos, etc). But without a certain level of organization and technological AND social advancement, it would just be a group of humans who had a hierarchy much like any other species that travel in groups for mutual protection and survival.
And yes, animals have had hierarchies for hundreds of millions of years without them being civilizations. Or even without there being a shared culture which is ALSO needed for a civilization.
“or it can have customs handed down mouth to mouth, ”
Again, not a civilization from JUST that. There are seven requirements for a civilization.
1) Stable food supply
2) Social structure
3) SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT (this is where laws come in, which separate a government from a simple hierarchical group)
4) Religious system
5) Developed culture
6) Advancement in technology
7) Highly developed written language (ie not just cave paintings)
The Mesopotamian civilization was the first to reach this level of human advancement, unlike earlier groups/tribes of humans, like the San people and native aborigines (for a long time they were NOT civilizations, although they had their own cultures, religious systems, and some level of primitive social structures in place)
“as long as it has any crafts and method of trade.”
No. Crafts alone is not a civilization. One tribe of ancient humans showing their younger humans how to make a spear is not a civilization. Tool creation is not, by itself, a civilization. There are chimpanzees who have learned to make simple tools (sticks in order to catch termites to eat, for example). A colony of beavers is not a civilization even though they are able to create structures like dams in order to divert water and create ponds for protection. They do not have a civilization. They are missing MANY other characteristics required for a civilization.
Trade is also not a requirement of a civilization. You can actually have a civilization without needing trade at all, and you can have trade without having a civilization. It can help with the culture of a civilization (culture is one characteristic required for a civilization) and it could speed along technological progress, but it’s not a requirement.
Religion is not required for civilisation.
It’s just a frequent problem in them.
“Religion is not required for civilisation.”
It actually is, since religion tends to be the simplest form for delineating abstract things that are right and wrong. I’m not remotely religious btw, but I do recognize the purpose that religion has within a civilization and why it’s one of the seven characteristics required for a civilization to form.
When I say religion, I mean a set of dogmatic rules for a moral framework. Historically in every civilization that has ever existed on Earth, religion fills that gap in the foundation of the civilization. Even if a civilization gets rid of a religion later on, they will either 1) keep the moral structures even if it divests itself from the dogma, or 2) will replace the dogma of religion with the dogma state as a substitute FOR religion (whether it be a king, an emperor, a ‘Supreme Leader’ or something as nebulous as ‘The State’). You could substitute the word ‘God’ or ‘gods’ or deity or deities with ‘State’ or ‘Leader’ or and it would not make much difference as far as the role it plays within the construction of a civilization.
In short, all known human societies have been shaped by religion, whether it features a moralizing high god or gods (MHGs – ie, Christianity, Islam), gods that attempt to explain the natural world in lieu of scientific principles (Roman/Greek/Norse/Celtic/Berber/Aztec/Sumerian/etc Pantheons) or a more nebulous religion with a more lax dogma (Taoism), religion seems to be a necessary factor in having SOME type of moral framework of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ It also tends to be a good alternative before the use of force and/or violence is used to keep members of the civilization from destroying that civilization (ie, shame, fear of violating the laws of God/the gods, rituals to create a sense of order and/or community, the creation of certain medically beneficial edicts, etc). Morality is a scarcity in nature – the exception, rather than the rule, unless you take the stance that Rousseau took (that man is naturally good, and anything that is not natural has corrupted us from this natural state).
Also i’m finally realized how hugely off topic we’ve gone from the simple OP. :)
You have a blind spot.
You acknowledge that Law can exist in absence of Justice, but insist that Justice cannot exist in absence of Law.
This reveal that you’re fundamental concept of “justice” is predicated on legality, rather that – as the Oxford defines it in the first two entries – either, “the fair treatment of people,” or “quality of being fair or reasonable.”
Neither of these things is definitionally predicated upon any concept of law, or even necessarily custom.
In short, you’re a classic Legalist, presuming that codified rules, necessarily enforced by the threat of violence, are required in order to coerce “civilized behavior” from people, which inherently implies an opinion that people are naturally predisposed towards unjust behavior.
As I said, I tend to feel like you confuse justice for legality. Understandable, given your profession, but pitiable, nonetheless.
“You acknowledge that Law can exist in absence of Justice, but insist that Justice cannot exist in absence of Law.”
Right. Because justice requires equal application, reasonableness, and fairness. If justice becomes entirely subjective from person to person without any consistency, then there definitely isnt going to be any equal application, and arguably won’t be much in the way of fairness or reasonableness.
In Justice League Unlimited, season 3, they explored this with the Justice Lords. The Justice Lords genuinely thought they had to take over the planet in the name of … as their name suggests… Justice. What they were doing was anything but “Just” though. Same as for the Injustice game and comics. Superman was doing what he was doing because he thought it was justice to keep people from doing things that would hurt each other, even if it meant removing people’s freedom in the process. The back and forth between Flash and Superman (and Mr Terrific and Superman in the animated movie) was an excellent example of how Superman thought what he was proposing was justice, and how Flash/Mr. Terrific was saying it was NOT justice because it was not reasonable or fair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R2JMCRlbso
“This reveal that you’re fundamental concept of “justice” is predicated on legality, rather that – as the Oxford defines it in the first two entries – either, “the fair treatment of people,” or “quality of being fair or reasonable.””
What do you consider to be the definition of Justice? I think I might understand your stance better if I knew what meaning it held to you in some concrete fashion.
“Neither of these things is definitionally predicated upon any concept of law, or even necessarily custom.”
What would you say it IS predicated upon though? It’ll help me to understand your position.
