Grrl Power #1160 – Priority checkout
Max is supposed to be more attractive than I can realistically draw her. Really, all the super women (and men) are, but for Max especially, she’s at that “constant problem for her both privately and professionally” level, which also would help a lot with readers understanding her short temper with inappropriate male attention, which bleeds over into, as we saw a hint of on the last page, appropriate male attention.
Dating is a zero sum game given that there technically are a finite number of humans, compounded by prevailing opinions about monogamy. Sure, more humans are being born all the time, and there’s a constant flow entering the dating pool, but that doesn’t change the finite quality of human numbers. In a bar with, I dunno, ~40 people in it, the issue is more starkly apparent. It’s still no excuse to be a jerk about it.
Do women use the number system? I know they’re fully aware of it, but as it is unavoidably rude, I assume women don’t use it. At least not out loud. They’ll certainly talk shit behind someone’s back, usually in far more detail than the broad brush of a single digit allows, but I don’t think they use number rankings like men do. Well, they do in the Grrl-verse. Or at least this chick does.
I sometimes wonder if women experience an unspoken pecking order like this. I mean, sure, guys probably do as well, I suppose, but I’ve never hung out with Pierce Brosnan or David Beckham or Idris Elba when they were all in their primes, but I’m sure when you’re at a party and Hugh Jackman or Henry Cavill or Jamie Foxx walks in, you’re like, “Well, there goes roughly 85% of all the female attention.” Still, I assume it’s worse for women, because a guy generally has to be not just good looking, but also famous and successful and rich to pull that much attention, but a woman can “just” be super hot and she’ll cause guys to walk into poles and crash their cars.
Like you’re at a club with your female cohort and some chick walks in looking like Monica Bellucci in her absolute prime and suddenly all the guys are staring at her like they’re a bunch of lions looking at the last gazelle on the Serengeti, I assume you’re like, “Potato skins? Anyone want some potato skins? I’m going to order some instead of watching that chick slip around on all their drool.” Not that there’s no entertainment in watching a bunch of dudes’ IQ’s slip twenty point all at once, but if you’re there looking for someone to enjoy your evening with, it can also be a little disheartening. I assume.
Of course this is a huge oversimplification as everyone has their own preferences (writes a guy who hit puberty in the 80’s and was weaned on superhero comics and Heavy Metal Magazine and Boris Vallejo posters and bodybuilding magazines.) We all have our thing. Certainly not every guy is going to think he’d have any chance with her, but still I feel like there’d be a shift.
I had to simplify the coloring a bit with this page and probably the next few. There’s a lot of characters on these pages and they keep moving around and doing things, the jerks.
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.
I really like the lady walking up to Max and expressing herself clearly and honestly. I think Max is secure enough to listen and respect her candor.
On the other hand, I really don’t think you can draw a six.
Your women are all nines and tens and even a couple of elevenses.
Now, if I could make my saving throw every time, going out with Max would be heavenly…
But my personal preference is Sydney. If I weren’t “there can be only one” years old, I’d be interested in finding her real-life inspiration.
> If I weren’t “there can be only one” years old, I’d be interested in finding her real-life inspiration.
CaptainAmerica.jpg !
I more took that to mean, “In the end, there can be only one (who gets all the head).”
brain: nearly 4am. I read that as CaptainAmerica Jiggle
I read it as Cap saying he was so old he was essentially immortal.
If she didn’t have it before, she certainly developed candor and security after interacting with Sydney.
All this and comically enough, Green eye would catch my attention far more than Max if it wasn’t for the drink she chose. Even then, she and the awkward blonde from two pages ago would be more my type. Comically enough, in Archon, the only one who would be my type is Digit. I’ve always had an attraction to the mad scientist type.
Totally understand the mad scientist type!
Where are you seeing what drink she chose? I don’t see her with a drink or talking about a drink in any panel today, Monday, or last week.
Two comics ago (#1158), she ordered both “the most alcohol you can sell me in one go”, and “a good dark beer, something I can chew”.
She stomped into the bar after slamming opening the door (impressive, most people only slam a door closed), complete with lightning crackoom-ing in the background (which would make Deus proud – she didnt even need a device for it!), dressed in a tight low-cut shirt showing off the double D fitness body needs-no-bra-unlike-mere-mortals cleavage and toned midriff, proceeded to loudly order the ‘highest octane you got, then said ‘the most alcohol you can sell me in one go’ which was 8 shots worth of 184 proof bruichladdich x4, which she downed in a single gulp without so much as an eyeblink, followed by another loud order of a ‘good dark beer, something she can chew!’ :) :) :)
There’s NO way that she wasn’t going to get a ton of attention, even if she wasn’t a ‘9.5’ (adjusted down from 11 for a malevolent aura).
Not that it is particularly relevant to your comment but there are bazillion different models of bra precisely to help achieve this larger than life cleavage effect under the many different necklines to be found on women’s tops.
Yes but:
1) Sandy once said that among supers “there isnt so much as a B-cup in the bunch. Harem, being the shortest and smallest super is probably the C-cup. So its a fair guess that Maxima is a D or double D.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-138-superheroines-in-the-locker-room/
2) I am willing to guess that Maxima doesnt often wear a bra (although she did once during the fight with Brut before it was blown up) and when she does its probably not to accentuate the boobs, although others do (Heatwave, Jiggawatt and Varia, from when they were punished for teasing poor Mathias with sexy talk behing a locked door/ Heatwave, Harem, and Anvil during lockerroom scene in 138, etc. Sydney commented once on Maxima’s lack of a bra through implication of how her gravity was NOT localized when flying, unlike Sydney’s. Sydney was NOT talking about Maxima’s hair.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-350-its-localized-its-just-not-personalized/
3) I was honestly saying it as a joke as shorthand for ‘Maxima is conspicuously very buxom’ like she described herself. The actual cup size is irrelevant to the joke :)
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-1156-mundanity-insanity/
Believe it or not, I’m more offended by this woman thinking she can simply usher out a paying customer than I am a bunch of drunken yahoos hitting on Max. After all, Max is a very gorgeous woman in a bar. Having men hit on her would be expected. But this woman has got a lot of chutzpah telling her to buzz off just so she can get her hooks in men who aren’t interested in her. Max could just as easily direct that malevolence towards HER if she gets too pushy.
She does have chutzpah and she is going about it the wrong way but her greivances are accurate and real.
She would have about as much chance of getting her hooks in a man with Maxima there as Rowan has of getting a kill on his own in the video below. :)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEM8bTI3ptg
Her grievances are nonsense.
Petty, not nonsense
They are not nonsense. They are actual fact. It is a fact that, because Maxima is a distraction for all the guys who are focusing all their attention on her, no other woman has a chance of meeting a guy until she’s gone.
You are confusing the manner in which she’s going about it with whether or not there is a problem for her in the first place.
She’s pulling agro on all of the Horn Dogs.
Precisely! :)
Is it now? You’re just going to uncritically accept her claims as truth? That the guys have no agency, no ability to choose anyone other than Max, no ability to stop propositioning her until she leaves?
Okay I might need to stop just being cordial. What is with you with strawmanning? You really can’t help yourself, can you?
“You’re just going to uncritically accept her claims as truth?”
Her claims are literally what is happening. I know you’ve read the comic but i have no idea how your brain is interpreting what’s happening in it now. Also, I’m accepting DaveB’s claims as the truth. He wrote several paragraphs on it just above. Which maybe you didn’t read – it would be consistent.
