Book 2 – Page 11

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby BLANDCorporatio » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:53 pm

Jjkaybomb wrote:Evil and not evil are by far way to harsh of terms for the morally ambigious erfworld.


Maybe ...

It's just that in a world where everyone is the puppet of a ruler that completely controls their actions if not their minds, that can obliterate underlings by thought or suicide or getting croaked, the moral value of anyone is cheap. Life IS cheap in Erfworld, and that's why their world is wrong; because it gives them just enough to make them human in their minds, while robbing them of all autonomy of action. Dystopian place to be.

PS: is Mr. Balder a libertarian? If the answer is yes I would NOT be surprised btw.
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.
User avatar
BLANDCorporatio
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Gez » Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:54 pm

BLANDCorporatio wrote:You simply can't be evil in this world God dammit!

Or you can't be good.
User avatar
Gez
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby GobwinPie » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:15 pm

SteveMB wrote:
Welf von Ehrwald wrote:Could it be, that elves can't be decrypted. If we don't see a Altruist or Lofty elves now, there aren't any.

Or it could be that their position got a particularly heavy hit from the eruption, leaving them too badly roasted (like Bogroll).

Well, until he said that I was going to ponder if being allied with Marbits, Gobwins, and Hobgobwins prevented even decrypting Elves beyond just preventing allying with them.

MarbitChow wrote:All procedures on Earth are done WITH CONSENT, either from the patient or from someone in position to grant it.
In the event of traumatic procedures, they are done because the alternative is death.
The act of saving someone isn't the crime. Doing it without their consent is what makes it evil.

By that logic, operating on a person who is unconscious and who you don't know how to contact the next of kin for is evil. The reason it's not evil is not because of consent but because of the intended goal of such actions -- saving a life. In this case, though, Wanda's motivations are expediency and maybe selfishness (or pragmatism) in conserving healing scrolls for herself.

On that note, I think that if GK has the option in how they take the casters from the RCC2 forces, they should kill and decrypt the Dollamancer to see if he/she can still cast afterwards and try to capture/turn the Healomancer and Dittomancer just in case the first doesn't work. Having a Healomancer to cast or make scrolls would be a huge boon for GK in the long run and isn't worth risking if it can be avoided.
User avatar
GobwinPie
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:09 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Hobgobwin » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:19 pm

mastigo wrote:She kinda didn't expect stanely to WIN. She was expecting him to die and leave her the hammer to attune to. Addmittedly still a backstab, but
one that would improved her side. Life is cheap in erfworld.


A high level chief-warlord with exceptional stats and knowledge of tactics (he must have been for promotion) wielding one of the most powerful weapons in the game commanding a squad of some of the most powerful units in the game and possibly many more warriors...Against a peaceful kingdom with presumably low-level "clerk" warlords. While their main defenders were away from the city (mercenaries).

Yeah, I'm not buying it. Wanda could not have been that stupid.
Avatar croppped by Stevemb.
User avatar
Hobgobwin
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:58 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Kornaki » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:45 pm

Sixty wrote:I think a lot of speculation on being "incapacitated" is starting to run wild.

We have seen no evidence that it means anything other then "critical damage that will be lethal to the unit unless healed". While asking whether it's at the end of turn/enemy's turn/day might be valid questions we have yet to learn, the point is unless they plan to dwagon express Jack back (assuming that is even possible) he needs to be healed or decrypted (or just left to die, but obviously they're not gonna do that). We have no evidence or hints that there are a myriad of different levels of being incapacitated and the fact that Caesar was as heavily wounded as he was during that summer update without being incapacitated would indicate that it isn't used for minor wounds and if one is incapacitated there is a strong chance it is as bad as it was for Wanda during book 1.

While they will probably want Jack around for whatever action they take this turn, I don't think that was the only reason healomancy vs decryption was being discussed (as I doubt he was going to heal at the beginning of the next turn).



This cake is a lie! The foolamancer remains incapacitated!

