Grrl Power #1254 – Bad influence
I mean, if you do have to hide a bomb somewhere… Well, okay, if there is such a place as a museum of famous movie bombs, that would almost seem to be too obvious a place to stick it. I think a museum like that could be viable, I mean, it’d kind of have to be a wing of a larger movie prop museum probably. Honestly, there’s probably like, a dozen really distinct bomb props before you get into the bundle, or fasces if you will, of dynamite and/or the block of gray C4 with a clock or digital readout and a bunch of wires. Most movies don’t go out of their way when it comes to art direction for its bombs.
So the Grrl-verse laws regarding super powers is probably unrealistically progressive. (Some*) Humans are frightened, stupid animals that will lash out at anything different than them, but when America’s leaders in this ‘verse sat down to figure out what to do with Supers, there was fortunately someone at the table smart enough to counter the calls to “round them up and exterminate/concentration camp/dissect them” with “Well, what if we do that, (and that’s assuming they don’t immediately kick our asses) but China/North Korea/Iran/etc. doesn’t?” Nothing like fighting a little xenophobia with xenophobia.
Once past that hurdle, then you’ve got to scramble to come up with laws that 1) won’t immediately get slammed down by the courts and 2) do a reasonable job of protecting rich people and politicians, but also poors and supers, I guess. Most super powers honestly fall right into existing laws. Don’t assault people. Don’t batter people, even if your Supranym is “The Tempura-er.” Don’t cause property damage. Don’t break laws on a large scale because then you’re either a terrorist or a large corporation, and an individual Super probably doesn’t have the lobbying power of a large corporation. Well, unless that’s his super power. God, that’s a scary thought. Super PAC, with the ability to accept unlimited amounts of donated money and legally bribe lawmakers into doing basically anything he wants.
But some new laws did have to be written. Stuff involving clairvoyance and privacy. Telepathy, invisibility, etc. The ability to duplicate objects? If you’re not a mint, there’s a good chance you might be committing fraud if you mis-employ that power. Honestly there’s a lot of new, very specific laws that did need to come about, but really, existing laws did cover most of the less esoteric powers.
So as Maxima says, accessing someone’s brain without their permission is permissible under certain circumstances.
*Many.
Marion G. Harmon of “Wearing the Cape” fame has the first book in a new series out, Rising Tides (Capes Book 1). It’s set in the WtC universe, but stars a new hero, and builds on the setting established in the original WtC books. I haven’t read it yet myself, as it just came out a week before this page went up and I’m finishing up another series first, which I may or may not recommend. It’s good, but I don’t know if it’s like, recommend good. But I’ve always enjoyed Harmon’s books, so he gets a sight unseen thumbs up from me.
The new vote incentive is up!
Every so often I get the urge to try and draw Maxima all properly shiny, and this… isn’t my favorite attempt if I’m honest. I’ve been sitting on this for a little while doing little tweaks, and decided to finally publish it cause I’m already behind on these. The next one will (almost definitely) resume the trend of including a little mini comic to extend the scene a bit.
As usual, Patreon has some outfit variations as well as sans flagrante.
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 don’t know why, but Sydney and that “funnin'” me line just seems too damn cute!
Lapha should respond “I did it a little bit”.
With regards to laws… I came up with the following in a discussion about My Hero Academia:
1 ) Superpowers, even if just “Can telekinetically lift 2 ounces of flour”, are innate. Discrimination based on powers should be treated the same as other forms of discrimination.
2 ) Most combat capable superpowers, in my judgement, fall under the 2nd Amendment. Any attempt to regulate the powers, themselves, as opposed to the use thereof, is a violation of at the VERY least the 2nd and 14th amendments.
3 ) The use of superpowers is, itself, not a crime. However, using superpowers in the commission of a crime is an aggravating factor, just like the use of firearms. The use of a superpower on an unwilling subject is Assault, in the same way touching someone who does not want to be touched is assault.
Superpowers are not “arms” by any definition, except for the rare superpower specifically about having an abnormal amount of arms. But even then it is a different kind of arms.
Hell, there’s even an argument for the 2nd Amendment not covering Military Grade gear, which is why the Assault Weapons ban happened (and notably reduced mass shooting for years, before being repealed and them spiking back up again, proving the idiots who had it removed are full of shit when they claim “mental health, not guns”). Inherent Superpowers, especially combat capable ones, would be an incredibly stick situation legally, as they’re also a bodily autonomy issue as well. Unless some sort of inhibitor collar existed. And even then there’s the issue of a power user’s right to choose to wear one vs having it forced on them.
It’s an argument in bad faith*. The 2nd Amendment was clearly meant to allow for possession of military grade arms at the time of writing – muskets, canon, warships, etc. Even if the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to superpowers (it would still apply to Sydney’s orbs, but perhaps not to other powers), I don’t think there’s any reading of the Constitution that would grant the government the right to disallow someone from having non-normal traits. You can’t have bans on being strong enough to lift over some specific weight, on having abnormally-high endurance, on producing more adrenaline than the average person, etc. And capabilities outside of human experience, like pyrokinesis or gravity manipulation, would be just as protected as if someone were born with functional gills.
This doesn’t mean you couldn’t have unconstitutional laws passed, and even upheld. But they’d still be unconstitutional, absent an Amendment.
*Speaking of bad faith arguments, the AWB was passed during a time that already saw a trend of decreasing violent crime (worldwide IIRC), and it seemed to have no impact on said trend. When it expired (it wasn’t repealed, it was made with an expiration date and wasn’t renewed), there also was no noticeable effect. Violence, including mass shootings, have gone up since then, but things like worsening mental health, socio-economic issues, degradation of the family unit, etc all have more of an impact than the AWB… particularly when you consider the vast majority of shootings (mass or otherwise) involve handguns, which weren’t ever part of the ban.