“In short, you’re a classic Legalist, presuming that codified rules, necessarily enforced by the threat of violence, are required in order to coerce “civilized behavior” from people”
Mmm sort of? I do think that codified rules, applied fairly, reasonably, and equally, are required to keep people from tearing apart a civilization, because I agree with the Hobbesian concept that MOST people are inherently self-interested. Even if there are some who are altruistic paragons, one cannot keep a civilization from crumbling based on a few outliers. And unfortunately yes, violence eventually is the last step in keeping people from tearing it apart, even if you have MANY steps before getting to that one (reputation, honor, shunning, banishment, containment, etc).
“which inherently implies an opinion that people are naturally predisposed towards unjust behavior.”
This is where you’re not … entirely… correct. It’s similar to my opinion but there’s a distinct difference. I don’t think people are naturally predisposed towards unjust behavior. If just behavior serves a person’s self-interest, I think people will happily act in what is considered a just manner. I think people are naturally predisposed to self-interested behavior. That can RESULT in unjust behavior depending on who is in charge and who is defining what is just and unjust. It’s just basic Hobbesian philosophy.
To paraphrase Men in Black, a person can be good… people are self-interested, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. :)
“As I said, I tend to feel like you confuse justice for legality.”
And I feel that I am just being practical in defining justice in a way that won’t be subjective to the point of unworkability for a society.
“Understandable, given your profession,”
Fair enough. My profession almost certainly influences how I think of these things, but I havent yet heard how I’m not correct. :)
“but pitiable, nonetheless.”
I appreciate the sentiment. REALLY. I think that if you are coming at things from a Rousseau philosophy, that’s great. I just don’t find it practical, but if you could explain your definition of justice, maybe I can be convinced that I do have a blind spot? It helps me to be able to argue if I understand how the other side is defining the issue at hand.
@Pander
You keep telling me to give definitions for justice, after I literally just gave you the first two right out of the Oxford, either of which serve well enough.
You assert, broadly, that the existence of people who act unjustly, while calling it justice, somehow demonstrates a negative proof that justice cannot exist in absence of law, by implying that law is required to produce equitable and even application…but you’re not actually showing the work. In short, you are stating if A, then B, therefore, If Not A, then Not B.
That’s a logical fallacy.
Justice, in human terms, emerges from our animal behaviors. I’ve told you before that Animal Behaviorists have demonstrated altruistic and cooperative behaviors in other social animals. It seems safe to say that no formal, codified legal structures with adjudicated enforcement mechanisms exist in the wild, yet there you have it all the same. Why? Because it is a successful survival strategy, at the group, individual, and gene levels.
So, “what is justice predicated on?” Evolutionary success, which has produced us, the beings capable of having this conversation.
Rousseau and his ideology are unnecessary to the explanatory model. To quote the man who presented Napoleon with a model of the solar system, when ask why there was no figure representing God, “It works well enough without it.”
You do keep dragging Hobbes into it. The man was a hired propagandist, a shill, paid to justify the continuation of a hereditary monarchy during an era of revolution. He had exactly one useful thing to say, which boils down to, “practice and training make fore a better professional, in governing, as elsewhere.” The whole line about life being short, brutish, and unpleasant was pure pathos, with no real substance to it. “Sometimes some people do bad things,” is hardly a revelation, and does nothing to disprove the basic fact that, in _general_ the majority of people are decent enough, inoffensive, and even kind, given the means and a ready opportunity.
As I have repeatedly said, it is in our nature – literally in our genes.
You say I am “not entirely correct,” yet you continue to invoke Hobbes, and then misquote Agent K from MiB at me. Well, it seem I am correct enough.
“Horseshoes, hand-grenades, and thermonuclear warfare,” as we said in the service.
You are “defining justice” in such a way that it suites your view of human beings. That is to say, myopically.
Quick test, then. You like bringing up Injustice; fair enough, what about Robin Hood?
Set aside any question of legality. We all know the man to be a wolf’s head, a thief and outlaw, by every legal convention of his time and place.
Was that thing for which he is most famed, Robbing the Rich to Feed the Poor, an act of Justice, or of Injustice?
No, quibbling, either, or introducing additional information or new parameters. We’re sticking to the most basic, stripped down, essentialized, originalist take on the story.
Was Robin Hood Just, or Unjust?
“You keep telling me to give definitions for justice, after I literally just gave you the first two right out of the Oxford, either of which serve well enough.”
I’m sorry but i’ve re-read your posts a few times and I now see that you’ve defined justice as ‘fair and reasonable treatment of people.’ It feels a bit lacking though. I did mention in the definition I gave that justice requires ‘equal application of law, REASONABLENESS of law, and FAIRNESS’ but just saying ‘treating people fair and reasonably’ both seems to be lacking the third element (equal application) and is not saying under what framework one would be treating people fair and reasonable. I would assume that we are saying ‘treating someone fair and reasonable as the law or system or rules apply to them.’ Which is why I consider law and justice to be necessarily linked together.
“somehow demonstrates a negative proof that justice cannot exist in absence of law, by implying that law is required to produce equitable and even application…but you’re not actually showing the work.”
No, I’m saying that acting just requires a framework in which to act in a just manner. I did think I ‘showed the work’ when I described the seven characteristics required for a civilization, showing that law is one of the cornerstone requirements. Justice would then be an application OF a set of rules (dogma/law/cultural norms) in a fair, reasonable, and equal manner – not simply separate from the law.
“Justice, in human terms, emerges from our animal behaviors.”
I think the complete opposite there. Justice, in human terms, emerges from our civilization, while animal behaviors tends to be devoid of justice in favor of self-interest (or at the most self-interest of a small group) and survival.
“I’ve told you before that Animal Behaviorists have demonstrated altruistic and cooperative behaviors in other social animals.”
I may have missed that as well. I do not think that altruism is a natural state in the animal kingdom. There is usually some sort of purpose behind it – like wolves hunting in a pack because it’s more efficient than hunting solo, or a chimpanzee grooming another chimpanzee because they expect to be groomed in return, as well as it currying favor within the hierarchical setup of the troop. Altruism in nature seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. I’m very Darwinian about this.