“That the guys have no agency,”
This has nothing to do with the guys’ agency. They have control over their actions and their consequences. They’ve formed a line and know that there are two possibilities – they’ll get shot down or they’ll get lucky. And when they get shot down, apparently they arent then moving on to other people or panel 1’s dialog would have made no sense and the first 3 guys from last comic would have been asking other women out. Which they havent seem to have done. It has to do with them all being attracted to only Maxima right now and thinking they have enough of a shot with her that they HAVE FORMED A LINE TO TRY TO HOOK UP WITH HER via all manner of pickup lines. Maxima has taken priority among all the women here and they arent going to anyone else while she’s here. The comic title is literally called ‘Priority checkout.’
“no ability to choose anyone other than Max, no ability to stop propositioning her until she leaves?”
That is LITERALLY what they’re doing in the comic above unless someone is to tell them to stop. Once again… they have formed a line, and agreed with each other to keep the line in order (hey, no cutting!) to try pickup lines on her, to the exclusion of every other woman in the bar. They do not seem to be moving on to other women after Maxima shoots them down or there would have been no reason at all for the purple dress lady to go over to Maxima in the first place, since the ‘scraps’ would still be getting attention AFTER Maxima turns each one down.
I mean I understand being argumentative because… well.. I like arguing too. Cordially at least. But damn… you’re just being ridiculous now. I’m going to repeat myself because I’m genuinely unsure that you ever actually read anything now before you post – I have not said anything about the men losing agency. I described what was going on, what the lady thinks is going on, and what DaveB said is going on. I think i’m going to stop responding to you on this because you have a very haphazard relationship with what I write.
Dave, in my experience, this is actually pretty spot on. Some women do in fact use that number system, but rarely outloud because there is in fact a pecking order, and while being a bitch can get you up that pecking order, being too much of one can get you busted down. The other girls or women depending on age need to look up to you if you’re high up, but if you go around busting everyone down, and I mean everyone, even the bees to your queen bee, you will be removed from queen bee position, or prevented from ascending to it.
Source: am girl, went through high school, was queen bee of the goth/freak table.
Barkeep just went down a bit in my estimation.
He’s clearly channeling Math.
My initial reaction to this stranger was much more negative, but I wasn’t thinking “bar scene” my mind was at club, fair, etc…the bar scene is a very different environment. So yeah you see a lone attractive woman go into this sort of bar, tight clothes, cleavage showing, you are thinking, bar cruiser. She is there to get a guy for the night.
Which yes, hookers also do this, but plenty of women not looking for a relationship, and men too of course, will cruise the bar scenes…and sometimes it does evolve into a relationship.
Again ill mention a reply on the previous page. Guy’s who go to bars to pick up women are of a certain personality type. women who go to bars to be picked up are probably also of a certain personality type. we really don’t know why Maxima is there, there also doesn’t appear to be a very large crowd either, but it may be early. also guys don’t line up for the uber hot girl in a actual line waiting their turn to be shot down they would spread out a bit.
“Okay, the little lady has spoken, but I’m not done drinking. So to go along with her body-dysmorphia complaints, any man who tries to hit on me will get hit back… into the wall. Any questions?”
“Yes. What phone number do we call in regards to what is apparently a metahuman, threatening violence and causing problems?”
Of course, if we carry this through to its logical conclusion, then what would happen would be the team showing up to deal with Dark Maxima, the doppleganger from an alternate universe who – unlike our own Maxima – would threaten casual violence against civilians who calmly and assertively express their annoyance at her for ruining their own evenings.
What in actual frik are you on about?
Nothing Xone posted indicate being a super (pretty sure “meta human” is copyrighted to DC), a credible (as opposed to hyperbolic) threat of eminent violence, or “causing problems.” In point of fact, the literal queue of horn-dog males are the ones causing the problem, by harassing a woman who has not indicated she wants their attention, at all.
Here’s a better idea: men shouldn’t feel sofa king entitled to women’s attention that _any_ woman might feel like responding in this way.
“Oh, but she went a BAR!”
So? Harassment doesn’t stop being harassment based on locale. She isn’t “asking for it.” No woman should be treated as a “prospect,” instead of a person, and these dorks can’t even be bothered to start with, “Hello, I’m Tom/Dick/Harry. Haven’t seen you here before. Interested in some company & casual conversation?”
Just want to mention that metahuman is not copyrighted to DC (although metahuman is a trademark from Epic games for some specific uses – software development and video games, and Alexander Lee has registered the trademark of metahuman for use on hats, T-shirts, tank tops, shorts, hoodies, and sweatpants).
You might be confusing ‘metahuman’ with how Marvel has trademark ownership rights to the word ‘Marvel’ which is why it wasn’t able to be used by Fox in the movies?
er… Marvel has ownership rights over the word ‘Mutant’ I meant, not ‘Marvel.’
I do believe there was (is?) a trademark on the word superhero, held by Marvel and DC. Although I don’t know if it’s still valid or if it only applies to printed comics, trademark law gets murky fast.
Yes. Superhero is a jointly owned trademark by DC and Marvel. There have hern some attempts in the laat 10 years to fight the trademark as the word “superhero” has become a common generic term. It worked for the word ‘zombie’ and marvel and DC once dropped a trademark challenge on the word back in 2016 but otherwise it has always been aggressively defended. It applies not only to comic books but also books, magazines, movies, TV shows, video games, costumes, stand-up figures, playing cards, t-shirts, shoes and school supplies. But just the word – not any particular superhero ‘look.’
Which makes no sense as we see plenty of none Marvel or DC comics and animation use the term, although in spelling as two separate words super hero, which could be enough. That said zombie makes no sense it is a general term, even if misused when referring to undead as zombie was.prior a noun referring to someone or something under complete mind control, and before that the name of a god. This sort of stuff annoys me, like seeing companies try to pursue legal action over words like alien or monster.
“Which makes no sense as we see plenty of none Marvel or DC comics and animation use the term,”
Please give an example before I make an explanation. I’m not aware of other comic book companies that actually use the word superhero, when I think about it. There might be a few movies that have though. But again, when I try to name one, I can’t think of any off the top of my head that arent owned by either Marvel or DC or their parent companies – Warner Brothers Discovery (or the two companies which formed into it – WarnerMedia and Discovery) and Disney.
“That said zombie makes no sense it is a general term”
Oh well the word was briefly trademarked in the 90s for like 2 years but, like I said, they lost the defense of the trademark because of how it had been a common generic term – one that Marvel couldnt even say they came up with in the first place (similar words had been around for a couple of hundred years, albeit spelled slightly differently). I don’t personally think that superhero should be able to stay trademarked either, for the same reason as Zombie, but the courts, for whatever reason, decided differently. It will probably be revisited in the future. I agree with you about being annoyed when companies and people try to trademark common words, since it’s a ridiculous notion (like when the Fine brothers from Youtube tried to trademark the word ‘react’), but superhero was not a common word before comic books.
“Any man who hits on me gets hit back… into the wall.” That’s a rather extreme threat of violence – and since this is a setting where women exist who are fully capable of punching men hard enough to make them ricochet against the far wall, people would be within their rights to assume she’s one of the metahumans they’ve seen on the news (and of course, they’d be correct).
“Harassment doesn’t stop being harassment based on locale.” Except we’re not talking about harassment. She went to a locale frequented by people interested in casual dating, made a very flashy entrance, then continued to make herself the center of attention. SHE invaded THEIR place, and is now upset at their localized behavior. It would be as if a baseball player walked onto a basketball court, then complained about the ball being too big to hit with their bat.