It occurs to me my response here reads a bit more hostile than I intended, I was not meaning to imply that you, Pendrake, were arguing from a position of bad faith with regards to both the 2A’s purpose and the effect of the AWB, but rather that the arguments you were repeating here were originally made in bad faith (and not necessarily by whoever you originally heard it from – these arguments have circulated around enough now that I don’t think tracing whoever initially came up with them is even possible, and most of us are too busy to actually track down the relevant data to verify, particularly with how diluted they are by the sheer volume of information available).
Your posts were actually extremely well written and accurate. :) Much applause to you.
The only pertinent thing you really left out was that the constitution does not allow any bills of attainder, which would be a good argument against making superpowers illegal (including the main problem with Marvel comics’ Mutant Registration Act in X-Men and the Superhero Registration Act in Civil War – both of which would be unconsitutional because of the ‘No Bills of Attainder’ clause in Article 1, Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution). That would be why you can’t have stuff like a law against someone strong enough to lift over some specific weight, etc.
Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process. In other words, it would allow the governemnt to punish a party for existing, instead of doing something. Or like Maxima said, to paraphrase, having powers is not illegal – using them to do something that is illegal is illegal.
The theory that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to firearm ownership is less than a hundred years old, and only became law in 2008. It was originally included as a concession to the slave states, to guarantee that the Federal government wouldn’t ban their slave patrols (well-regulated militia).
“Well-regulated” at the time meant something more along the lines of “properly-functioning,” and “militia” referred to every able man of fighting age. In more modern language, the 2A would probably read more like “As having a populace that knows how to fight is necessary to maintain freedom, the right of the people to own, carry, and train with arms shall not be infringed.” Considering they had recently finished fighting a war to throw off an oppressive government (an oppressive government that was trying to disarm them, note), and that there was a very real fear the government they were forming would become similarly oppressive (the old Articles of Confederation were designed to make that impossible, but they also resulted in a completely dysfunctional Union; they needed to give the federal government more power than it had previously, but were worried they might go to far), it’s pretty clear the intent was that the people would be equipped to overthrow any such oppressive government if necessary. Which, I should note, was undoubtedly meant as a deterrent to government overreach rather than any hope of future bloodshed.
I’d suggest reading the Federalist Papers. These were the essays written to persuade the people and legislatures of the states that the new Constitution should be accepted.
Essay 29 covers the 2nd Amendment specifically in considerable detail. Including the intent that individual citizens should be as well armed and well trained as the standing army, both as an adjuct in time of war and as a protection against an overreaching federal government.
But that is both history and fact.
Both of these things are BAD in the wonderful modern world because they do not say EXACTLY whatever the loudmouths on all sides want them to say and documented facts are harder to manipulate than emotions.
Also, as an aside, I doubt even Jefferson would have been happy with the idea of military hardware in the hands of anyone who wanted it. Then again… Jefferson… Washington knew better, but Jefferson was a bit of a ditz at times. Not even going to start on Franklin or any of the Adams
“Also, as an aside, I doubt even Jefferson would have been happy with the idea of military hardware in the hands of anyone who wanted it. Then again… Jefferson… Washington knew better, but Jefferson was a bit of a ditz at times. Not even going to start on Franklin or any of the Adams”
Actually, Jefferson would have been quite happy with it. He said as much more than once. :) Most of the Founding Fathers were pretty adamant about the idea of civilians being just as well armed as the government, in fact. Especially people like James Madison and George Washington. The whole point was allowing the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government (or at least make it so costly as to be a Pyrrhic Victory).
Until, of course, the less than tyrannical people start coming for HIM.
But then again, Jefferson was hardly the ONLY person in US history to have double standards.
Yeah, having every 6 year old own and be able to use a gun is a great idea. Until, of course, they decide that YOU need to die for whatever reason. Then you better have a gun of your own, right?
For the record? I am totally against gun control EXCEPT when it will keep artillery out of the hands of children or psychos. I know, I know. Children and psychos have the right to go out and kill people. I just don’t think they should have easy access to heavy weapons when they do. Radical, I know.
heavy weapons?
well got to go ban cars and trucks because “Children and psychos”.
And everyone leaves out the founders allowed letters of Marque which meant private ownership of cannons.
“Until, of course, the less than tyrannical people start coming for HIM.”
What are you even talking about? Jefferson himself felt that ANY government must be in fear of its citizenry so that it does not become tyrannical. INCLUDING one which he would be a part of.
Here’s one pretty famous quote from him:
The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. – Thomas Jefferson – a letter to William Stephens Smith (1787).
What double standards are you even talking about?
“Yeah, having every 6 year old own and be able to use a gun is a great idea. Until, of course, they decide that YOU need to die for whatever reason. Then you better have a gun of your own, right?”
This is full of so many ridiculous strawman arguments and passive aggressiveness that it’s wild.
And you really need to read Hirshfield vs ATF – 5 F.4th 407 (4th Cir.)
“For the record? I am totally against gun control EXCEPT when it will keep artillery out of the hands of children or psychos”
1) I already mentioned that even the Founders did not intend for the mentally infirm or convicted felons to possess firearms (and it was the only thing where that removed the 2nd amendment right, in fact).
2) AGAIN… read Hirschfield vs ATF.
3) Your post said that Jefferson would not be in favor of almost everyone being allowed to possess military hardware. I showed you that you were incorrect. Then you go off on some odd tangent about 6 year olds and psychos, despite my having already addressed that in several other posts. Your response has NOTHING to do with what I said in my post.
“I know, I know. Children and psychos have the right to go out and kill people. ”
Again, ridiculous strawman argument It is legal and a right to bear arms. Where does that say you have a right to go out and murder people? In the same way you have a right to own a knife. You do not have the right to go out and just murder people by stabbing them to death. You can own a car – you cannot use that car to run people over.