“So, “what is justice predicated on?” Evolutionary success, which has produced us, the beings capable of having this conversation.”
Okay this is a fair enough statement that I can agree with. That humans found that justice is a requirement for stability within a civilization, so we have fashioned civilized society to treat justice as a net benefit. I do not consider this genetic, though. It’s an artificial construct – a tool to be used to benefit the species. Just like the wheel or fire or the spear, except justice is a social tool, instead of a physical tool. We are not born with the knowledge of making the wheel or fire or a spear. We learn it from others. We likewise are not born with the impetus to act in a just manner. Babies are pretty much adorable sociopaths who are completely self-interested. :)
“You do keep dragging Hobbes into it.”
Well, I mean I’m dragging Hobbesian philosophy into it, because it’s part of the long standing philosophical dichotomy of Rousseau vs Hobbes – whether man, in the vacuum of nature, is naturally good or naturally self-interested. It has nothing to do with either man specifically – it’s about the philosophies they are espousing.
““Sometimes some people do bad things,” is hardly a revelation”
Well 1) some people do bad things is not the hobbesian philosophy. Hobbesian philosophy is that man, in a state of nature, is going to be self-interested, not ‘good.’; and 2) it was a revelation at the time, just like Rousseau’s philosophy was a revelation at the time. Philosophy in general is the search for truth, and you have here two diametrically opposed viewpoints which are each trying to determine what IS the truth as it relates to the basic nature of man.
“You say I am “not entirely correct,” yet you continue to invoke Hobbes, and then misquote Agent K from MiB at me.”
I didnt misquote. I paraphrased (and I literally called it paraphrasing) by substituting ‘good’ and ‘self-interested’ instead of ‘smart’ and ‘dumb’ so as to apply the MiB quote to Hobbes vs Rousseau.
Paraphrase means “to express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity on a subject matter.” That’s what I did.
“You are “defining justice” in such a way that it suites your view of human beings.”
Because I’m making an argument, which requires interpreting the elements involved. You’re doing the same thing.
“Was that thing for which he is most famed, Robbing the Rich to Feed the Poor, an act of Justice, or of Injustice? No, quibbling, either, or introducing additional information or new parameters.”
Oh that’s fine, I can definitely answer this very easily.
“We’re sticking to the most basic, stripped down, essentialized, originalist take on the story.
Was Robin Hood Just, or Unjust?”
Robin Hood was Just. Prince John was not applying the laws as set forth by King Richard the Lionheart, and was betraying his role as steward in King Richard’s absence while he was in the Crusades. That was sort of the entire point of why Robin Hood became an ‘outlaw.’ The regime itself was being criminal and the TRUE leader, Richard (as the epitome of the law being used in a just manner), was not there to set things right, so Robin, in Richard’s absence, had to do the right thing according to the actual edicts set forth by Richard, which were to treat Richard’s subjects fairly, reasonably, and equally (Richard is presented as paragon of goodness in the story, while John is presented as a villain as far as leaders are concerned). As soon as Richard returned, Prince John was punished for HIS illegal actions and Robin was shown to have been acting justly as per King Richard’s edicts, and was given a pardon by the true King for any actions taken against the illegitimate actions of John. Prince John and the Sherriff of Nottingham were the ones actually acting in an unlawful manner (the King sets the rules, the prince was supposed to be a steward FOR those rules and was not doing so), using the principle of ‘might makes right’ to excuse their greed and illegality to steal through overbearing and oppressive taxation. None of hte ‘laws’ or taxes that Prince John was passing or the Sherriff was enforcing were valid. Taxation, in the story, was literally theft. That is the originalist take on Robin Hood.
There. No quibbling. King Richard and Robin Hood were examples of justice. Doing the true wishes and edicts as set forth by the King. Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham were examples of injustice. Defying the true wishes and edicts as set forth by the King for their own greedy benefit.
Robin Hood was Just. Prince John was not.
I don’t see how this changes what I’ve said. Prince John did not apply the laws equally, fairly, or reasonably, unlike King Richard, and Robin did his actions in the face of someone who was violating those basic principles set forth by the King.
Oh, I should also add that both King Richard and Robin Hood, as far as the story is concerned, have follow this edict because of divine right of the King. Basically in the story, King Richard is a good king because he does right to his subjects because he’s following God’s will, and Robin Hood is doing what he’s doing because he’s loyal to the TRUE King, Richard, not the imposter, Prince John, who is not following God’s law – he’s following his own selfish desires (Robin Hood had just come back from the Crusades, where King Richard still was).
I feel like your law background has you gassed up a no-man-lands trail 1000 miles from civilization. Law and Justice as your have defined them have next to nothing to do with how and why civilizations rise or fall. Rome did not fall because its traffic laws became too many, or too unjust. Russia, France, etc didnt experience violent uprisings that overthrew their governments because of a certain set of laws. In a word it comes down to one thing: stratification. The only other real thing that causes a civilization to fall is to be massively “out gunned” whether in terms of population or technology(aka they were easy pickings, look to the Philippines as a historic example…any period of their history. its brutal)
But since the over all way to rebut you is on stratification, i will just expound upon it. Stratification to keep it simple is when a society looses upwards mobility. Basically if your society does not allow for those that are hard working/highly skilled to move up the social/economic ladder…that company will face massive unrest. period. the less mobility, the worse the unrest, quite often ending in either being invaded(due to weakened defences from the unrest) or an actual insurrection(successful or not). It has nothing to do with how fair the laws are. If you are unfair to a SMALL portion of your population but fair(in terms of mobility) to the rest…then nothing major is going to happen.