Are the guys harassing her? A few of them, yes. We just saw two guys being drunken idiots, and one making a genuine attempt to engage her in conversation. But, again, she went to a bar. And from the look of it, from the reactions of the other women present, it’s a bar for singles. For casual dating. She could have gone elsewhere, such as to a family restaurant, or a bowling alley. She could have gone to an arcade. She could have gone to a sports bar, or some other place where they serve alcohol without the expectation of flirtations and hookups. Instead, she went to a place where people congregate to proposition each other for casual sex, and now she’s expressing annoyance that people are treating her like… someone who came to a singles bar looking for casual sex.
… Except all Maxi is interested in doing, is drinking
She doesn’t give two frogs about what the ‘locals’ do as long as 1) they continue serving her the requested booze, and B) they leave her alone
I repeat, “hyperbolic rhetoric.”
Also, none of the information we have indicated the “nature of intent” of the location, and I’ve spent enough time in enough bars to know that literally anyplace that has a bar gets plenty of “available singles action.” Hell, I watched a guy try to pick up a woman at a goddamn Olive Garden.
It is not Harper’s “fault” for “being someplace inappropriate.”
By the same token, stomping into a place after a frustrating parking effort is not “seeking attention.” Neither is literally anything she has done.
Stop trying to blame a woman for men’s bad behavior. She isn’t “asking for it,” and any variation of that justification is just fucking gross. This is exactly the kind of shit that we’re talking about, when we talk about toxic male behavior and generalized misogyny. A male character who subbed in for Harper would not get any sort of the same reaction, or treatment, so knock it the fuck off.
And before we get to the inevitable “it’s just a comic these aren’t real people” portion of the program, that isn’t the damn point and you know it. The point is that these attitudes and permissive double standards are pervasive, and regardless of whether they are occurring in a real world, or a fictional one, serve to further entrench them, which is unambiguously A Bad Thing. Yes, these are fictional events being presented for both laughs and character development, but it should be obvious to anyone with even a middle-school literature/film education that Dave is presenting them as “things that exist,” and not “things that are okay.”
And then we look at the next page, and holy crap it’s the MEN who have had their agency denied. Maxima’s choker is exuding an influence that’s making heterosexual women start “creeping” on her like the men have been.
You’re right that some of the people here did harass her, but locale does matter.
In a public work environments any proposition would be harassment. This isn’t, because propositions are inherently harassment(dating would become very hard if it was), but because any proposition in a public work environment affects the ability to function of the propositioned party in a situation that is important to their well-being.
On the other side looking at someone’s naked body would be borderline harassment to full harassment on many places, because based on local people should assume this wasn’t planned, but on a nudist establishment this wouldn’t be.
In a singles bar this is clearly not the case.
There’re still limits of course and direct references to sexual intercourse from a(potiential) position of power to a stranger are pretty certainly part of this, so the last drunk is in violation.
Maxima being annoyed that guys are trying to hook up with her in a bar is sort of like if Maxima got annoyed about getting wet while at a pool. :)
Water does not have agency, unlike a human being, Miss Lawyer.
People playing in the water do, though.
My point, though, is that there is an inherent consequence involved in being in certain places. A nightclub is going to have people playing loud music. A pool will have people playing in the water or diving. A pet store will have animal dander. A theater will be dark and have people who want other people to not talk. Most bars will have people trying to hook up with other people. And if Over The Top starring Sylvester Stallone has taught me anything, truck stops will have arm wrestling competitions.
Its one of those inevitable things which can happen in certain places known for certain things. :)
Oh… and pun filled threads will have ninja hit squads incoming.
And literally none of those things need to directly involve a specific person.
I can walk through a truck stop with the very reasonable expectation to not be challenged to an arm wrestling match by every dipstick, and I have the right to not be harassed about it after expressing my disinclination.
“And literally none of those things need to directly involve a specific person.”
Each of those things, except the truck stop one (which was clearly a joke because you called me Miss Lawyer and you’re a trucker) does involve a specific person.
A nightclub is going to have people playing loud music. Who plays the loud music? A DJ. A DJ is a person. The DJ has agency. Who is listening to the music and want it loud? Other patrons. They have agency.
The people playing in the water or diving are people, and have agency.
The other people in a dark theater have agency, as does the film projector person who’s running the movie and turning down the lights.
Animals, I’d like to think, have agency, although okay, in this example they don’t because they’re animals instead of people. But it would be a real cruel move to get angry at the animals for having pet dander. Unless they’re one of those hairless cats that look really weird.
People in bars have agency.
Also in all of the above examples, the person who is the subject of the annoyances ALSO have agency. Whether Maxima in this singles bar, a person walking by a pool who doesnt want to get wet, a person with pet hair allergies hanging out in a pet store, a person with sensitive hearing being in a loud nightclub, or a person who likes to talk a lot during movies in a movie theater.
Or Sylvester Stallone in a truck stop. (Again this one is a joke, it’s meant to be funny not as an actual example)
And again, the entire point of the comparison that I made was not about the people having agency, which Maxima most certainly does, but that when you go into certain areas, you take with going into those areas that there are things that you might not like, but that happen regularly in those areas and are part of the reason for those areas existing.
Btw I just want to make sure you know that a lot of my posts tend to be more ‘figuring out what the other person is thinking and making arguments for that person – in this case, the purple dress lady).
I wrote elsewhere what I think she could have said to Maxima, if she had to say anything, which would have come off as less rude, and possibly more sympathetic and/or friendly.
PS – I hope you don’t take my posts personally. I respect your opinions. i just like arguing with opinions if I think it will make for a good back-and-forth convo.
Except for the puns. The puns are pure evil and it’s costing me a fortune in ninjas.
In defense of puns…
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/11/15/in-defense-of-puns/
wall-o-text.
there are videos.
“In defense of puns…”
It is appropriate that an article in defense of puns begins describing the first sin of mankind with the apple with the knowledge of good and EVIL. :)
J’accuse!
Show me the part where we are told Harper decided to go to “a singles bar.”
And while one could reasonably assert that a handful of men making passes over the night would make sense in any bar, the fact that these walking hard-one are literally forming a queue is pretty goddam indickative.
*preemptively deploys ordnance into the grid squares occupied by various ninja & shinobi service*
Dangit ninjas are not cheap you know Bharda!!!
I for one am impressed.
Super speed mess up her hair! Either way this one is about to encounter something similar to the NOPE! Maxima experienced with Sydney’s orb tether.
Three men approach Max and they’re based on the characters from the French films of the 1930s, Marius and Fanny, and are caricatures of the actors Paul Dulac, Fernand Charpin and Robert Vattier.
The one in the purple outfit would tell those three to go back to their card game in the corner…!
If we’re going for black & white movie trios, I vote for Larry, Curly, and Mo.
I left out Cesar…!
Even if no one has recognized Max yet, they all have to be aware of the fact that the World Super-Hero Headquarters is just a short drive away. Given how cool that would be (and also given that everyone has noticed how Supers tend to look), all these people should at least have somewhere in the back of their mind the possibility that this otherworldly beauty that has appeared among them might very well be some new, unknown Super. Either that, or that they might literally be “otherworldly”.
I’m a little surprised that no one has even hinted at this possibility in their reactions (or, for that matter, in their pick-up lines).
It’s been 6 months or more since Archon went public, and supers get a premium fee for appearing at Ootnz (and probably other high-end places). While the other patrons are certainly aware of the proximity to supers, it seems really unlikely they’d believe by now that one would show up here.
Seems like an “are you a super because you’re sure hot enough” line wouldn’t actually work that well, it’s extremely centered on appearance. And the implied hope that the subject is going to meet a nigh-impossible genetic standard unrelated to who they are as a person.
It was last week, she got like 8 shots in one glass of 184 proof Scotch, and slammed it without blinking.