Hell, look at Maxima’s initial statement about supers. Superpowers are not illegal – you just can’t use them to COMMIT CRIMES. Same concept here – firearms, even heavy artillery, are not illegal -you just can’t use them TO COMMIT CRIMES.
“I just don’t think they should have easy access to heavy weapons when they do. Radical, I know.”
Apparently you think trucks should be illegal. Or cars. Or most other heavy vehicles. By the same odd logic you’re using.
Also your initial premise is sort of insane and yet a third strawman argument. In case you’re not aware, a strawman argument is when you respond to someone else’s points by making an argument based on things they did not say, in some ridiculous context that can be argued against since you can’t argue against the actually posted argument. Children and psychos do not have the right to go out and kill people (and psychos – mentally infirm – and convicts forfeit the right to bear arms). But everyone else still has the right to bear arms…. but not to ‘go out and kill people’ (by which I mean murder people, since killing could have far more context, such as self defense or war).
PS – VultureTX is correct as well about the letters of Marque in which Madison outright stated that yes, the Founders and the Constitution allowed for private ownership of heavy military armaments, such as cannons.
It’s really a moot point by now. The US military has grown to the point that even if we armed every civilian who can see lightning, hear thunder and walk into shelter with a decent rifle, a sidearm, and basic combat armour… none of that is gonna do jack all against a tank or a fighter jet. The vast, vast, *vast* majority of civilians can’t even dream of affording the hardware needed to successfully resist a serious military coup.
A pump action shotgun can be considered military grade gear. My issue with the term ‘military grade’ is that it is so poorly defined with so much definition drift over socio-economic , race, class status that it is all but useless.
Really we need to discuss it in terms of capacity, concealability, and ability to inflict damage. Because I’m far more concerned with the gun that can hide in a backpack or in baggy clothes than I am about an AR-15 in plain sight.
Most murders are committed with handguns and guns of unknown types.
I have no problem with guns in the hands of people who know how to use them, civilian or otherwise. Artillery or tanks? That I have a problem with. There are levels of collateral damage I deem acceptable, anything beyond that is not.
I am sure that there are people who think owning automatic weapons is a way to stop tanks, artillery and air strikes, but I for one don’t see that. There is a BIG difference between civilian and military for a reason, even in this country. MOST civilians could not afford to own an M1 Abrams, let alone maintain it, arm it and have a clue how to keep it from being pot-shotted by aircraft or artillery.
I was told a story about 2 farms in Russia @2000 that had a discussion with each other involving AKs. They pissed off the local constables, who called the army. A BMP rolled up, shot each farmhouse once with its 30mm cannon and then just turned around and left.
There are many who seem to want such things to be common in the US now, but they really need to think about something- There is ALWAYS someone with a bigger gun.
” Artillery or tanks? That I have a problem with.”
Private citizens CAN own artillery or tanks under the 2nd Amendment, actually.
“I am sure that there are people who think owning automatic weapons is a way to stop tanks, artillery and air strikes, but I for one don’t see that.”
1) When there’s urban fighting, an armed populace with firearms – whether or not including automatic weapons – can make taking over the populace EXTREMELY difficult.
2) It’d quite unlikely that the government would use those weapons in a city in any case. It’s not exactly practical for holding a city – more for just destroying the city.
“MOST civilians could not afford to own an M1 Abrams, let alone maintain it, arm it and have a clue how to keep it from being pot-shotted by aircraft or artillery.”
That’s sort of irrelevant – the question is not whether they can afford it or afford to maintain it. The point is that they have a right to own it IF they can afford it. Which they do.
“I was told a story about 2 farms in Russia @2000 that had a discussion with each other involving AKs. They pissed off the local constables, who called the army. A BMP rolled up, shot each farmhouse once with its 30mm cannon and then just turned around and left.”
The American version would be the Bundy Ranch standoff. In which the ranchers have basically won.
“There is ALWAYS someone with a bigger gun.”
I also feel that a lot of American soldiers would have major problems with firing on American citizens while on American land.
‘Private citizens CAN own artillery or tanks under the 2nd Amendment, actually.’
For the record, I have no problem with OWNING such. USING them on other Americans is where I draw the line. I know, I know. It is unfair for me to deny people such things.
‘When there’s urban fighting, an armed populace with firearms – whether or not including automatic weapons – can make taking over the populace EXTREMELY difficult.’
UNLESS of course, you have access to things like war gasses, MOABs or just huge amounts of artillery shells and do not care how many people die on all sides as long as you can plant your flag somewhere. Not that Americans would act like Russians, but… um… wait… A certain someone’s good buddy Vladimir would drop WMDs if he thought he could get away with it. Bets on that certain someone NOT acting like his best buddy if thwarted?
‘I also feel that a lot of American soldiers would have major problems with firing on American citizens while on American land.’
I used to say the same. Now? I am not so sure. I mean, we have people in power now who would gleefully start death camps whether or not they are profitable. We have people who want to annul the 14th amendment. We have many people in many places across the US now who think terrorism is not just a good way to do business, bu the ONLY way. The law has been a joke for years and now? We start to see the punchline.
Historically speaking, It is always very hard for soldiers to disobey orders when they know their families will be stood up against a wall if they disobey and I can just see a lot of figures in US politics doing exactly that. Grabbing families to use as hostages would make many of them giggle.
2nd amendment is great. Don’t get me wrong. That said? It is not a license for anyone with a gun to go hunting me or my family. Yet, anyway.
“For the record, I have no problem with OWNING such. USING them on other Americans is where I draw the line.”
Another strawman argument. Owning and being able to use armaments (even tanks) does not mean you can use them to commit crimes, and that was never stated in my post.
Also you are changing what you said in your first post now.
First you said:
I have no problem with guns in the hands of people who know how to use them, civilian or otherwise. Artillery or tanks? That I have a problem with.
Now you are saying:
For the record, I have no problem with OWNING such. (referring to my post that Americans CAN own tanks and artillery).