A great example of this is Saudi Arabia. they have more slaves than just about any other nation on the planet. they have VERY restrictive laws for their women. They also restrict all sorts of other things that at least in the West would be considered basic rights/freedoms and therefor unjust…rampant corruption and mismanagement, just a whole boat load of problems…yet in spite of all that they have superb social mobility(for men)…and the country is doing arguably better than ever. Also NONE of these problems are new either. they have existed as they are for at least 50 years. But guess what, so long as you can provide for your family, and have a reasonable chance to improve your station in life…none of the rest matters, at least not to the point that people will try to overthrow the government.
“I feel like your law background has you gassed up a no-man-lands trail 1000 miles from civilization.”
I don’t understand this sentence.
“Law and Justice as your have defined them have next to nothing to do with how and why civilizations rise or fall.”
I’ve done a fair bit of study on history, philosophy, and of course law (including the history of jurisprudence in general) and I think it does have quite a bit to do with how civilizations rise and fall. Also they are not ‘my’ definitions. They’re standard socially agreed-upon academic definitions which have been discussed for centuries. I’ve just learned them as part of having a background in the law, by having an understanding of the history which created the systems that we use in government formation and jurisprudence.
“Rome did not fall because its traffic laws became too many, or too unjust.”
I’m confused about where you got THAT from, from anything I wrote.
Rome fell for a variety of reasons, one of which was political corruption and rebellions caused by an unfair application of the law and oppressive taxation, which the Roman empire was unable to deal with due to the Roman Empire’s immense size (which was a logistical nightmare). So yes, part of the reason for the fall of Rome, in addition to barbarians and visigoths and vandals from without, were rebellions from within at the same time, coupled with out of control taxation and inflation.
“Russia, France, etc didnt experience violent uprisings that overthrew their governments because of a certain set of laws.”
Um… yes they did. And in France, especially laws involving taxation, as well as the practice of absolutism. In case you don’t know what absolutism is, it’s the near absolute power that the King has over his subjects. In other words, there was a lack of reasonableness and fairness in the application of laws upon the people of France. Also, King Louis XVI regularly ensured that the highest tiers of society were taken care of and had adequate amounts of food, while the bottom tiers of society were left starving – an unequal application of the law and governmental policies.
The same was true with the russian revolution. One of the primary reasons for the majority of people’s rebellion against Czar Nicholas II was an unequal application of laws – largely because of absolutism – which was causing immense economic hardship. The Bolsheviks used this dissatisfaction among the people with czarist rule to seize power under Lenin.
“But since the over all way to rebut you is on stratification, i will just expound upon it. Stratification to keep it simple is when a society looses upwards mobility.”
Um.. the reason there was no upward mobility in France and Russia was because of how the laws were applied under the principle of absolutism from the King and the Czar, respectively. It’s specifically listed as one of the three main causes for both revolutions. ESPECIALLY France, which was saw the American Revolution as a catalyst once they realized that a revolution like that could be successful.
“It has nothing to do with how fair the laws are.”
I’m very confused with your reasoning. Do you feel that the lack of upward mobility occurred within a vacuum? And do you genuinely think that the unequal application of the law, which was causing starvation to the bottom tiers of society while protecting the upper tiers had NOTHING to do with the revolutions? You talk about stratification without understanding the underlying cause of it.
You’re confusing the map with the territory. The legal world exists in parallel with the real one. Were the entire legal system to disappear tomorrow, most people wouldn’t even notice, because that’s not the world they interact with. It doesn’t affect their thoughts or behavior. Most people do not know anything about the law — they assume that the law corresponds with their own beliefs and values, until some rare interaction proves otherwise.
It’s funny that you assume I would fall on the side of Rousseau, rather than Hobbes.
In fairness, I wouldn’t have lumped you in with Hobbes either.
“Were the entire legal system to disappear tomorrow, most people wouldn’t even notice, because that’s not the world they interact with.”
I’m fairly certain people would notice if we suddenly devolved into utter anarchy.
“because that’s not the world they interact with”
Pretty sure people do interact with laws as part of their daily lives.
“Most people do not know anything about the law”
Pretty sure most people have a basic understanding of the law, although this conversation with you is making me think there are some people who don’t :) (Sorry, I couldnt resist making the barb – I’m not trying to be mean here, just funny).
“they assume that the law corresponds with their own beliefs and values”
Pretty sure that when a guy robs a bank, he knows that what he is doing is not legal. If you see a wallet hanging out of someone’s pocket and you really need some money for food, most people would think you walking up to them and pickpocketing them would NOT be in line with the law, even if you value taking the money so you can buy food and other goods more than you value the other person having their wallet. Most people realize that if they do not pay the rent on their apartment or mortgage on their house, they will be evicted or lose their home. Most people realize that if they go into a restaurant and eat a meal, they can’t just dine and dash and leave the restaurant without paying. Most people realize they can’t just stab another person in the throat or punch them in the face if that person says something mean or rude.
“It’s funny that you assume I would fall on the side of Rousseau, rather than Hobbes.”
How’s it funny? You don’t act at all within the Hobbesian philosophy whatsoever, including in this very post. Your initial post was that ‘Morality does not depend on law.’ That is a Rousseauian philosophy. That morality of man comes from nature, not from societal constructs. I’m not even saying you fall on the side of Rousseau as an attack. Just that I think it’s an incorrect assessment.
It’s a philosophy that’s existed for quite some time, just like Hobbes. It’s just indicative of the points you are arguing.
They might not notice on day one, but the daily aspects of the civilization around them are heavily shaped and upheld by law (and its enforcement). It’s a bit like civil engineering – nobody thinks of infrastructure day to day, or even on a list of “important things in my life.” But they constantly use electricity, running water, telecomms, roads, and sewage systems.
There’s a lot of inertia built into a functioning system, physical or legal, and sure if the operators all disappeared one day it would take a little while for things to start breaking down. But as they did, it would compound exponentially and be apocalyptic to reverse.
“I’m fairly certain people would notice if we suddenly devolved into utter anarchy.”