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0102.html

We have no way of knowing whether that was a technical use of the term or not
Kornaki
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:44 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Coriat » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:18 pm

Hobgobwin wrote:Yeah, I'm not buying it. Wanda could not have been that stupid.


Agreed. My guess is that she was simply lying about that part of it. She had good reason to: best to make it seem as if you didn't intentionally sell out your last side, as otherwise you're inviting your new side to wonder if they're next.
Now, blind, I started groping over each;
I called to them for two days; but
the fasting had more force than the grief.
-Ugolino
Coriat
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:05 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby crazyguy_co » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:44 pm

BLANDCorporatio wrote:
Sokrotes wrote:YES!!! Mr. Snipe is still in the game, and my faith is restored in the story! It seems only Wanda is thinking like some of the forum people. Decrypt everything to fix every problem. Hmm can casters cast after being decrypted? lets try it. No sometimes things are better left a mystery. Anyway im going on a slight tangent and i dunno what point im trying to make, basicaly all im saying is YAY JACK IS STILL ALIVE! :D


Let's not go to strawmen there, shall we. "Decrypt everything to solve every problem" is not what I'm for. I'm for ranting about how decryption in itself is not evil; in this case, this means saying that whatever good reasons there are to prevent Wanda from decrypting Jack, moral concerns are not among them.

Other than that yes, let's rejoice! :D



But it IS. its forced mindcontroll. its not the same as popping a new unit. Its taking an old unti and subverting his mind to follow your will... ansom losing his royalty crusade for "toolism", for example.

Mind control is evil. Forced subversion is evil.

Now is decrypting ones own fallen allies evil? No, the act itself is not, its the use its being put to.
crazyguy_co
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:04 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby SteveMB » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:46 pm

Hobgobwin wrote:A high level chief-warlord with exceptional stats and knowledge of tactics (he must have been for promotion) wielding one of the most powerful weapons in the game commanding a squad of some of the most powerful units in the game and possibly many more warriors...Against a peaceful kingdom with presumably low-level "clerk" warlords. While their main defenders were away from the city (mercenaries).

Yeah, I'm not buying it. Wanda could not have been that stupid.

I dunno. She might have not really understood that Faq's military was a weak shell, if it was the only one she knew anything about. (Remember, our information on this point comes from Jillian, who was one of the few Faq units with actual battle experience and familiarity with real fighting forces from other sides.)

Hmmm... perhaps that ties in to Parson's observation "Wanda seems to resent the implication that she knows anything about troops or combat (though I think she does)."
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby valce » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:13 pm

crazyguy_co wrote:Mind control is evil. Forced subversion is evil.


Maybe not so black and white. What about mind controlling an evil person to prevent them from doing something incredibly evil?

IMO while there may be clear cut 'good' and 'bad' decisions in certain situations, it's hard to come up with a generalization on morality that is 'just true'. I mean, there are a few actions that are inherently evil and I can't conceive of when there would ever be a justification for them that could make them anything more than neutral, at best, BUT aside from those... :)
valce
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Glenn » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:31 pm

Sizemore is bright, curious, knowledgeable, has spent his life working for a side that's involved in wars, and is eager to help Parson. And yet he hasn't been able to give Parson a bit of help in understanding how wars are fought. Casters don't seem to be expected to know anything about tactics. Look at how Ansom reacted when Jack told him capturing Ossomer would work. Ansom didn't think Jack knew what he was talking about, because he was a caster. I think it's very plausible that a caster like Wanda from a bubble kingdom like Faq cold be completely ignorant about how war on Erfworld actually worked, and not really realize how ignorant she was until it was too late. Why did Wanda think Stanley would lose? Because she thought he was an idiot. And she was right. She just didn't realize you could be a idiot on Erfworld, and still be very, very good at war.
Glenn
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:04 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Atomic » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:47 am

Am I the only one to notice (or perhaps, the only one to care about noticing) that Maggie is the sole-character in the strip to use the word "incapacitated"? To be honest, it's a great way to describe wounded casters (or even wounded characters) in Erfworld...

"To be deprived of strength or ability; disabled."