“UNLESS of course, you have access to things like war gasses, MOABs or just huge amounts of artillery shells and do not care how many people die on all sides as long as you can plant your flag somewhere.”
1) ‘war gasses’ are basic chemistry actually.
2) MOABS and other stuff are not generally used when trying to take over an urban environment. Urban warfare invariably requires house-to-house fighting with smaller arms, which is why it usually has the highest casualty rates. Think about how many guerilla fighting tactics HAVE worked against larger, more heavily armed military forces – such as Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan.
I also notice that you completely ignored my referencing the Bundy ranch standoff, despite the US government being far more heavily armed. It’s almost as if the US and Russia are different.
” A certain someone’s good buddy Vladimir would drop WMDs if he thought he could get away with it.”
You’re being very hyperbolic.
” I mean, we have people in power now who would gleefully start death camps whether or not they are profitable. ”
Where are you getting this from? Did you mistake Escape from LA and Escape from NY as real life events? Or maybe that new movie Civil War (the one where Nick Offerman is President)?
“Historically speaking, It is always very hard for soldiers to disobey orders when they know their families will be stood up against a wall if they disobey and I can just see a lot of figures in US politics doing exactly that.”
I beg of you to stop using ridiculous strawman arguments. It’s very hard to take this seriously.
In the military they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In this set of military rules, there is a ‘duty to disobey’ under certain circumstances:
1) If the order is contrary to the Constitution or the laws of hte United STates
2) If the order is patently illegal, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
There is even an international legal rule about this as well – IHL Volume II, Chapter 43, Section D. Rule 154. Every combatant has a duty to disobey a manifestly unlawful order.
This started during the Nuremberg trials, during which the concept of war crimes and crimes against humanity were created, which stated that “this rule flows from the duty to respect international humanitarian law (see Rule 139) and is also a corollary to the rule that obeying a superior order is not a defence of a war crime, if the subordinate should have known that the act ordered was unlawful because of its manifestly unlawful nature (see Rule 155), both of which apply equally to State armed forces and to armed opposition groups”
“Grabbing families to use as hostages would make many of them giggle.”
No offense, seriously. But you’ve been watching too many movies, I suspect.
“2nd amendment is great. Don’t get me wrong. That said? It is not a license for anyone with a gun to go hunting me or my family. Yet, anyway.”
Another strawman argument. Where was there any argument that the 2nd Amendment allows people to go hunting you or your family? Or hunting any people?
I’m confused why you do not understand that the right to own a weapon does not mean a right to murder people, any more than the right to free speech gives a right to engage in child pornography (which comes under the limitation of the 1st amendment because it has an ‘obscenity’ limitation). The second Amendment has a ‘no murdering people’ limitation. Owning a weapon is not a crime. USING a weapon is not a crime. Using a weapon to commit a crime is a crime. Because you’re using the weapon… to commit a crime.
I mean… this whole thing has been even discussed in Grrlpower already with respect to superpowers, when Maxima said that having superpowers is not a crime, using them to commit crimes or vigilanteism is a crime. It’s the same exact logic as firearm ownership and use.
Now please stop being so hyperbolic and engaging in rampant strawman arguments.
“
“Hell, there’s even an argument for the 2nd Amendment not covering Military Grade gear”
It’s not a good argument, and not really accurate outside of the rather narrow scope of fully automatic weapons (full auto machine guns). Even according to the founding fathers themselves in both court cases and the Federalist Papers, military grade gear is COMPLETELY allowed to be owned by private individuals under the 2nd amendment. Tanks and jet planes are also likewise allowed for private use. It sort of makes sense when you think about it – the military does not make its own weapons. They’re purchased by private companies, that are not part of the government.
In April 1775, the government of Massachusetts Bay Colony tried to confiscate a couple of cannon (one privately owned) in Concord. The courts actually asked even the person who proposed the second amendment, James Madison, if military grade arms like cannons were allowed. He thought the question was stupid in its obviousness because of COURSE cannons were allowed by private individuals. Just to make sure it was even more obvious it was stated that Congress is empowered to issue letters of marque and reprisal, which means merchant ships NEEDED to have cannon on them. There was never any question about the topic. In addition, out west (west at that time being places like Ohio and Tennessee), private forts were fairly commonly defended with privately owned 3- or 4-pounder cannons, which were military grade arms, and they were occasionally mounted on rafts for river commerce as well.
The whole idea of restricting the right to bear arms is inherently unconstitutional, aside from the limited restriction of convicts and the insane (the term in the law for insane is ‘adjudicated as mentally defective.’) Aside from that, the 2nd amendment was written to be rather clear – the right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ Yet it gets infringed constantly in certain states. :)
Now some people might bring up THe Firearm Owners Protection ACt of 1986 (FOPA) – aka the McClure Volkmer Act – which had Congress ban the transfer and sale of machine guns (with two exceptions – machine guns manufactured before May 19, 1986 and machine guns used for governmental entities). Which is a fair enough argument. However, most guns today in the hands of civilians, including the ‘dreaded’ AR-15 (which stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle) are not fully automatic weapons – they are semi-automatic weapons, just like…. most of the guns in existence today – it just means that after you pull the trigger, another bullet goes into the chamber automatically. Then you have to pul the trigger again). Anything outside of fully automatic machine guns, however, tend to be supported by Heller (District of Columbia vs Heller- 554 US 570 (2008)).
Heller’s ruling endorsed the so-called “individual-right” theory of the Second Amendment’s meaning and rejected a rival interpretation, the “collective-right” theory, according to which the amendment protects a collective right of states to maintain militias or an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a militia.
Mainly because of what the term militia actually meant when written by the Founders (any able-bodied person of fighting age) and what ‘well-regulated’ meant – ‘properly functioning’, not ‘regulated by the government.’ (very good post by Varyon and javahead btw ).