And there’s the disjunction. There are other social systems that keep the world running than law. The world would not suddenly descend into anarchy without law or government. Law is a formalization of those systems, similar to how money is a marker for wealth, without actually being wealth itself.
Most people think about whether an action is right or wrong, or whether they can get away with it or not. Whether it’s actually legal is a distant third, at best. The average person spends zero time in their day thinking about law, and even when they do, they just assume that it corresponds to their understanding of what is right and wrong.
@brichins:
“They might not notice on day one, but the daily aspects of the civilization around them are heavily shaped and upheld by law (and its enforcement).”
I’m fairly confident that, if all laws disappeared on day one, then by day 7 society would have completely collapsed. And I feel I’m probably being VERY lax by saying it will continue to last a whole seven day when it’s more likely to last about three before everyone starts noticing the chaos. :)
“There are other social systems that keep the world running than law.”
If you mean stuff like religion, MOST religions have a set of ‘dogma’ in place which pretty much act like a set of laws already. If you mean cultural norms, I don’t think it’s strong enough to keep a civilization from self-destructing without a system of laws in place to keep people following those cultural norms instead of their own self-interest at any moment. Even if some people might follow those cultural norms, there would be enough people who would not that it would cause the civilization to collapse.
“The world would not suddenly descend into anarchy without law or government.”
Oh I’m pretty positive it would happen within 3-7 days. There would be enough people causing absolute chaos to bring down the cohesive social orders that are in place if there was NO law or government at all. I don’t have to watch The Purge to visualize that. :)
“Law is a formalization of those systems, similar to how money is a marker for wealth, without actually being wealth itself.”
What do you define as money? It would be difficult to have a concept like wealth without a demarcation of that wealth, whether it’s dollars, colorful rocks and shells, etc. Although I do suppose you could have a barter system and whoever has the most ‘stuff’ is considered wealthiest.
“Most people think about whether an action is right or wrong, or whether they can get away with it or not.”
The right or wrong aspect tends to be from some sort of religious or cultural norm. The ‘can I get away with it’ aspect is what I’m concerned about when it comes to a world without government or law. People will try to get away with EVERYTHING if there is no law or government in place, if it meets their self-interest. Having law and government in place creates a hurdle to that internal algorithm because of the penalties attached and the social impetus which magnify the cultural norms (just like dogma magnifies the religious norms). While there are a few people who might just do the right thing for no reason beyond an internal moral fabric (just like there are a few people who act in an altruistic manner), the majority of people would be calculating ‘Is doing this WORTH the risk of the penalties of breaking the law?’ and ‘Can I do this without the government or the enforcement arm of the government finding out?’
So no, not ‘most people.’ Some people. Most people will just do a bad thing if it’s in their own self interest if there’s no negative penalties associated with it.
“Whether it’s actually legal is a distant third, at best.”
When you go to the supermarket, why do most people not just shoplift? You arent hurting any of the workers there – you’re hurting a faceless corporation. It’s because there are laws in place to prevent the majority of people from doing this, including those that do not have a strong moral center because they have to also consider the risk and penalties involved. The amount of people who do shoplift, and the amount and frequency of the shoplifting is significantly lower than if there are no laws in place.
Now look what happens when, in parts of California for example, they remove the penalties for shoplifting under $900. LOTS of shoplifting happens. Many stores wind up closing down as a result of the owners not wanting to be open in an area where the perpetrators will not be punished or even stopped. As a result, the entire local area/neighborhood suffers by not having places to shop within that area (call it a ‘food desert’ or whatever, it’s at the very least more inconvenient for everyone living in that region). And that’s just with laws against shoplifting. All laws being gone? It would be chaos.
Btw, I’m not saying more laws = better. Too many law=bad because that impedes liberty. I’m just saying no laws=chaos for any significantly large society. It requires a lot of voluntary cooperation and self-control, and the more people in a population, the less likely there will be that voluntary cooperation without any sort of system in place with enforced rules.
Most of that post was actually meant for Torabi, not Brichins, except the FIRST response, which was in response to Brichins. Sorry.
I’m guessing your estimation depends on people knowing that the law has disappeared, which, again, demonstrates how central law is to your worldview. What I’m suggesting is the law disappearing silently, not failing catastrophically. And I do mean just the law. As you say, religions typically have a set of strictures that are similar to law that constrain people’s behavior. I think it would take a while for people to determine that there was no law, because it is already so poorly enforced. People get away with breaking the law all the time.
Societies have other means of punishing people who violate social norms. There are rules and enforcement, even without formal law. If there wasn’t a government or law enforcement, well, people would appoint themselves, or build a military force to exert control. People create government wherever there is a power vacuum.
It may take formal law, written rules, and a system for arbitrating conflict to ensure that society is fair, that the rules are applied equally and serve everyone equally, rather than just being tools for the powerful to control others. But formal law isn’t necessary for society, and even when it is present, people don’t generally interact with it directly. Society shapes law, and law shapes society, but the people typically interact with society directly, and the law indirectly. Humans are social and emotional creatures, not creatures of rules and logic.
” demonstrates how central law is to your worldview.”
I would say law is central to the civilized world, period but continue…
“What I’m suggesting is the law disappearing silently, not failing catastrophically.”
How would law disappear silently? I’m pretty sure people would notice.
“As you say, religions typically have a set of strictures that are similar to law that constrain people’s behavior.”
Yes but all that means is that religious dogma would supplant secular law and BECOME the new law in place. You wouldnt be making law disappear – you’d just be replacing one set of law with another. Dogma does not just mean religion. It means any principle or set of principles set down by an authority. In other words – law. In the absence of a secular set of laws, religion would step in to fill the void with it’s own set of laws. You know. Like in a theocracy.
“People get away with breaking the law all the time.”
Getting away with breaking the law and having no law are two -completely- different things.
“Societies have other means of punishing people who violate social norms. There are rules and enforcement, even without formal law.”