That was supposed to be a reply to Some Ed, but there was a glitch in posting and it posted separately.
How has no one put together that the physically unlikely woman who just pounded enough alcohol to kill someone with 3 times her apparent mass with no effect is a super. They’re a known quantity, and the physique is a common sign of having powers. In this world, it’s kind of ridiculous to think nobody figured that out.
Is the physique common knowledge? I don’t recall if that was brought up in the press briefing, like sure it might be *noticed*, but it also hasn’t been that long and considering all of the supers in the public eye are trained military it might be easy for most people to dismiss that as them all being in fantastic shape and those who are all like “the supers are all supernaturally attractive, it must be part of the powers thing!” might be written off as fringe creeps and conspiracy theorists at this point, assuming it wasn’t officially confirmed for the public, which it might have been.
It’s been around 6 months, the connection between powers and appearance has gotta be pretty commonly accepted. However it’s only been like 2 minutes since she slammed that drink, it hasn’t had time to sink in (to her metabolism or the observers’ psyches).
I was pretty sure I remembered this being discussed, but had to go looking for it. “…anyone with superpowers is fantastically photogenic” was said by Joel in issue 9 in a pre-Archon discussion about an eventual super reality show. So, yeah, it was a canonically pretty well known correlation before Sydney even met the gang.
Known to a baseline-human member of Archon who worked directly with their personnel files, but the public didn’t know supers existed yet.
I do believe you have confused Joel, the co-owner of Sydney’s comic shop, and Leon, Archon’s resident geek.
You’re completely right. Not only did I mix them up, I should have found the page in question first – I presumed it was during the flash-forward gaming session intro, which is still sometime in the future. But it is during the opening scene at the comic shop, the morning of the Archon reveal (and Sydney’s debut), so it sounds like verifiable examples were just starting to break. At this point ~6 months in, it should be pretty thoroughly confirmed.
If you are in that situation you have on one hand figured out a super…otoh you figured out a SUPER who’s in a bar where presumably they are trying to hook up.
There is a chance there (however small) and you are in a position (way way back) to take it.
its a long long leap to go from- She’s a Super! to she’s Archon!, and there is strong visible evidence that this woman in the bar is NOT Max. most people would clue in on gold skin and purple hair and stop right there. also, this does not look like a bar that can handle very wealthy clients. so there’s a strong bias against guess that someone is actually a famous person. seriously, lets say you are in say Round 1 in Grapevine Mills mall and you se a person with no entourage who looks like Nicolas Cage or Sandra Bullock, the first guess is hey they look like so-and-so. not that they are so-and-so. also remember there was a celebrity who came across a look-alike contest for themselves. so they entered… and lost.
Am i alone in being way more annoyed at the woman walking up, basically treatening her to pick a date, than any of their attempts at flirting?
She strikes me as a woman who REALLY REALLY wants to be able to get laid tonight, or at least find a guy to date, and knows she (and every other woman there who is looking for a relationship or fling) won’t be getting that to happen if Maxima is there NOT picking one of the bazillion guys who are flirting with her or leaving, which would make tonight an utterly wasted evening since every other woman is chopped liver compared to Maxima.
They have the option of leaving and going to a different bar if they’re that desperate. Why should Max be the one to leave?
“They have the option of leaving and going to a different bar […] Why should Max be the one to leave?”
Because if EVERYONE else is annoyed about something you’re doing, it might not be them. It might be you.
If I’m in a movie theater and someone comes into it and starts yapping with their friends loudly, ruining the movie experience for EVERYONE else in the movie theater, that person is the problem. He has a legal right to speak (First Amendment, even if the movie screen has messages like ‘please be courteous.’) but that doesnt mean he’s not in the wrong from a social standpoint, shouldnt be having some thought about the enjoyment of the other peopel in that venue, and it shouldnt be up to all the other people in the movie theater to leave and find another movie to watch which doesnt have a single douchebag who can’t shut the hell up.
If I’m in a post office, and after waiting an hour on line I’m next up, and the person in front of me decides to be particularly slow, and starts trying to just tell the postal service person about their day instead of just mailing out their gd package, I’m going to be annoyed. And hopefully someone will tell them to move aside so others can get their mail because the line is getting longer and longer because of them.
If I’m trying to eat a nice quiet romantic meal in a restaurant with Todd, and an A-list celebrity comes in and suddenly it’s a media swarm and people yelling, pushing to get an autograph, paparazzi doing flash photography, people might be a bit annoyed that their quiet romantic dinner has been ruined.
Max came into a social venue, disrupted it for a bunch of other people (even though not intentionally), and it’s reasonable (albeit tactless) that one of them might try to clue Maxima in that she’s ruining it for everyone else.
This is the response I expected, but I’m still surprised to see it coming from you.
Why? Because I am very individualistic and into independence of thought? :)
No, that’s definitely not it. I’m surprised to see you show any deference to real-world rules that are not encoded in formal law.
Ohh.
Not sure how the law would apply here since no one has done anything criminally illegal.
I would say that never stopped you before. If I were to typify your interactions with others in the comment section, it would follow a pattern of someone making a critical statement on morality, and you essentially responding that something is legally defensible, and therefore somehow laudable. You seem really invested in defending destructive and anti-social behavior, which… comports with people’s negative preconceptions about legal professionals.
“I would say that never stopped you before.”
Then you’ve never really read my entire posts before in context.
” If I were to typify your interactions with others in the comment section, it would follow a pattern of someone making a critical statement on morality, and you essentially responding that something is legally defensible, and therefore somehow laudable.”
I’ve read this sentence three times and have no idea what you are saying here because none of it sounds like anything I’ve ever said.
“You seem really invested in defending destructive and anti-social behavior,”
Actually I would say that’s something you’ve often done, not me. I’ve done the opposite.
“comports with people’s negative preconceptions about legal professionals.”
You tend to take my arguments a LOT more personally than I take yours and start attacking me directly, so I think you might have a problem with me more than my profession. Even in cases where I agree with you apparently. Very often, you have argued that civilization does not require laws to function properly. This is obviously incorrect. Everything I’ve said has been very consistent, including my posts here. I’ve never said that ‘if something is legally defensible, it is somehow laudable. Please show where I’ve said that. You won’t find it, since I’ve never said that. You really don’t read my posts well, which is a little annoying since you WRITE well (even if you come up with what I find to be an incorrect conclusion or have an incorrect basis for your arguments). :/
I have said that laws are required to have a just and moral society, not that all laws are just and moral, and that for a civilization to be just, it needs to have laws which are fair, reasonable, and equitably applied. You seem to stop reading at the word ‘laws’ in that sentence. I tend to go into detail about WHY this is the case by citing stuff like Hobbesian philosophy, which you have never seemed to actually understand the meaning of – the concept that human beings are self-interested creatures. I tend to say that you’ve often presented yourself as a Rousseauean, despite that you don’t use that word – your statements claim that human beings are naturally good in a state of nature, and therefore laws themselves are not necessary to be good for a civilization. You then confuse ‘a person can be good’ with ‘people can be good.’ The latter is about a civilization, the former is about an individual. You confuse ‘self-interest’ with ‘evil’ – a person who is self-interested is not necessarily evil, but there’s nothing to keep them from acting in an evil manner if it will work in their self-interest. The more individuals there are grouped together, the less likely they will behave in a moral fashion (because self-interest is not always good) without something set in place to delineate what is good and what is not, the civilization slides towards destruction and chaos. You have, for some reason, never understood that laws ARE rules with penalties attached, which is the point of why it works for a civilization. Rules without penalties are going to be meaningless for a civilization, even if the odd individual here or there follows them even without a penalty (or reward, in which case the penalty is not getting the reward) being attached. NONE of this makes what I wrote wrong or in opposition to my usual stance. If anything, it shows that my position is a lot more nuanced than you describe it because you skim my posts rather than read them (possible – I write insanely long posts which are probably annoyingly exhaustive for some people to read because I like being REALLY exact in my words).