PS – even the puckle gun was considered allowed under the 2nd amendment, which was basically like a machine gun… according to several of the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS. :)
Anyway, Heller stated that the terms of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” codifies an individual right derived from English common law and codified in the English Bill of Rights (1689). The majority held that the Second Amendment’s preamble, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is consistent with this interpretation when understood in light of the framers’ belief that the most effective way to destroy a citizens’ militia was to disarm the citizens.
‘Militia’ and ‘standing military’ should not be the same thing. They were not supposed to be.
But hey, why NOT allow militias to buy nukes or nerve gasses? According to many such would solve a lot of problems for a lot of politicians across the US if some of their undesirables simply vanished.
Ah, right. The cleanup afterwards. Well, that is what all the survivors and their families are for according to a lot of people these days. Unless of course the Supreme Court totally totally loses their minds and annuls the 14th, in which case, those oh so special people can ACTUALLY fulfill their hearts’ desire with the collars, chains and whips.
“‘Militia’ and ‘standing military’ should not be the same thing. ”
Um… do you bother reading what people write when you respond to them?
Militia are NOT standing military. Militia refers to EVERY ABLE BODIED US CITIZEN OF FIGHTING AGE. You don’t have to be in the military to be part of the militia. It refers to pretty much every citizen capable of using a gun to fight – many more people than are in the standing military.
“Unless of course the Supreme Court totally totally loses their minds and annuls the 14th, in which case, those oh so special people can ACTUALLY fulfill their hearts’ desire with the collars, chains and whips.”
I’m having a hard time being able to respond to this because it feels like such an unhinged response, like you’re writing from a post apocalyptical Mad Max dystopian future, like you’ve been on the run from the Lord Humongous. You know, instead of the present reality.
There are just so many strawman argument statements you’ve put in just two short paragraphs, which don’t even have any relation to the OP or thread that you’re responding to.
Hi – I feel a little bad that my posts were so hard-worded. I apologize for that, although the basic arguments behind my post remain the same. I should have written them less harshly though.
And what does “properly functioning” mean, in the context of a militia? Or perhaps a better question is what would a malfunctioning militia be?
My intuition would be that a militia has some organizational structure, and that they serve some collective cause, rather than their individual desires. They serve a community, or answer to a leader. An armed individual may be a member of a militia, but they are not acting in that capacity when they take up arms of their own inititative, to pursue their own ends.
The problem I see with framing an armed citizenry as a defense against a tyrannical government, at least in the context of a democracy, is that it assumes a stark divide between the citizens and their government, and that the citizens will be united against the government. But if the government is composed of citizens, then that framing is defective from the start, as the citizens would be divided into those that support the rebellion, and those that support the government which represents them.
It also fails to consider that what’s more likely is for citizens to turn their arms against other citizens, rather than the government itself, and the government will likely step in to resolve the conflict, or protect one group from the other.
So when you have two armed groups, both claiming to represent the will of the people, how do you resolve the conflict? The purpose of government could be said to be a system to address such a situation without resorting to violence. And if one side or the other refuses to resolve the situation peacefully, can those initiating violence be said to be justified?
In Jefferson’s example scenario, he assumes that the government will win, and the blood spilled on both sides will sate the desire for violence and push both sides towards addressing the situation peacefully. He does not expect the revolutionaries to win, only that the cost of battle will make an alternative resolution more preferable, whereas a powerless populace makes tyranny cheap.
“In Jefferson’s example scenario, he assumes that the government will win, and the blood spilled on both sides will sate the desire for violence and push both sides towards addressing the situation peacefully. He does not expect the revolutionaries to win, only that the cost of battle will make an alternative resolution more preferable, whereas a powerless populace makes tyranny cheap.”
No. He actually expected the exact opposite of what you’re for some reason proposing. That’s why the blood of patriots and tyrants water the TREE OF LIBERTY. Not the tree of authoritarianism. He most definitely did expect the tyrants to lose against the revolutionaries. It mirrors exactly what he and the other Founding Fathers did, in fact.
Let’s examine the quote you posted in another thread:
I think it’s clear that by “let them take arms.” Jefferson refers to the people, and I assume the following sentence applies to the people as well: that they are to be pacified and pardoned. The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of both patriots, which I take to refer to the people, and by tyrants, or the government. Both sides are expected to lose lives in the battle, but the revolutionaries do not overthrow the government, they merely remind it that they are not powerless. The government then makes concessions to appease them. And the founding fathers certainly did not overthrow the government of Britain, but beat them back and established their own sovereignty.
This is an incredibly well-known quote that has been studied and analyzed for a VERY long time.
Jefferson expected and encouraged the concept of a revolution every generation or so, or at least the risk of a revolution that WOULD succeed, so that the government never becomes tyrannical to its populace. Whenever the government DOES become tyrannical, it is the duty of patriots to overthrow the government and replace it with one that is not tyrannical.
And yes, the Founding Fathers overthrew the government of Britain in the New World. The colonies were considered an extension of Britain, and the governors were considered the Crown’s representative in each colony. The governor acted according to his official instructions and Letters Patent which constituted the colony’s constitution. Each governor was an agent of the imperial British government. Those who sided with the colonies during the revolution were literally committing treason against the Crown.
“The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of both patriots, which I take to refer to the people, and by tyrants, or the government. ”
No. It means that in order to preserve liberty, a tyrannical government must be overthrown as well as its agents, even if it means patriots will die in order to make this happen. In short, hot revolutions are necessary whenever the government becomes tyrannical. He was speaking about this even for his own proposed new government. Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers, did not ever want the government to get too powerful, and wanted the government to always be fearful of a powerful and well-armed populace.