She's used it twice about Jack and once about Wanda, so maybe she's using it to describe the status of wounded/use-deprived casters? Shouldn't there be some form of differentiation (woah, I spelt that correctly... Score!) between Partially Insane Jack and Seriously Wounded Jack?

The incapacitated/crazy/mad/whatever you guys want to call it-Jack from Book 1 is still able to cast Foolamancy, but he's seriously hampered from the breaking of the link with Maggie/Misty; whereas, the incapacitated/knocked out/conscious, yet faking knocked out/whatever you guys want to call it-Jack from the Expository Bridge seems to be a hopscotch from croaking. Wanda (from TBfGK) seems like a nice halfway point...

There wasn't a real purpose to this post. I was just pointing out an observation.

Please feel free to return to your discussions of whether or not Decrypting Jack is Morally Justified, if it's evil to murder someone even if you can bring them back to life, and how many nano-seconds it'll take Wanda to go after Jillian... ;)
Rob Balder wrote:We have one rule in these forums: don't be a dick.
User avatar
Atomic
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:28 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby TamLin » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:45 am

Hm, is Parson supposed to look thinner here, or is that just one of those little art "hiccups" that happens?
User avatar
TamLin
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:40 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Infidel » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:04 am

Oh geez. So many pages to respond too, lets see if I can avoid wall-of-text.

BLANDCorporatio wrote:Mmkay, let's adjust this analogy then. You put someone in a coma to do bypass surgery on them, and they wake up very grateful to you. Very, very, ridiculously grateful. But it appears that it can wear off.
Gratitude does not cover someone being willing to go kill their family for your benefit. The person brought back is not the same person. It's a doppelganger.

crazyguy_co wrote:Isn't that the very defenition of evil? I mean its not like real evil is intentionally evil... they just put "pragmatic" over "moral"


Evil is selfish and unconcerned with the price one's actions has on others. Good is concerned with the welfare of others and takes actions that benefit others, as well as and sometimes at the expense of, one's own benefit. The good/evil question here is, does decrypting Jack benefit Jack to the point that he would rather be decrypted than not? If you were Jack would you prefer to be decrypted in the same situation?

BLANDCorporatio wrote:As for the second, murder is not murder when you can, and do it with the express intention to, bring the "dead" back.


Irrelevant. Redeeming a deed does not exempt the deed. If I resolve to steal something with the intent of returning it later, that doesn't change the fact that I willfully took something away from someone else, to my personal gain. Nor does returning it repay for the person's lack of access to the stolen good, or any unknown consequences thereof. Steal someone's golf club, and he can't go golfing with the CEO, but if he had gone, he would have gotten a promotion due to some comment he would have made during the game. Likely? of course not, but the point is, we have no idea what the ultimate ramifications our actions can have on another person's future. But when we act against another for our personal gain, then we are responsible for all potential consequences, not just the immediate obvious consequence. And again, killing someone and then decrypting them changes them. This is hardly returning something in the same or better condition from their standpoint.

Sixty wrote:No, Stanley was saying it from off screen. In tBfGK when someone speaks on panel they have no border to their text box, when they speak off-panel they do. (Now in book 2 they always have a border, it's just thicker when someone says something off-panel, see the Dittomancer's "I'll quadruple'em." off-panel remark here http://www.erfworld.com/2009/11/book-2- ... 93-page-8/) Parson says "Um... Yeah. Look, I know you're--" but the other text was Stanley's.


sigh. You're right. You're right. But the tempo still throws me off. "I thought." in one panel leads directly to the next sentence, so since the tempo is the same, it sounds like it was from the same person. But, ignoring the tempo makes it clear you're right.

BLANDCorporatio wrote:The big thing about decryption is how it changes a unit's loyalty to Wanda, and this is where most of the moral iffyness comes from.


