Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 012

[ftl]

But we, the readers, can't prove it was based on the information given. We can make some very, very strong inferences, but inferences do not equal proof.

In practice - unless you're a mathematician working with axioms where formal proof is possible - the two are equivalent for all practical purposes, and colloquially 'prove' means the same thing as 'provide extremely strong evidence for'. Is there a particular reason you're splitting hairs here?

I mean, what can we "prove" about the comic, if you're being that strict? Nothing that's ever based on what any character says or does or remembers, since they could be lying? I just don't see why you would ever apply a mathematical definition of 'proof' to a webcomic, as opposed to a more common one. (In common parlance, "innocent until proven guilty" does NOT mean a mathematically rigorous proof!)

[drachefly]

I'm talking about whether or not we can verify that the prediction was a Prediction.

... I covered that in the earlier post. If it wasn't a Prediction, is was a mind-bogglingly, seriously amazingly stupid prediction. Stepping outside the story for a moment, the only way it's not a Prediction is if the whole point of this book series is to pull a gotcha at the last moment.

SOME predictions I can easily believe, like telling Janis they're going through with Parson. She needs that one to be true, and it's reasonably self-fulfilling. Wanda attuning? Not at all. Even if Wanda set on a quest to obtain an arkentool - which she easily could - and succeeded - tougher, but doable - then she could easily not attune. And then, the predictamancer's booped. They would probably not be too happy to hear 'well, maybe you attune to one of the others?'

Sticking her neck on the line like that without something really solid to back it up, for no good reason? As I said, mind-bogglingly, seriously amazingly stupid.

[ParsonIsOP]

Well what you can prove is a kind of internal consistency to the logic and rules of operation in the setting. Being that this is a story, some things you're supposed to accept as true at face-value. If you don't, there is no suspension of disbelief.

As such we can at least accept the mathematical or purely logical form of proof as tenable, since we all implicitly understand that some premises and assumptions are simply given to the audience.

Two. This isn't a large sample size.

And Doctor House will tell you that people always lie. Corollary: Lying isn't necessarily evil or malicious.

Also, Janis isn't lying about anything important. The audience already knows that Janis thinks that Parson is Erfworld's best chance for peace. It's not such a stretch to see why she might support Parson. And insofar as her opposition goes, it only goes against the Thinkamancers trying to claim custody of Parson. This isn't an argument about whether Parson belongs in MK, but a power play.

Assuming Janis isn't actually Predicting, she could just very well be predicting. Any canny observer could guess at what Janis might do in this situation.

As for manipulation, Marie is making Janis do what Janis wants to do? Ummm. Whatever. That horse isn't going anywhere.

*sigh* Now I remember why I hardly ever post here.

I wasn't making a point about the nature of Predictamancers, I was making a point about how we, the readers, don't know how Predictamancy works because the Predictamancers are unreliable narrators.

Yes, two is, scientifically speaking, the worst possible sample, because, in case of divergence, there is no way to know which is right. Still, we know that the Predictamancers, as a grou,p have manipulated the Thinkamancers, as a group, since the Thinkamancers only think they know what is going on. We also do not know the Predictamancers' agenda. Just as they've manipulated the Thinkamancers, it is possible they've lied to Janis and the Florists about their aims.

I never claimed lying was malicious. It is always manipulative. Even if it is a child telling their mother that they took the trash out when they really haven't so they don't get yelled at. It is manipulative.

Marie is the Predictamancer. Janis is a Hippiemancer. Janis is a pacifist. Janis doesn't want to attack anyone. Marie is telling Janis that Marie has Predicted that Janis will stack with Parson and attack the Thinkamancers if necessary. Doing so would be very against Janis's nature. Marie telling Janis that, whether it is manipulative.

Also, my point at the time was, once again, we do not know what is an actual Prediction, and what is pure manipulation. We have seen both known Predictamancers end sentences with, "this I Predict." We, the readers, have no way of knowing if these are actual Predictions or merely rhetorical devices used by Predictamancers to get others to do what they think they should. We do not know what it looks like when a Predictamancer casts. It is probably alot more subtle than many casters, but we know there is a spark when a Luckamancer casts, so I think we should see something. What we do know is that Marie did not know that Parson was coming to the Magic Kingdom, although Predictamancers did know something was going to happen there. Unless she is making Predictions as we watch, which I'll admit is possible, there is no way she could have Predicted Janis stacking with Parson, since didn't Predict he would come. That would make her statement to Janis rhetorical.

Of course, what do I know.

Late response is late, but my point is that Marie isn't especially manipulative from what I've seen. She doesn't come across as a control freak the way Wanda or Delphie does. She doesn't have the psychological need for it. One lie does not make a habitual liar. One theft does not make a habitual thief. Even if I grant your premise, two Predictamancers with a taste for subterfuge does not a Predictamancer conspiracy make.

Is what Marie is doing manipulative? Yes. But not uncommonly so. She's involving herself in Magic Kingdom politics the same way that the Thinkamancers are doing. It doesn't imply that they're all especially manipulative individuals, it implies that they're political animals. Again she's nudging Janis into doing something that she wants to do anyway.

Marie's not lying either. What motive does she possibly have to lie about it? She doesn't need to in order to get Janis to do what she wants. Janis isn't persuaded by her Prediction but by being reminded of her own priorities. Janis isn't bogged-down by the same existential crisis about Fate that Wanda is, so even if she were lying, it wouldn't work particularly well here.

And by the by, Janis isn't a strict pacifist. And it's isn't contrary to the "Hippie" theme, since counterculture is supposed to be in conflict with authority or the status-quo. She's raging against the machine in a war to end all war.