This is basic US history, based both on their own words and their actions. The colonies had TRIED getting the Crown to make concessions for years. It DID NOT WORK, because the Crown was being tyrannical and kept imposing denying the colonists rights which other British subjects got – such as taxation without appropriate representation. At that point, even a very minor additional taxation was too much for the colonists to be willing to deal with anymore – like a 3 penny per pound taxation on tea. So they had to overthrow the government instead and rid themselves of the British governing body. That is an overthrowing of a government in the collective colonies.
“but the revolutionaries do not overthrow the government,”
In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change, replacing the status quo, while a reformist is someone who supports more gradual and incremental change, often working within the system.
Jefferson used the word revolutionary for a reason, instead of reformist. The Founding Fathers had tried reforming the British government in the colonies, and the Crown refused. That’s when they decided on revolution instead.
I would argue that a human being with the power to telekinetically hurl something with about five hundred pounds of force is comparable to a person who is armed. Even so, your disagreement only removes the 2nd amendment reference from my suggestions, not the 14th, or the entire rest of the argument. In my third point, I say “LIKE” using firearms, for example.
“I would argue that a human being with the power to telekinetically hurl something with about five hundred pounds of force is comparable to a person who is armed”
But people who have that power would not be able to have a law written up specifically for them when they did not do anything illegal in the first place, so it wouldn’t matter if they were or were not considered armed. Legally both the federal government and state governments would not be able to have any sort of legal definition that states that superpowers are the equivalent of being armed (and thus requiring some sort of registration or incarceration or other legal punishment or penalty or process). That would be a bill of attainder, which is not allowed under Article I Section 9 and Article I Section 10 – Article 9 Clause 3 prohibits federal bills of attainder, while Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The fact that the Framers decided to put that not only in the MAIN Articles of the Constitution, but made sure that it applied to both federal and state governments pretty much emphasizes how important they found this to be.
But Pander, you lovely and brilliant madcap attorney, you ask. What the heck is a Bill of Attainder and what does that have to do with anything?
Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process. They are legislation that imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial. For example, saying all people over 6’2″ are illegal, or all people who can bench 250 lbs are subject to a specific legal sanction or compelled registration. Or people who have an IQ over 150 must be listed on a registry or be arrested.
You cannot have legislation which makes someone illegal for the mere fact of their existence, without them having done anything criminal first (and then given due process).
So while you are definitely correct that the 14th Amendment protects supers from just laws penalizing or registering them for being supers – it goes way beyond that, because even without the 14th Amendment, it would STILL be unconstitutional since it’s in the main body of the Constitution itself, not even needing the Amendments for support. :)
Those three rules are based on laws and citizen rights specific to the Constitution of the USA. What about the remaining 96% of world population where those laws and rights do not apply?
There are equivalents in other nations, especially if (as Regret said) we do not make the direct link to firearms. Use of superpowers should not be illegal, but should be an aggravating factor to a crime, a concept that is present in nearly every modern society. And similarly, the concept of assault as I defined it is common to nearly every modern society.
There is no reason for using super-powers to constitute an inherent aggravating factor to a crime. How is teleporting someone’s wallet out of their pocket any different/worse than slipping it out with your pickpocketing skills? Or using telescopic vision to peep in windows instead of binoculars? Why would Telescopic Man deserve 10 years in prison for that when the guy with binoculars gets say a fine and community service or a year in easy time prison?
Teleporting at what range? I can keep my wallet in my front pocket with my hand over it to deter the vast majority of pickpocket situations. But having it teleported out of my hand is well. We humans don’t have a defence against that.
But with the second case well, They are operating using eyes that are just better than the norm, so any defence I would make to protect against someone using binoculars would most likely be effective on that person.
There are reasons why it is considered a higher crime if you go out of your way to circumvent a security measure.
Presumably because the temptation is greater, and therefore the deterrent should be greater to discourage the behavior. Locks don’t really stop a determined criminal; they’re there to keep honest people honest. An open door is more tempting than a closed one, a locked door discourages entry even more than a closed one.
It’s not that greater harm is done, but that the person is wrong in leveraging their power to harm others. Some people feel that having power gives them the right to use it to take advantage of other people with less power, and we should structure society to discourage that.
Except someone shouldn’t suffer harsher penalties simply because someone thinks it’s more tempting to commit a crime with powers than without. That’s showing a negative bias against someone simply based on an opinion. It’d be like thinking someone should suffer harsher penalties simply because they had a knife while declaring people with knives have a higher temptation to use them for a crime. So you get hit heavily not for the crime but the assumption you deserve harsher punishment for it because people think it’s more tempting to commit with your power.
If one commits a crime then they should get the same penalties as anyone else committing the crime, otherwise you’re insisting on a discriminatory system that more harshly punishes a small segment of the population even when their crimes aren’t any different. So for example the voyeur with binoculars isn’t getting a harsher sentence for his use of binoculars why should the guy with telescopic vision get a harsher punishment? Heck it’s his natural vision ability so he should suffer worse than someone using technological assistance?
There are multiple theories of law and punishment, and while I tend to subscribe to a harm-based one like yourself, I can recognize and see the logic in other perspectives. And, because different people relate to law using different theories, it may be necessary for the law to incorporate multiple theories to be effective in a society.
One perspective will claim that using a tool to commit a crime should carry higher penalties, because it shows premeditation, rather than simply being a crime of opportunity or passion. Another may claim that using your natural abilities should carry a higher penalty, because it raises the number of opportunities, and the person may feel that they should have the right to use their abilities to their advantage, even when it harms others.
There’s also the risk that if a person perceives a punishment as “fair”, they may consider it simply a price to be paid, rather than a deterrent to undesirable behavior. Under a deterrence model, the point of punishment isn’t post-facto justice, retribution, or restitution, but to scare people into not breaking the law in the first place. Ideally, when a deterrence model is working properly, no punishment is ever actually carried out!
When you said ‘post facto justice’ do you mean ‘justice after the fact of the crime having been committed?’