There is no moral ambiguity. Every single system, be it philosophical or religious, that seeks to define morality has a rule that states, in one way or another, "Don't do to some other what you would not like done to you." Thus, to argue that decrypting is moral, you first have to adopt the platform that you would like to be decrypted against your will. This isn't the obvious paradox that it first appears. After all, when you were a kid you were probably disciplined against your will, but at least in some cases you now probably glad you were. So it could be argued, but you would have to base the argument on someone one day being glad to be decrypted rather than being saved, if there were no MC component or after the MC wears off.

BLANDCorporatio wrote:You could say, because the patient consented to the operation, but sometimes the patient is brought in a state where they can't express consent. This is then deferred to living wills (new, rare), relatives and loved ones, or indeed for life-threatening emergencies a procedure is just carried out because it's the right thing to do.


Consent is only semi-relevant in this case. The reason it is good is because it is done for the patient's benefit. Consent is assumed if the person is incapable of speaking for themselves and did not leave some kind of written notice at the hospital to abstain from all treatment.

Somehow, it looks like almost all my responses are directed at BC this time. Seriously, I wasn't picking on you or anything.

I seem to have failed to capture the quote, but someone made the argument that the MC aspects of decrypting is moral because everyone is under MC to some point or another. To this I also say BUSHWAH! There is no equivalency to right and wrong. Something is not ok for me to do just because it is ok for someone else. If I make the argument that all kids are disciplined by their parents, that does not give me the right to go smack someone else's kid around too. In Erf, everyone is popped with loyalty to the one that popped them to varying degrees. True, but again, if you can't prove it is to the unit's ultimate benefit to be decrypted, then you can't make a moral argument.
Who is that beautiful red-headed devil,
Stabs you in the heart so that she can level?
It's Scarlet!
- BC
User avatar
Infidel
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby GobwinPie » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:14 am

SteveMB wrote:I dunno. She might have not really understood that Faq's military was a weak shell, if it was the only one she knew anything about. (Remember, our information on this point comes from Jillian, who was one of the few Faq units with actual battle experience and familiarity with real fighting forces from other sides.)

Hmmm... perhaps that ties in to Parson's observation "Wanda seems to resent the implication that she knows anything about troops or combat (though I think she does)."


Oh, you tease. :)
User avatar
GobwinPie
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:09 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Zeku » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:26 am

Hey, I just realized something. We got a hint in the first page of book 2. "The spell to summon the perfect warlord, but without the support plan," was mentioned again.

This is such a critical, center aspect of the entire comic. You could say this comic is only happening because of that spell. Who would think to create the spell in the first place, and why? Book 1 just says 'findamancers and predictamancers,' and we just accepted this without a thought. Who in the magic kingdom would take the time to make such an insanely good spell, and then sell it for an easily attainable amount of money, like 500,000 shmuckers? You have to realize that Parson is not even necessarily 'perfect,' since Stanley made so many weird requests, and Wanda wasn't the best choice as the caster. Maybe there was someone even more perfect in the multiverse, which means the spell could be used to conquer all of Erf.

Are the predictamancers a cartel of overlords, like the Bene Gesserit, who pull gently on strings to insure that they remain in control of the destiny of their various home worlds? Is the Grand Abbey behind all of this, playing some kind of sadistic gambit to fulfill her vision of peace? Is she going to purge Erf of all life, so it can start over without conflict?
Zeku
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby pSycHOtic chICkeN » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:53 am

TamLin wrote:Hm, is Parson supposed to look thinner here, or is that just one of those little art "hiccups" that happens?


I don't see much difference between page 5 and page 11. The edge of the table is curved. You can get a similar effect in camera shots at close range. Parsons' arm is closer which makes the torso look smaller. When Parsons says "seriously" his forearms look more built. Compare to the "sword of ruthlessness" image where is elbows almost disappear.

Compared to bok 1 page 19 http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F019.jpg Parsons' cheeks are less puffy and the tool is taller or parsons is shorter. Parsons' was in a t-shirt when he arrived. In book two he has a breast plate.