Okay, and I don’t mean this as an insult or to be mean or mocking at all… SERIOUSLY… but I don’t think you understand what ‘law’ means. Rules to enforce social norms and enforcement of those rules ARE laws.
Definition of Law = (1) the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties; (2) a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority; (3) the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules.
“If there wasn’t a government or law enforcement, well, people would appoint themselves, or build a military force to exert control. People create government wherever there is a power vacuum.”
…. you are now literally supporting my argument. Law is necessary for civilization to function. If the law was to disappear, or if there was a period of anarchy, new government and law would QUICKLY be created to fill the vacuum because anarchy cannot work for any substantive period of time, and especially not for any significant number of people to be considered a civilization.
“But formal law isn’t necessary for society, and even when it is present, people don’t generally interact with it directly.”
SMH… you just explained why it WOULD be necessary in the previous paragraph. Because if it wasnt there, it would be created to fill the vacuum. Your words.
And when it is present, people do interact with it as part of the social contract of living within that civilization.
“Society shapes law, and law shapes society, but the people typically interact with society directly, and the law indirectly.”
When you drive a car, do you go suddenly go as fast as possible? Do you go through red lights? Do you follow other people’s car until you can ram them off the road if they cut you off? If you do, then most likely you’re going to get arrested or get a ticket. That’s interacting with the law. If you don’t, it’s because you don’t want to get arrested or get a ticket. That’s also interacting with the law. When you go into Best Buy, do you just pick up an tablet or smartphone and walk out with it because you want it but don’t want to pay money for it? That’s interacting with the law.
“Humans are social and emotional creatures, not creatures of rules and logic.”
We’re both. We are social and emotional creatures who, when we form civilizations, suppress those urges to some extent with rules and logic. AGAIN…. It’s basic Hobbesian philosophy. Man is naturally self-interested. Civilization helps man channel that self-interest into something productive OR it forces them to suppress that self-interest. Depends on the type of government and philosophy of the civilization.
Although the odd thing with the sentence you just ended your post with is that you’re now implying that humans are naturally BAD (because they are emotional and not logical), whereas in previous posts you were implying that humans don’t need laws because they’re naturally GOOD (which would be Rousseauean).
Also also… I’m not sure how you are defining direct and indirect interaction, and why you think ‘society’ is an direct interaction (despite society being an abstract concept), while law is an indirect interaction (despite law being far less abstract, especially when it’s been written down and codified).
I am trying to make a distinction between rules and formal, written law. Rules may be necessary for civilization, but I don’t think law strictly is. A civilization will probably run more smoothly with written laws, but even then, it’s hard to get everyone to agree on exactly what they mean, no matter how clearly spelled out, due to the ambiguities of language.
What stops people is the potential consequences of their actions, how other people may respond, not just the police or government. If they act in anti-social ways, other people may reciprocate. If they steal from others, they may be stolen from or harmed in turn.
“I am trying to make a distinction between rules and formal, written law.”
Laws are always rules that the government/leadership of a community has codified (codified means arranged into a systematic code, it does not mean ‘written’ – for example, common law, rather than statutory law), even though rules are not always laws.
Rules are not enough for a CIVILIZATION. It -needs- to be laws. Codified laws with an accepted leadership that makes those laws and an enforcement of those laws by that leadership (or more effectively, by its proxies). And yes, written laws are going to make a civilization run more smoothly, but it can still be done by oral tradition, as we’ve seen with commonlaw.
Rules alone would be akin to a bunch of children continually making up new rules for a game without any coherence or consistency. It would not be stable enough to be a civilization if there’s no enforcement from a recognized leadership, no consistency.
“but even then, it’s hard to get everyone to agree on exactly what they mean, no matter how clearly spelled out, due to the ambiguities of language.”
That’s what a judiciary (judicial system) is for. So that when there are two sides that disagree on what a law means, a third side can interpret its meaning in context to the situation involved. In some cases (like ours), the two sides will be able to argue before the third side so that the third side can weight the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments and decide which one has more merit.
“What stops people is the potential consequences of their actions,”
And if the potential consequences are positive for them, in a self-interested way, what would stop them? Nothing.
“how other people may respond,”
There’s no consistency in how other people may respond, especially over any significant period of time with any significant population of people. The more people there are, the more likely people will have different opinions on a person’s actions, and the faster a person’s actions might be changed from bad to good without any sort of discussion on the ramifications of those changes. It would be chaotic.
Heck, it’s already chaotic when you have a weak and/or inefficient government that doesn’t follow through on its laws in a just (fair, reasonable, and equally applied) manner. It would be even moreso WITHOUT some sort of system in place to begin with.
“If they act in anti-social ways, other people may reciprocate. If they steal from others, they may be stolen from or harmed in turn.”
And how do you stop people from stealing from each other non-stop? You would have to be guarding your property 24/7. You’d be constantly on guard for fear that someone will act in a violent manner towards you, resulting in your injury or death. You will never be able to actually go out and make a living or do anything constructive to build up a civilization in the first place. Laws (a governmental body with an enforcement element) help to alleviate this problem. People collectively agree to have a governmental body be in charge with a system of rules in place, with punishments for those who break those rules. Something consistent so that all the members of that society know what they CAN do without getting punished. Laws. Codified laws.
That allows a civilization to form and grow, when people are not constantly having to guard against others and never focus on a ‘bigger picture’ (ie, the aforementioned civilization’s expansion and increased stability).
You are mistaking a civilization for just a small tribe/troop/group of people who happen to work together. They are two different things as I’ve explained in earlier posts.
You had a third option, Dr Manhatan who leaves the human anthill because he was transformed in another scale… literally god among us.
I think Dr. Manhattan’s dilemma is not just his power, but that he lives his entire life knowing everything from the past, present, and future all in one, except for what Ozymandias set up (using a tachyon generator to obscure Dr Manhattan’s perception of time as it related to his grand plan). So that of all things in the universe, the one thing that Dr Manhattan was not able to predict was Ozymandias’s plan (although apparently he also did not predict Rorschach’s diary either in the movie). I never read the actual comic, just the movie so I’m not sure about the specifics on the many difference that I know exist in the comic).