Just curious because ex post facto actually means when you punish a crime retroactively (ie, criminalizing conduct that was legal when first performed) which is unconstitutional to do, so I’m figuring you didn’t mean ‘post facto’ but instead meant justice for crimes that were already committed (ie, punishment).
“One perspective will claim that using a tool to commit a crime should carry higher penalties, because it shows premeditation,”
This is already a thing in law. Committing a crime with a deadly weapon does carry higher sentencing. But you can’t extend that to natural extensions of a person’s being, since that would be a bill of attainder, and also unconstitutional. Like making it illegal as strong as Mike Tyson or able to throw a punch as fast as Bruce Lee. :)
Except that ARC is a specifically US military organization, operating under the authority of the US Constitution.
Despite its pretensions, the UN is not a government, nor does the “World Court” have any powers the individual nations are willing to grant it.
ARCHON is in the US and, thus, has to follow US laws, based on the US Constitution.
Other countries have their own laws and would do other things in accordance with their own laws (or lack thereof).
I can’t speak for anywhere else, but for some centuries England had Witchcraft Laws specifically to ban the use of magic in committing various crimes, and extending the punishments for doing so. These laws effectively made any other use of magic legal, and blocked persecution otherwise of accused witches, which was the real main aim of them.
Of some relevance, maybe…I was reading about the Oklahoma City bombing, and came across how at one point they pulled everybody back because they found another bomb. But the bomb turned out to be a dummy TOW missile one of the offices in the building was using for training.
So it *is* hard to tell the difference between a live bomb and a prop bomb…
A RAF base had a Barnes Wallis “Grand Slam” ten ton Earthquake bomb as a gate guard for 50 years…..
Then they discovered it was live…….
Apparently an urban myth, although difficult to prove a negative. https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/146737-the-myth-that-scampton-s-grand-slam-on-the-gate-was-live?page=0
One of my high school classmates worked in a building across the street when that bomb went off. He described an extremely chaotic situation. Oklahoma City was not and still is not a place you expect to encounter a live bomb. In a situation like that you don’t take chances.
Maxima is very confident in ARchlight’s (or whichever division Lapha gets to) ability to keep their asset under control and blind to pertinent information.
ARCdark, obviously.
as HKMaly said its likely going to be ARCdark, and so far it seems like they manage
One bomb that definitely belongs in the Museum of Cinematic Bombs (Cinema being the umbrella term for both big and small screen audiovisual media that’s non-interactive, barring occasional gimmicks like a toy raygun or scratch and sniff card), is the titular sentient torpedo from the Star Trek Voyager episode “Warhead”.
How about the nerve gas bomb from The Rock? It was unique in appearance, and in a cult classic movie. :D
another good one would be the nuclear bomb from Star gate. the movie with Jack o’neil, with one L.
the other one is kind of a loveable jokester.
Naquada bombs too :)
What about that bomb Batman ran all over a pier trying to dispose of safely, but kept running into things making it unsafe of throwing, like ducks and nuns
That will always be THE classic movie bomb so far as I’m concerned.
Oh how about the QED bomb made by Owlman in Crisis on Two Earths. :)
https://youtu.be/LW8Njzh3_2U?t=197
I particularly like how the bomb looks like one of the Automatic Turrets from Portal. :)
oh god… a polite bomb.
‘hello, would you come over here?’
You’d almost feel bad for if you don’t comply.
Then when it blows up, it’ll say “I’m sorry. I love you.”
Next, Max deal with modern equivalents as referenced in the Sharpe series…
Promotion purchase system(as seen in Sharpe’s Eagle)
Crimping (as seen in Sharpe’s Regiment)
Is there some reason a robot made of wax can’t take a nap in the middle of a bunch of wax robots? Or does that CONFUSE you?
“Well, what if we do that, (and that’s assuming they don’t immediately kick our asses) but China/North Korea/Iran/etc. doesn’t?”
It doesn’t need to be immediate. Seriously, if there is unknown number of people with unknown powers, how stupid would you need to be to make them know that you are their enemy just because they exists? If there is way for supers to not break law, they will try. If there is no such way, if they are automatically criminals … well, then they are likely to behave like that.
Actually I’d bet that she’ll look back on her 3yr old self pocketing candy with fondness rather than suddenly getting sticky finger syndrome, but that’s just my bet.
Ya mean she doesn’t already without realizing it?
Eh. Annual mass shootings went from 7.2 to 5.2 during the ban. When it expired, most of the mass shootings were with arms the ban didn’t even effect such as handguns and shotguns which indicates other factors at play
Even now, after the ban, killings with assault weapons are statistically rare, which isn’t to say that every single isn’t a tragedy. But according to FBI stats more people are beat to death with blunt objects (bats, tire irons, fists) than are killed by “assault weapons” every year. The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are either suicide or gang related with handguns that wouldn’t be touched by any sort of assault weapons ban.
The concern is not so much for total deaths, because someone determined to kill someone is likely to use whatever tool is available, but for how rapidly someone could kill a large number of people before they are stopped.
Absolutely, I’m not disagreeing. You see the same phenomenon with plane crashes. 300 hundred people all die at the same time in a plane crash it’s a huge story, and again a terrible tragedy, but 5000 people being killed over a month on the highways doesn’t rate a comment even though it’s just as much a tragedy for the people involved and their families.
I wonder how long until Sydney “remembers” what it’s like to have tits.
Careful, you’re insulting Peggy and the entire rest of the A-team there; this seems unwise.
OK I thought you meant the Museum
of Movies THAT Bombed. Also called
Movie Bombs.
That’s at least as funny.
How? How?! How did Bangs not up for Synde as a nickname until 24 years in? Just how?
I don’t begrudge Laphna coming up with it on her own, but so many personalities in this comic should have before this, it seems.
That footnote makes me think that you just watched Reacher….
TV series or the shit Cruise movies?