I think it would be possible that Xin and Jamie looked at the same photo and Jamie decided to exaggerate a few features. Maybe there is a real person modeling as Parsons and Xin is less comfortable drawing in a critical way. More likely Parsons' is supposed to have lost a lot of weight.
pSycHOtic chICkeN
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:25 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby multilis » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:54 am

The foolish royals are brainwashed into following a superior race just like the Nazis, and Her Holiness Wanda is merely freeing them from the chains of the evil cult, *and* saving their lives.

It is not surprising that decrypted adore her for saving both their minds and bodies from the evil royal crusade. It is obvious they have freewill, eg Ansom openly says when he doesn't agree with her because he doesn't yet understand the needs of the Greater Good.

Further proof, the queen of the love hippies backs Wanda's side!
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Sokrotes » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:42 am

I just want to throw in my thoughts since i am the self proclaimed #1 Jack fan. I really don't care if Wanda is being Evil or rational or whatever in her decision, i for one like evil and root for GK because they in some ways are the evil side. This matters not to me, what matters is the story, like Elan from Order Of The Stick i know storyline and plot. ANsom was dull, Ossomar was dull, bland boring Superman like characters, turning them into whatever this is is either no different or an improvement, thus advancing there particular character story. But Tremmenious or whatever seems far more interesting as a character, thus he wasnt picked. You can argue cause Oss knew more or whatever but it was purely more entertaining for the story to keep the witty prince alive. Jack is the same, his character is very deep already and were just starting to get to know him, to change him into a decrypted wether its total mind control or just mind altering, would be a huge mistake in the story. I don't know how things will happen but i know what must happen to make for an interesting story.
User avatar
Sokrotes
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:19 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby atteSmythe » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:43 am

pSycHOtic chICkeN wrote:
TamLin wrote:Hm, is Parson supposed to look thinner here, or is that just one of those little art "hiccups" that happens?


I don't see much difference between page 5 and page 11. The edge of the table is curved. You can get a similar effect in camera shots at close range. Parsons' arm is closer which makes the torso look smaller. When Parsons says "seriously" his forearms look more built. Compare to the "sword of ruthlessness" image where is elbows almost disappear.

Compared to bok 1 page 19 http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F019.jpg Parsons' cheeks are less puffy and the tool is taller or parsons is shorter. Parsons' was in a t-shirt when he arrived. In book two he has a breast plate.

I think it would be possible that Xin and Jamie looked at the same photo and Jamie decided to exaggerate a few features. Maybe there is a real person modeling as Parsons and Xin is less comfortable drawing in a critical way. More likely Parsons' is supposed to have lost a lot of weight.

Summer update 45 mentioned he was losing weight and gaining muscle:
"Today, he had reached Stanley's office without even getting all that winded. His legs were tightening up, and some of the double folds in his gut were becoming singles again"
User avatar
atteSmythe
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 11

Postby Sokrotes » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:46 am

pSycHOtic chICkeN wrote:
TamLin wrote:Hm, is Parson supposed to look thinner here, or is that just one of those little art "hiccups" that happens?


I don't see much difference between page 5 and page 11. The edge of the table is curved. You can get a similar effect in camera shots at close range. Parsons' arm is closer which makes the torso look smaller. When Parsons says "seriously" his forearms look more built. Compare to the "sword of ruthlessness" image where is elbows almost disappear.

Compared to bok 1 page 19 http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F019.jpg Parsons' cheeks are less puffy and the tool is taller or parsons is shorter. Parsons' was in a t-shirt when he arrived. In book two he has a breast plate.

I think it would be possible that Xin and Jamie looked at the same photo and Jamie decided to exaggerate a few features. Maybe there is a real person modeling as Parsons and Xin is less comfortable drawing in a critical way. More likely Parsons' is supposed to have lost a lot of weight.


omg read people! yes he is loosing wieght! All he did in the real world was sit at his computer and eat. Now hes walking all over te castle all day, theres a few text updates that specificaly talk about him getting more toned and trimmed, especialy in his legs, but im sure his gut is changing noticably too.
User avatar
Sokrotes
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GWvsJohn, NastySasquatch, spriteless and 8 guests