Maxima is doing nothing legally wrong. She is, at least as far as many others are concerned in the bar, doing something socially wrong. The whole reason you and many others feel defensive FOR Maxima is BECAUSE she has broken no law, and has a right to sit in a bar and drink without having people hit on her or having a woman come over to tell her to get out because she’s doing a social faux pas, according to the majority of other women there. There is no penalty attached to this social faux pas, so it is not something enforceable unless Maxima goes along with it. The whole reason there is debate about if Maxima is in the wrong or not socially is BECAUSE there is no definitive set of laws on how to act in a bar (although there are laws on how to NOT act – ie, fighting, breaking things, sexually groping people, etc)
You keep coming to the wrong conclusions about what I’m saying (or strawmanning my arguments. I don’t know for sure if you’re intentionally strawmanning or just not reading it all) and it’s just exhausting. I’m going to add a TL;DR because I genuinely don’t think you read my posts entirely… but I’m bad at TL;DRs and it will probably be longer than a TL;DR should be. Which is probably going to miss the point of my writing a TL;DR.
TL;DR – My statement on morality from previous pages is for it to apply to a civilization, laws must be in place so people know what the rules are. Law are not morality since some individual laws can be immoral, but in a just civilization, those immoral laws will eventually be removed and replaced by moral ones as judged by the majority of a population trying to be consistent (fair, reasonable and equitable) on the application of rules. If there are no laws in place, it becomes a lot harder to tell when someone is or is not wrong, and you have to fall back to ‘what do most people in the scenario think’ – which can sometimes lead to problematic results, like what’s happening in the comic and the debate on if the purple dress lady has a point about her grievances (even if she’s going about it poorly).
TL;DR to the TL;DR – laws are useful for a society or you get people arguing about social norms with no resolution and get a whole tyranny of the majority thing happening.
I don’t even have to go looking. Almost anytime someone criticizes Deus for doing something immoral, your defense is that he hasn’t actually broken any laws, and you twist it around to portray him as exceptionally moral.
You’ve claimed that laws are necessary to have a society at all, not for that society to be just and moral. I might agree with the latter, if not the former. But you keep changing your argument, without seeming to realize it.
I am familiar with Hobbesian philosophy. And, were you actually reading and understanding my comments, you’d realize that it’s closer to my own beliefs than Rousseau. I have frequently argued that even with law, we have a dysfunctional society, as a result of people’s myopic self-interest. If you’d bothered to do any research on Nomic any of the times I’ve brought it up, you might not misunderstand my arguments so badly. But instead, you just skip over things you don’t understand.
Well, we should understand how each other feels then, because I feel that you don’t read my posts thoroughly either. I choose my words carefully, with each word being important to the meaning of the sentence, and you have a tendency to drop critical words when rephrasing my arguments, fundamentally altering their meaning.
And there’s the big problem with your attempts at steelmanning: you assume you know a person’s arguments better than they do, that you’re more intelligent and knowledgeable than the person you’re arguing with. But you’re actually just arguing with yourself. You’re not engaging with the other person or their arguments, and if they know something you don’t, you’ll never see it. You cannot see past the boundaries of your own understanding, and refuse to acknowledge that there’s a world beyond it.
Or we feel that the lady in purple has committed an even worse social wrong. She is blaming Max for her own problems, and demanding that Max take responsibility for something that she is not responsible for.
“I don’t even have to go looking. Almost anytime someone criticizes Deus for doing something immoral, your defense is that he hasn’t actually broken any laws, and you twist it around to portray him as exceptionally moral.”
Deus not only doesnt break laws but he acts in an exceptionally moral fashion when not breaking those laws. I usually defend Deus when people call him a villain, not when they call him immoral, although he is also not immoral.
“You’ve claimed that laws are necessary to have a society at all, not for that society to be just and moral.”
Again you really need to read what I write better. I have claimed, accurately that laws are necessary for a CIVILIZATION. And that for a civilization to be moral, those laws must be fair, reasonable, and equitably distributed. I’ve only written this about 300 times, so maybe after I’ve written it another 700 it might be noticed. :)
“I might agree with the latter, if not the former. But you keep changing your argument, without seeming to realize it.”
I quite literally have not changed my argument. I’m very detailed in my argument. It would help if you read my argument in full though.
“I am familiar with Hobbesian philosophy.”
I sincerely do not think you are. Everything you say tends to be diametrically opposed to Hobbes’ philosophy, or you’d accept the premise a civilization with laws (and the other elements of a civilization) are necessary to reign people in from their inherent self-interest. That without that civilization in place, people will NOT be good. A person might, but that will be the exception to the rule. PEOPLE will not be. And the larger the civilization, the less likely they will be good because of inherent self-interest and, like Deus has said, greed. What I’m going to say next is again something I’ve said MULITPLE times but you don’t seem to remember me saying ever – there are a few primary ways to deal with human greed that stems from the natural self-interest of man (and any higher-level thinking creature). First is the stick – you can suppress it by punishing when people act in self-interest. This is a BAD long-term solution though because it tends to stifle liberty, and it means the laws required for a civilization will not be reasonable, fair, and equitably enforced (although it might be one or two of these things, but never all three – especially not the third). Second is the carrot – you can present benefits towards using their self-interest to actually benefit other people and the civilization itself. This works a lot better and does not fight man’s natural inclinations – it herds it into a positive outcome. Third is the carrot AND the stick – herd self-interest into a positive outcome by rewarding actions which benefit the civilization, which utilizes man’s self-interest, but also have the penalties for acting in a way which harms others directly with laws that are fair, reasonable, and equitably enforced (ie, just laws) to handle the minority of people who will, for whatever reason, not go along with the ‘Cut Lex Luthor a check’ option.
” And, were you actually reading and understanding my comments,”
i read your comments VERY closely. If you think your comments are Hobbesian, then you do not understand Hobbes. Even other people, who are more in line with your stances, have said that you do not strike them as Hobbesian. Because you’re not.
“you’d realize that it’s closer to my own beliefs than Rousseau. I have frequently argued that even with law, we have a dysfunctional society, as a result of people’s myopic self-interest.”
1) You have never said anything about people’s self-interest.
2) Self interest by itself is not evil. This is a common misunderstanding of Hobbes. It’s man’s nature, and can be used for good OR evil depending on the context, and one of the major goals of civilization is to make sure it’s either suppressed or channeled towards good.
3) Every single time that you’ve ever said that man does not need laws to have a just society, you are arguing against Hobbes. Hobbes was very cynical about the idea that man is inherently good OR evil. But especially not good, because nature is not inherently good, period. It’s a ruthless, cutthroat thing. Rousseau would be MUCH closer to this belief, because Rousseau believed in the inherent goodness of mankind in a state of nature, even if your ideas might differ slightly – the main premise is the same. That man does not need civilization to be ‘good.’
“Well, we should understand how each other feels then, because I feel that you don’t read my posts thoroughly either.”
Your post is one of the rare time that you quote my post in more than one or two quotes. Even so, you’re picking and choosing and leaving out parts for lack of context. I tend to respond to your posts almost point by point in quotes, which is often why my posts are so absurdly long. The reason I do this is so I can dispute (or agree) with each and every statement that you posit.
“I choose my words carefully”
You frequently don’t. And you often rely on personal attacks when you get frustrated.