But yes, Who Watches the Watchers is a VERY central theme of Watchmen. :)
Pull over where you can’t. Just hover the car forty feet up and adjacent to the road. If the cop can’t interact with you it’s not your fault. You did obey, pulled over and stopped safely.
Well at least it’s not Amanda Huggenkiss or Anna Lee…
“Anna Lee”? I don’t get it…
(Still like “Tyra Misoux” best but maybe it only works in German.)
That said, why even use a fake name? A black haired woman whose name is “Max(ine) Leander”. About the same age as Max. Why not. The best lie is as near to the truth as possible and the different look should throw most off, except the ones that already suspect something.
OMG. *blush* :D
I was going to respond about Anna Lee to explain it… but I wanted you to figure it out on your own. :)
One of my relatives had an english teacher with that name in high school. He was always amazed it never came up in conversation.
It almost rhymes with fun.
:)
Tyra Misoux also works in English. Yummy.
It’s not sexual though. More like the name of a confectionary chef in a Pixar film. :)
Btw apparently there IS a porn star named Teen Laqueefa, and one named Cherry Poppins.
AND ONE NAMED ANA LEE. AUGH!
(I did a google search for ‘porn star joke names’ and most of them were male but there were a few female ones like the ones mentioned above).
Upon reflection and my friend explaining that porn star names don’t HAVE to be sexual to be porn star names, I retract the first sentence in my previous post and apologize.
To be completely honest, that was pretty good self-restraint on Max’s part.
I think given the weight of the car (and her doubtless Archon-grade load-bearing seatbelt) she could have just taken off flying.
Actually all car seatbelts can lift the car, they’re that over-designed. Of course if you do it’ll lose all stretchiness that lets it stop you without breaking bones.
She has zero point telepathy and has picked up ambulances by their bumper before.
that would be telekinesis, zero-point telepathy would just be knowing your own thoughts
“zero-point telepathy would just be knowing your own thoughts’
this is arguably a very rare trait.
Especially in the US. <.<'
Zero range telepathy is Vulcan Mind Meld.
Right, oops.
Why do they need a name that does not exist?
You should did a tree in a forest. So the rational thing to so is use an incredibly common name.
Somehow I don’t think she could pass for Steven Nguyen.
The could have given her the name Mary Sue. It would have been a better name….. Just as hilarious.
PS: I hate finding a comment of mine that has a typo that I can not fix. I am not even using Auto-Correct.
You should HIDE a tree in a forest.
You are correct, and that would be proper tradecraft.
It would also be less fun.
Case in point, one “Lloyd Forger” from the anime Spy X Family.
…Forger, being another word for Smith.
If someone seemed surprised by their own name… I really wouldn’t know what to accuse them of. Not only do most legitimate people know their own names, but most *criminals* know their assumed names too. So if someone doesn’t know the name they *just gave you* then… maybe they’re drunk or something (but Maxima isn’t acting drunk aside from that).
My stepdad swore he knew a kid in school in the 50s named Homo Muckenfush. He grew up dirt poor in a small town so I never saw a yearbook to check.
Ever heard of Muckefuck? -> https://www.wordsense.eu/Muckefuck/
How did a person like Maxima not memorize every detail of her second identity and additionally show surprise what her name is in front of a police officer
because she is normally busy, and made this trip to Round 1 in Grapevine on the spur of the moment thinking she had a reasonable chance of being a normal person instead of appearing to have an active onlyfans account.
hey, do not neg sex work.
Class solidarity, always.
Once Max explained it all at the murder trial, I’m sure that the jury would vote for acquittal.
Thewy would never find the body or the cop car, or her car, or the 1.2 persons who made the name. (That’s one of Harem, right?)
No, that’s Gwen, who unfortunately is easily confused with one of Harem’s bodies. Though they’re easy enough to tell apart when they’re next to each other.
Leon and Gwen are civil consultants helas.
If they are enlisted the french sentence ” 30 jours de corvée de chiottes* ” would be appropriate.
But in the case of civilian menial tasks , could not be assigned as punition.
Perhaps some menial task , like for Leon to write a good computer security practice guideline for non technical personnel …
And for Gwen the same thing for arcane one.
Paperwork especially paperwork for persons without practical knowledge and misconceptions is a bane for geek types.
*latrine duty chiottes is a familiar word for it , and corvée de chiottes is NCO slang.
In french navy tradition was the unofficial use of a nickname generally obtained by deformation of its second name…
In the 193’s 3 of France admirals had these nicknames.
Darlan slow zob -> Darlan as the same pronunciation as “dard lent” lit slow dick
Darcourt short zob -> same pronunciation as “dard court” lit short dick
d’Arvieu old zob -> same prononciation as “dard vieux” lit old dick
dard means sting in casual french but in slang it’s another word for dick , zob is also another word for dick
Max’s lipstick is missing in panel four.
Pretty sure she’s doing that thing where you draw your lips so tight that the color goes out of them (and/or the colored part sorta pulls to the inside against the gums)
It’s a repressed snarl.
Ha! Someone pick up the phone, cause I called it! :D
Incidentally, I am lowkey impressed that the holographic disguise manages to remove all reflection from the flashlight. I suppose that it is almost a given, given this is supposed to be an actual disguise field, but it feels like there is a lot of work being done in the background to fix the physics beyond just replacing color.
Max could of used one of those collars when she was in Afghanistan, etc…, set her to jet black, no need for any face paint or cover-up! Hell, I wonder if one could be made to make her invisible?
It’s not holographic, it’s magic. And there was half a dozen pages devoted to them adjusting it so that she wouldn’t be shiny.