Series. I watched it on prime so don’t know if it was on TV or whatever.
but wait, don’t possessed people also have access to her memories? she already know a lot from Sidney, if she connect to bad guys, they’ll know all those secrets too!
She practices mind siphon until she can control what she shares in return.
Bad guys she mind siphons suddenly have universal memories of lizard loving.
They’re never the same afterwards.
The lizard guy didn’t seem to have a problem with memory sharing. Might have been an issue with having been immediately tazed and spending time unconscious; Caused her to lose control on that score and “spill” memories into Sydney. Then fleeing in agony resulted in not having a chance to clean up behind her.
true, she did say she would take all the memories away, i guess if you do eject the usb device properly before disconnecting, you can choose what to remove, so even if they temporarily learn something they shouldn’t, it won’t remain (if she doesn’t double cross)
I’m pretty okay with this solution. Max is obviously speaking her language, at the least.
Some references from the Champions RPG:
• “The Hero and the Law” – Champions, 4th Ed., Pgs. S47 & S48 – (Hero Games, 1981)
• “The Superhero and the Legal System” – Adventurers Club #12, Pgs. 8–22 – (Hero Games, 1988)
• “Superhumans and the Law” – Champions Universe (for 5th Ed.), Pgs. 48–50 – (Hero Games, 2002)
• “The Supervillain in the Hands of the Law” – Stronghold (for 5th Ed.), Pgs. 6–33 – (Hero Games, 2008)
Abberant has some good stuff written as well.
Well, the EU already has the GDPR, so we are safe against stuff involving privacy.
You know what, I want to see Lapha “Surprise punch” someone like Sydney did in early comments, maybe blast out a four line bubble of cursing, oh and feel the need for ADHD meds she did not need to take before.
Wait, when did Sydney grow a ‘better judgement’?
that was the blanking purpose of all the training she did and its also the core of what was acknowledged by her graduation. granted its baby steps right now she still has almost no sense but she has grown a little.
Museum of famous bombs?
Batman Beyond is here for you
Sydney you are a cop who works for the US empire, yes you are the bad guys.
I’m pretty sure this is potentially an absurdly blatant violation of the 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.
In a “ticking bomb” case, the priority is to save people’s lives and worry about convicting people later. This was a problem in Real Life with the 9/11 attacks, where the CIA had information that some kind of plot was active (though they didn’t know any details), but this information wasn’t shared with the FBI because it was obtained illegally and it was felt that the information would make it more difficult to build a legal case against the terrorists. We all know how that turned out.
It was explicitly called a “wall of separation” between the CIA and FBI and was one of the reasons for the formation for the Department of Homeland Security to have a clearinghouse for sharing information in post 9/11 reforms. You shouldn’t be able to use illegally obtained information in order to convict someone, but there is such a thing as “exigent circumstances”. IMO, the priority should be to save lives and sort out the legal problems later, which can indeed lead to problems, but really, is there a better way to do it?
Quite a few of the usual abuses that “imminent threat” justifications fall afoul of in practice, are answered in this case by her ability to say, “Sorry, I know you really think this guy’s the perp, but he’s innocent”, and for that to be enough to let a wrongly suspected person go.
Max is trying to entice the baddie in becoming part of the team for baddie reasons yet her face is giving off “I will murder you” vibes. Not sure if intentional.
It seems to be more of a ‘The leverage we have over you aside from not going to prison is that you’ll finally be able to get some information on supers since you’ve been unable to just capture one outright, and maybe we won’t bother going after you when you do if you play ball with us, since youre used to doing stints in jail already. This time it’ll be a stint in jail with an actual payout for you.’
It’s very important to note something VERY important that Maxima said.
“There are laws about the use of superpowers, especially when it comes to mental abilities.” (panel 2)
This means there are actual laws on the books in the Grrlpower universe that do not exist in real life. Possibly even laws that are, or will be, on the books in regards to aliens (probably with some help from the Council since they almost definitely have laws about that, to which the US government is an ally). I’m very curious as to what those laws are and how they fit into constitionality. Probably REALLY interesting. At least to people like me.
constitutionality ( sorry my cat decided to take over my desk in front of the keyboard and it was difficult to type )
“Super PAC, with the ability to accept unlimited amounts of donated money and legally bribe lawmakers into doing basically anything he wants.”
So…. Deus? Okay, so it’s a bit more than just a money game with him, but that’s a pretty accurate description of his whole M/O…
…yeah, that’s really not salving my concerns about their usage of superpowers. This is dangerously close to ‘It’s okay to torture people if it’s a serious situation’, with the difference being that torture isn’t very effective.
That’s an absolutely horrible violation of someone’s mind and makes me seriously worried about how lax those laws of theirs are about mental stuff. Even terrorists and horrible people have rights.
I do feel like that ‘Eh, we’ll do it live and figure out the laws later’ is gunna get Maxima sued at some point and well…she’d likely legitimately lose. As well, ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’ is a maxim for a reason.
Honestly, it would be an interesting story/one I’d like to see. Maxima has an iron-strong confidence in ‘Everything I do is right, even when I use gunboat diplomacy or plan pretty unethical enhanced interrogation stuff’, it would be nice to see her have to well…reckon with where that leads.
Don’t break laws on a large scale because then you’re either a terrorist or a large corporation, and an individual Super probably doesn’t have the lobbying power of a large corporation. Well, unless that’s his super power. God, that’s a scary thought.
Don’t you have an actual character, Deus X Machina, or something like that, who appears to have that power?
This feels like the beginning of a very strange friendship between Sydney and Lapha. Like once you’ve shared minds, you’re pretty much siblings.
I take it Dave also reads the merriam-webster words of the day, as exampled by his use of Bailiwick. :-D
object duplication probably doesn’t need additional laws, t/he laws about manufacturing things already has that covered. No printing your own money, no copyright infringement, and identity theft law covers the vast majority.