“, and you have a tendency to drop critical words when rephrasing my arguments, fundamentally altering their meaning.”
um… no. That’s literally what you do. I do the opposite. I respond to your posts with a huge deal of specificity, quoting you many, many times, sometimes quoting your entire post in piecemeal so I can respond to each element of what you’re saying, much like I am doing now. And I even pointed that out in the post that you’re responding to. Which you’re ironically skipping over in your post, when I said ‘ You seem to stop reading at the word ‘laws’ in that sentence.’ :)
“rephrasing my arguments, fundamentally altering their meaning.”
Again no, you’re the one doing that, such as how you’re trying to say that your beliefs are Hobbesian when they are the opposite, and if anything, far closer to Rousseau if the results of your beliefs are to be understood, because you truly do NOT think laws are necessary for a civilization. That is NOT Hobbesian at all. Not sure why you’re taking ‘Rousseau’ as an insult though. It’s not an insult. I just think it’s naive and ignores the point of a civilization with laws to keep people within a certain framework of good behavior.
“And there’s the big problem with your attempts at steelmanning: you assume you know a person’s arguments better than they do,”
Annnd now I don’t think you understand what steelmanning means either. Steelmanning is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented.
I don’t want to get into if I think I’m more intelligent than you or not because I’ve literally said I think you’re intelligent and I think it would be really rude of me to say something like that (and I don’t know you in RL anyway), but (and I don’t want to brag about this) I AM very good at making arguments (I didn’t think this was actually something you’d dispute, except maybe as an attempt at a personal attack?), and I tend to back them up with citations or quotes or definitions or codified laws. It’s a lawyer thing. Good lawyers have consistent reasons for their arguments, backed up by some sort of underlying definition or precedent. Bad ones rely on emotion and are inconsistent (which sometimes can work, like if you’re a criminal defense attorney and you have a jury where you want to try to manipulate their emotions). I don’t do criminal defense (although I did one year in the ADA’s office), and if I did I probably would not be good at being the type that manipulates juror emotions. My arguments tend to not be ‘short and sweet’ – they’re usually verbose and complicated and overly detailed. Good for IP law and contract law. Bad for criminal defense and personal injury tort law.
“You’re not engaging with the other person or their arguments, and if they know something you don’t, you’ll never see it.”
I’ve frequently actually corrected myself with other people when the other person makes an argument which I can’t dispute. It just -usually- doesnt happen with you that often, usually because you say things that I can dispute QUITE a bit, mainly because I don’t think you read my posts thoroughly and tend to strawman my arguments instead of steelman them (but I probably HAVE corrected myself at least a few times with you as well – just not here).
Sorry, but you’re not going to win an argument with my by trying to bully me into submission. You’re going to have to actually use my arguments against me and show a flaw in my arguments that I will accept. Try to steelman, not strawman.
“Or we feel that the lady in purple has committed an even worse social wrong.”
That seems rather subjective. Possible because she is going about it in a very tactless manner, but like I’ve said before, it doesnt eliminate that she has a valid grievance in the first place, even if she’s being rude about it (or possibly attacking the wrong person). About 3 other times in this particular comic’s forum posts, I’ve given examples of what she COULD have said which would have gone over a lot better with both Maxima and the readers. Please read them?
“She is blaming Max for her own problems”
This part of your sentence is a little nebulous. She’s blaming Max for a problem that she’s experiencing. NOT a problem that she (purple dress lady) has caused. The cause of the problem is that Maxima is insanely hot in a singles bar, and the men are all focused on her and will be until she’s gone (whether because she leaves because she’s done drinking or because she finds someone worthy of being ‘picked up.’) It’s a fair enough assumption that she’s making that a woman comes into a singles bar to meet guys, and if Maxima is not here for that (which one might think is the ‘normal woman experience’ when going into a singles bar), it doesnt change that the locale lends itself to that assumption.
“and demanding that Max take responsibility for something that she is not responsible for.”
This is actually a fair argument to make. The purple dress lady is airing her grievance in a non-optimal way – this does not mean she does not have a legitimate grievance.
She COULD have:
1) Approached Maxima in a more courteous manner to explain what’s wrong.
2) Tried to befriend Maxima and invite her over to their table so that when the men approach her, they might actually see that there are other women who are actually INTERESTED aside from the amazonian fitness model biker-looking chick who has an ‘aura of malevolence’
3) She could direct her annoyance at the men themselves, who are being gluttons for punishment by trying to get the attention of a woman who does not seem interested in ANY of them, despite being in a singles bar. This might actually ingratiate herself upon Maxima and she would appreciate an ally, since currently Maxima might be ‘suffering in silence’ in the attempt to not let her anger issues get out of hand (just like she held in her anger during the traffic lights and the cop making inappropriate statements about her ‘porn star name’).
Instead, she did something which makes her look really petty and has a real ‘mean girl’ vibe, even though at first Maxima seems to be accepting that she might have a point with the aura of malevolence description (and that maybe she’d enjoy her ‘normal woman out’ experience if she was not being so angry and dour at being showered with attention from guys (ie, one of them might be someone she’d enjoy getting to know in a social setting, like a date, if given a fair opportunity).
So I think our point of contention may be that you define ‘civilization’ as being necessarily good, and if a society isn’t good then it isn’t civilized… Except then you recognize that a civilization might not be moral. I went hunting through previous comments, because I remembered you had provided a definition of ‘civilization’, but the problem is that it’s not a universally agreed upon definition, or even a very commonly accepted one. But people are stubborn about definitions, so semantic arguments are only going to go in circles.
If you don’t accept simple statements about my own knowledge or belief, then there’s little point conversing. Either I am not a good enough communicator to accurately express myself, or you’re simply unable or unwilling to comprehend what I say. Also, you don’t seem to remember anything but the most recent conversation, and you’re misinterpreting my statements as a result. Well, you’d probably misinterpret them anyway, since you didn’t understand the previous arguments.
“What I’m going to say next is again something I’ve said MULITPLE times but you don’t seem to remember me saying ever”
I don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that I don’t remember you saying something.
I don’t generally quote and respond to every individual line because it seems pointless if we can’t come to a basic understanding first. We don’t even have a shared foundation for communication, so we just argue past each other.
“Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument”
Which requires you to know what the strongest form of their argument is. You’re substituting your judgement for their argument. If they have a compelling argument that is beyond your understanding, you’ll discard it and substitute a weaker argument that you can better understand. You very rarely refute my actual arguments. In your attempts to steelman, you actually create strawmen. And when someone tells you that you’ve misinterpreted their argument, you just double down and don’t attempt to reassess it. You trust your own knowledge and perceptions too much.
I actually wrote a very long response to all this. Then I realized it won’t do any good with you so I deleted it.
I still have it saved in case you decide you want to read it though, or if anyone else ever uses an argument from your posts and I want to respond to them. But aside from that, I’m no longer bothering to respond to your posts because I don’t consider it helpful or constructive (or fun), plus you’re a bit too rude for my liking.
Just so you realize Torabi, I’m obviously very pro-independence coupled with a non-aggression principle in my beliefs. So what I said might make you think ‘wtf, you’re basically saying the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one’ – which I generally do NOT abide by. I’m not someone who’s in favor of posse mentality.
That being said, my arguments are about getting into the mind of the purple dress woman and any other woman who might have a problem with what’s happening at the bar due to Maxima’s presence, then advocating for that position. Which is basically the response I wound up giving you above. By this point you have got to realize that my take on arguments tends to be about steelmanning both sides. It’s why, when I argue, I tend to break down the argument into each quote or paragraph the other side makes, so I can argue about it. It’s why I often get into making devil’s advocate positions. It’s why I very rarely make absolute statements (there are a few times I do but it’s few and far in between). It’s why when I made arguments, I usually break things down into their definitions and elements. It’s why I often use caveats.