And that enormously disturbing “Oops, All Epidermis!” moment. X’D
…still wanna see what Kenya looks like in beige. X’D
just wait until her brother, Down D Stairs, the most powerful pirate to ever sail, hears about this.
In DFW, a 700hp Shelby is what Grangran uses to run to the HEB to get groceries. Any respectable car should be 4 digit horsepower, add a 1 to the front to make it 1700hp, and then have Arc-SPARQ make it AWD and use alien tech on the tires so it can actually put the power down. Then it’s Max-worthy.
I’m surprised Bugatti bolide are made in my country and it’s not alien tech, it’s only a ludicrous engine for WW2 figther speed – Brewster F2A Buffalo – , at very low altitude.
1850 hp, W 16 engine , 7 993 cm3 , 1 450 kg ( 3 190 lbs), max speed about 311 mph… prototype ready, serial production in 2024.
And for tires Michelin already made the tires for Bugatti Veyron 16.4 with a max speed of 431 km/h (267,811 mph)
It was possible but you literally burn your rubber.
In Ontario, going 165 km/h on a highway posted at 100 km/h will get you charged with Stunt Driving. Your driver’s licence is automatically suspended for 30 days and your vehicle gets towed to police impound; you get to pick it up after 15 days, after paying towing, impound and other fees, but you can’t drive it away as your licence is still suspended. You will often be released at that time, but you will have to show at a given police station on a given day to be photographed and fingerprinted, prior to going to court. You could be facing a fine of $2000 – $10000, up to 6 months in jail and your licence is suspended for an extra year or three on your first offence and longer if you have done this before (you stupid nit!). Before you get your licence back, you also have to attend (and pass) a driver improvement course at an government approved driving school.
That would not just be a ticket and you drive off a little slower; you get to watch as your car gets towed away and you wait for a friend to pick you up at the roadside or for a taxi to take you home.
If you’re talking about the Texas truckers, the rural freeways there are posted at 75-80 MPH at some places. Going 150 Kph is just barely over the speed limit. Of course, it drops to 65 MPH in the cities along the way.
Man, I would’ve loved SO much to see her getting pulled over by a good guy policeman who then starts to lecture her how speeding can endanger pedestrians, especially e.g. when a child runs onto the street between parked cars (less likely at night, but even more difficult to see). Every mile per hour of speed can make a critical difference between nothing happening to the child, injury or death. A good-guy policeman would be genuinely concerned about her misbehavior and make absolutely sure that he drives home the point as to why speeding is bad, and Maxima would whole-heartedly understand that she would’ve deserved that lecture, so I can’t even begin to picture how she would’ve reacted to that.
Max has superhuman reaction time (except against fear vomit), her flight lets her move (or, more to the point, stop) independently of the car, and she’s strong enough that the car will stop if she does (and her superstrength works in such a way that she won’t just slam the driver’s seat into the trunk if she comes to a sudden stop while the car is moving fast). It’s really pretty safe (both for her and for people around her) for her to drive at speeds that are dangerously insane for baseline humans.
But she couldn’t tell him that without blowing her cover.
That just means you have a choice of last names…. and you can also use the duty station instead of a street name. Find the best one.
Duchess Bragg. Dodie Dededo. Honey Meade. Chance Mayport. Wilton Norfolk. Chuck Sasebo. Summit Presidio.
…and of course, Sharon Shafter.
When were you on Guam?
I feel bad for Maxima in the same way I’d feel bad for The Thing.
She’s so incredibly CONSPICUOUS that she can never have a remotely normal life (or even a normal hour in her life) until now – thanks to the camouflage choker thing. Even if she does enjoy being a superhero – eventually it’s going to wear on ones nerves a bit and they’re going to crave a little of the mundane in their life. Just as a temporary escape. Like Mark Twain describes with the Prince that wants to spend a few days as a pauper.
To the point where she would bury her normal inclinations to tell the cop off (or more) just so she can salvage a little bit of that mundanity.
Whether it’s standing on a 4 meter tall press with a sledge hammer and a spanner wrench banging at it in 40C heat because the hubcap-sizes nuts holding the press head on came loose again, or walking through a burning building hoping the follow-up guys make sure the fire doesn’t restart behind you, “mundane and boring” is very welcomed. Seeing what Max has been through, even this ass of a cop would be a break for her. Only reason she’s getting very pissed is the guy clearly seen big boobs and is trying to “be nice” and grade-school flirt with her, brainless oaf. Her feminist’s “Chad” sensors going off are setting a fire in her brain. No Max, they wouldn’t find his body for decades on the dark side of the moon… What? Oh! I’m sure Sydney would be happy to…. (dials phone…)
He’s also just being generally unprofessional and doubling down on saying stupid stuff to someone who is VERY sensitive to even innocent banter (remember when Hiro was trying to mime ‘debrief’ and she assumed he was hitting on her?)… let alone whatever really dumb verbal waterfall of wrong the cop is doing here.
What the heck happened to Max’s lips in the 4th panel? Not only are they not colored, they look like they’re just kinda gone.
She’s biting her lip in order to keep her temper under control since the cop is being extremely unprofessional and Maxima, not wanting to ruin her ‘mundane night out’ is trying to maintain her low profile.
She’s so pissed, but trying to seem “happy” so hard that her lips have curled in on themselves, in another words she’s
this || close to decking the guy! I seen my mother make that face during a PTA meeting, but it wasn’t the teacher she was mad at, it was me! (shiver) The things that reminds you of your childhood huh…
Dave clarified in this comment that it’s supposed to be a tight smile of self-restraint.
I just realized that the 6-month initial Archon moratorium on public endorsements either has or is about to expire, so the cost of any car is about to be totally irrelevant to Max. I mean, Deus offered Max $50M/year for sportswear – car companies are not only going to offer free cars, they’re going to be paying Max (and the rest of the team) to accept and drive their most exotic models.