Which is why you might find it odd for me to make the argument I made above. I’m making an argument which I would have a difficult time disputing if I’m on Maxima’s side, because it’s very accurate. The main problem with the purple dress lady, as I’ve said a few times now, is HOW she has aired her grievance (she’s being mean to Max who has not actually done anything wrong to anyone), or possibly who she is airing her grievance at (she could just as easily say to the men ‘LOOK GUYS, SHE IS CLEARLY NOT INTERESTED IN ANY OF YOU, AND IS WAAAAY ABOVE YOU ON A SCALE OF ONE TO TEN IF SHE WAS LOOKING TO GET HOOKED UP, SO MAYBE GET MORE REALISTIC AND STOP FORMING A GODDAM LINE TO GET SHOT DOWN BY HER? THERE ARE OTHER ATTRACTIVE WOMEN HERE THAT ACTUALLY WOULDNT MIND BEING TALKED TO, ARE YOU ALL JUST GLUTTONS FOR PUNISHMENT?’) … rather than her having a grievance in the first place.
Do I actually think Maxima should leave? No.
And I do think there would have been better ways of purple dress lady to talk to Maxima.
But everything I said makes for a very good argument in favor of the purple dress lady. I don’t think the purple dress lady’s actual grievance (rather than her response to those grievances) is wrong, just how she’s going about it, and so I’m making arguments to support her grievances. I don’t think the rude route she’s taking is in the right way to handle this, and I definitely don’t think Maxima has done anything intentionally disruptive, which is why I kept using the caveat of ‘even though not intentionally’ and elsewhere I gave a devil’s advocate position for another post I had made, since Maxima might literally not recognize how to act ‘normal’ since she is not by any means normal and has not been her ENTIRE adult life.
Logical fallacy.
Harper is not “doing” anything. She is _not_ doing one specific thing, which according to the sort of negative-liberty arguments you like, is entirely her own business. What right does this person have to compel Harper to “pick” anyone? Is it Harper’s fault if she “can’t compete” in the “dating market?”
And your movie theatre example is bad. 1A applies to censorship, not theatre courtesy. The theatre manager would be entirely in their rights to throw out someone disrupting the show. And _yes_ the same logic applies to the owner of the bar, but I doubt anyone wants to try pitching “quietly sitting alone and sipping her beer” as “disruptive behaviors.”
“Harper is not “doing” anything. She is _not_ doing one specific thing, which according to the sort of negative-liberty arguments you like, is entirely her own business.”
I agree. But that’s not how the others in the bar are seeing it. We see it this way because we’re the audience. We know how Maxima actually thinks. The others in the comic in the bar do not. And the lady who came up to her feels like Maxima came into the bar to first make everyone pay attention to her, then shoot down each person who approaches her for a date – even though WE know its not her intention to date anyone and it’s not Maxima’s fault that guys are lining up to try to get a date with her, as they would any ‘normal’ woman who is a 9.5 drop dead gorgeous fitness model type. And as a result of these things, none of which are anyone’s direct fault, the lady realizes that NO ONE else in the singles bar will hook up with anyone as long as Maxima is there. And while she is going about it in a tactless way, there’s at least a reason beyond ‘being a bad person’ that she said anything. It’s partially jealousy, partially because with Maxima there everyone else is ignored, and partially because her night is being completely ruined by Maxima not picking out a guy or having her drink then leaving after being done with her drink.
You’re under the belief, I think, that I am blaming Maxima for this. I’m not. I’m mainly playing devil’s advocate by explaining the purple dress woman’s reason for being annoyed. Maxima does have a right to go into a bar and drink and not hook up with anyone. I’m just saying the locale does matter in understanding why someone else would think differently.
“What right does this person have to compel Harper to “pick” anyone?”
Legally, none whatsoever. And socially, she’s being tactless about how she’s even expressing her annoyance with Maxima/Harper. She did come in here to hook up though, and Maxima being here makes that almost impossible, so it’s either suffer in silence as chopped liver, leave and find another bar if she can, or say something. And this woman seems to be the type of person that goes for option C.
“Is it Harper’s fault if she “can’t compete” in the “dating market?””
Not at all. I’m not actually defending how she’s going about this. Especially in the tactless way that she is. There are FAR more polite ways to mention it to Harper/Maxima to see if she can help her out to NOT wind up having a miserable night at the bar and ending up with no one. I’m just explaining why she’s saying anything in the first place.
“And your movie theatre example is bad. 1A applies to censorship, not theatre courtesy.”
How about freedom of association? :) That’s also 1A. Also 1A doesnt actually make ‘courtesy’ a condition of speech. When people protest, they are under no obligation to be courteous about the manner in which they protest. They just cannot get violent (peaceful protest) or make direct calls for violence, or defame people.
I admit the other examples are better than the movie one though.
And yes, it’s the movie theater owner’s right to throw someone out for disrupting hte show. And yes, like you admitted, the same logic applies to the owner of the bar like you surmised. However, if the reason that people come to the bar is to hook up, and Maxima being there is making no one able to hook up which means no one would come to the bar, it would be (by the same logic as the movie theater owner) logical for the bar owner to ask Maxima to leave. Even though that would be VERY unfair to Maxima since she isnt actually doing anything wrong. But her presence there might be causing the bar to lose customers who are there for the purposes of a singles bar.
Again, not even saying Maxima is engaging in intentionally disruptive behavior. Just that her presence is resulting in disruption to the business if it makes many other people leave (and not because of being, say, a protected or semi-protected class, like race/religion/sex/sexual orientation/gender identification/age – since being gorgeous or being standoffish are not protected classes).
Returning to this, a bit randomly.
What exactly is Max actively doing that is preventing anyone else from “hooking up?”
She arrived, and ordered a drink.
A horde of other people then proceeded to alter their own behavior in response to her merely existing in the space.
Free association is a thing, but would you be willing to argue that case in front of a judge?
“Your Honor, my clients demand that Ms. Luxe be barred from the premises, because all the boys only pay attention to her!”
Even a gaggle of middle school girls would be smart enough to know how inexcusably childish and petulant that complaint would be.
Or maybe you imagine the owner would try it?
“Your Honor, my client has barred Ms. Luxe from their business because she looks prettier than the other girls, who won’t come in anymore.”
Look me in the metaphorical eye and tell me that Ariana doesn’t immediately counter with, “Substitute ‘prettier’ for ‘darker,’ or ‘more Semitic,’ and say that sentence out loud again.”
No, you’re not.
You are not alone
I have read many other blogs, but yours is the only one that has persuaded me, and I hope that you will continue to share more insightful content with readers in the future.
Skal Gal’s laid back look makes her at least a 7.5.
I consider myself to be heterosexual but if I was into the womenfolk in that way, I could see asking her out. She seems like a fun person with whom to hang out, doesnt get critical at all (seems to actually enjoy it) when others around her act cringy or say dumb stuff, clearly has a good sense of humor, plus I like her taste in clothing and hairstyle.
SCIONA! Why do I see her when I look at the lady in purple in the last frame who wants Max out of the bar. Could it be SCIONA back with her Alari souls and wants to use the people in the bar as hosts.Same Psycho look as last time. Could Max have stumbled into something? Hmmmm.
She likes Colin Mochrie? Yes! I am SO in there!
A good sense of humor can be very attractive in a guy.
As can the ability to Fire his laser!
(if you get that reference, you’re awesome)
I’m clearly not as awesome as I thought i was. :(
If I was into other women, I’d definitely be into Skal Gal. Her attitude is very laid back and natural and relatively upbeat even when the other person is saying something dumb or cringy, and probably knows how to have a fun time without it being non-stop stress.
Plus she has a nice outfit and her hair is awesome.
“The best is the enemy of the good” ~Voltaire
I know that contextually, this isn’t quite what he was talking about, but it applies nevertheless. I assume it’s how every other crimefighter feels about Batman.
That’s a Greater Aura of Malevolence as Maxima does no less, I’m sure Sydney would back me up on this.
Greater Auro of Malevolence
or …
Aura of Greater Malevolence?
(The group cleric needs to know which it is to prepare the correct counter spell)
For the love of holy comic serendipity, that girl HAS to be a new hire in Archon, working under Arianna.
Outch, but this level of bitchiousness is common in human ressources personnel.
Pinochet is out , and Henry Kissinger is retired, let’s be an human ressource manager.
As labor union union member , I’ve noted human relation personnel is often exhibiting traits linked to narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
She sort of reminds me (attitude-wise, not appearance-wise) a little of Donna Meagle from Parks and Recreation.
Honestly I don’t even get why she’s even at a bar. A bar is a social experience, you go there to shoot the shit with your friends or to try to get a hookup or such. If you just want to get smashed you can do that from the comfort of your own home while watching netflix or whatever.
Honestly she should just stop trying to pretend something she’s not and ask Sydney if their gaming group has space for one more.
I think she, Sydney, and a few others should have a Lord of the Rings tabletop gaming marathon. Maxima needs to re-embrace her inner nerdiness, because here it definitely looks like she’s trying too hard. Although when she was in the army and drinking a keg while upside-down, she seemed to be having fun THERE as well.
I was alway under the impression that more than 75% of the fun of various alcohol activities was largely a tradition thing. people now dead say its fun and they keep doing it in a mindless attempt find the fun. never noticing that the people who said it was fun passed the brewery on to their heirs.
I do understand the concept behind why places where drinking goes on (nightclubs, bars, parties) are places to try to hook up, because alcohol, as Harem described it, is ‘liquid courage.’ It lowers most people’s inhibitions and makes them a little more willing to take a risk, and a little less likely to overthink things. I’m also not religious so using a place of worship (temple/church/A Quiet Place to Think About the Man in the Sky/etc) is not a practical locale for me either. Bonus points if you recognize that last reference.
I’d be much more likely to try to hook up at a video game convention,or online through an MMORPG or Proect Zomboid or discord or something, or maybe at work (if it wasnt for the fact that nowadays most guys are hesitant to do so because of a worry about sexual harassment or unsafe workplace allegations). I doubt a legal education course would be very good for meeting someone. Maybe the beach. Or maybe at something like a Meetup.com setup. I dunno – I’m not exactly looking anyway. To the despair of some in my family and a few of my more pushy friends, I’m still single. :)
But I agree with you. I think most of the attraction to using bars/clubs/etc as hookup places is because of tradition. Alcohol being one of the best traditional ice breaker tools for meeting strangers and turning them into not-strangers.
When I meet a remarkably tall woman of the same race as me, my first thought isn’t lust but rather, “OMG, yet another female relative who I don’t recall meeting before….”
The women on my mom’s side of the family tend to be rather a bit on the tall side. The guys too.
Who remembers that bar fight scene from the first Smokey and the Bandit film between the Snowman(Jerry Reed) and some bikers?!?
Will that happen between Max and that rude lady in purple???
I doubt that Maxima will hurt her.
If anything I would not be surprised if she leaves and is upset that she doesnt fit in, even when not gold. That its more than just her appearance. That its also how she acts and how others react to even her ‘normal’ actions. That despite being gorgeous and having won the superpowers lottery, she is a misfit. Probably culminating in a realization from someone like Sydney that its okay to be a misfit, especially when you have other misfits as friends to lean on. Or maybe realizing that even normal life takes practice. :)
You mean “because of being gorgeous and inning the superpower lottery.”
Everyone always forgets that being “special” also means being “different,” and that “different” is frequently regarded poorly.l
I completely agree.
Hopefully Max doesn’t consider her first night out with non-metallic skin (and a massive chip on her shoulder from prior experience and the drive to get there) as representative of her own “normal” behavior. It’s gonna take a few trips to adjust, and she should probably sit through a session or three with Dr Frost to help process being re-confronted with her lost future as a normie.
And honestly, she should totally come back to this bar at least a few more times. Once the regulars have taken their initial shot, she can actually have some conversations with people. Any time she goes to a new place she’s going to have to start over on setting expectations.
She really should have a wingman with her also if she does. :)
Considering that right now I think there are more women than men in the population, max pulling more than her fair share would make the pool for the others a lot smaller but oh well.
you are technically correct however. its much closer to parity than any kind of significant disparity. (2010 numbers)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241495/us-population-by-sex/#:~:text=As%20of%20July%201%2C%202021,has%20remained%20steady%20since%202010.
it does vary by age.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/
I feel like there was no reason for her to go up and talk to max.
Like she was churning through the guys quickly, and throwing them off her.
Hence she should not bother, there would be plenty of picks for her after Max was done with the que.
We dont know how long she has been there for that line to form
I suspect the issue is that even now and in bars especially there isn’t the necessary respect to NO. in other words the rejected guys are going to the back of the line and coming up with a new pickup line because American literature and romance in particular encourage utter stupidity in this area and that’s putting it mildly.
You’re assuming the men in the bar aren’t going to the back of the line and putting on a fake mustache when they first strike out.
Oh boy… this just became an assault case – especially if she tries to shove Maxima. And she’s police, too…
You mean battery, not assault. It’s okay. Sydney keeps making that mistake as well.
battery is a powerful charge.
I’m sending an entire ninja hit squad over to you for that. They will be armed with cattle prods.
The battle should pretty… electrifying. I imagine the outcome might be a bit shocking.
there may be a bit of a storm tonight.
it has been 0 comic pages without Dad jokes… 0
if you will excuse me I have guests tonight.
Are you a real dad, or is this a faux pa?
my child is 28, is neurodivergent. works in a factory and is really underpaid. so yes they drug me out of the delivery room and conditioned me to tell dad jokes.
“Faux pa” for people making dad jokes without being actual dads continues to be my favorite dad joke, even if people don’t always get it.
Puns like that can get you put in a cell.
Dangit Rhuen….
TAPIOCA!
I’m currently partial to bannana right now. the cafeteria where I work makes a bitter chocolate pudding.
Completely unrelated to the current story arc, but….
Does Sydney talk to her Orbs? “Good night”, “Good Morning”, Etc?
Does she rinse them when she takes a shower?
Has she named all of them?
the fan art… I wonder if i could afford to commission Sydney squatting in a grey body suit softly stroking an orb saying… ‘my precious’ over and over.
then the look on dr. Frost’s face when she sees the picture.
Now I’m imagining her attending a con dressed as a flat-topped sheet ghosts (with the orbs holding up the sheet).
hello, just wanted to say to people and maybe the artist – for some reason Opera Browser stopped showing your website – HTP 500
Love to see the Colin Mochrie reference, sometimes you just want someone that can make you laugh = 3 = Also Max really needs to pick better bars if all she wants is a drink, like, some dingy dive and not a brightly lit restaurant looking place with people dressed to hook up.
In addition to the details provided here word wipe, I’ll also introduce you online. This is a very nice list of the games I’ve played, which includes some of my all-time favorites and most well-known titles. another subject. Different games that I bet you’ll like.