| User: alschroeder | | | | BTW, anyone who doesn't follow GREEN AVENGER, I strongly urge you to click the link above. She FINALLY kissed the fireman she's been flirting with forever! -Posted on Oct 29, 2009 | | User: Neilsama | | | Also consider that Ringo is far weaker than he once was, and Smiley was probably able to use this to his advantage as his power grew. By the time Ringo knew what was going on, it was far too late.
SuedodeuS, you nailed it. -Posted on Oct 28, 2009 | | User: alschroeder | | | CartoonistWill: that's a good question about what Ringo can or cannot do. I imagine it's a combination of factors---I doubt if Ringo would ever erase someone from all of existence unless the entire multiverse was at stake, which it was. Even Smiley, who threatens at least the divisions of the multiverse, is only a POTENTIAL threat, right now.
Also: Smiley has a LOT of powers (note in his Lightbringer appearance he was scouring the multiverse for "power items"...Mindmistress Psyche-Staff was on his list, even then.) So we don't know if he has some item with him that protects him from Ringo's possible obliterating him.
BTW, good discussion, everyone. -Posted on Oct 28, 2009 | | User: SuedodeuS | | 5 | I felt I should join to comment on this.
You bring up a good point about the dog, Neil. Bringing the little girl back to life didn't kill her murderer, it just made him rather old. Bringing MM's puppy (that the guy had killed just before he tried to kidnap, rape, and kill MM back when she was Lorelei many years ago) back to life is what actually killed him.
MM has done a good number of morally-questionable things over the years. Breaking Anansi's mind, trapping Moodswing in a hospital between burn and maternity wards (a very bad place for an empath), and of course turning a child molester/murderer into a skeleton. I don't have a problem with the things she's done, but I suspect Lightbringer wouldn't take too kindly to them... -Posted on Oct 28, 2009 | | User: DAJB | | 5 | -Posted on Oct 28, 2009 | | User: Canadian_Ninja | | | Okay the Subject of Bringing people back to life. that's interesting but I can see sometimes bringing the people back, especially cold-case Murders from the 50-60's wouldn't really do the victims any favours. I mean I suppose in a sense it would be like timetravel and you can return to your time period. 16-17 year old women still young while their mother's and fathers are dead and all their friends are old. Or what about the people who die with spouses or children...Coming back and realizing you missed your son's whole childhood and he's a 50 year old man now? Would you WANT to come back to that?
Just saying is all -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: CartoonistWill | | | | Oh, I was thinking, if "Ringo" could just wipe Rachel out of every single plane of existence, what's stopping him from wiping Smiley out right quick? I'm sure that's something you all will get to and explain eventually, though, unless you already have. My only current guess is that it somehow goes against his code and he has to bring in those not under the rules he is to do the job. He isn't allowed to meddle, perhaps, unless the very fabric of the worlds depend upon it. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: CartoonistWill | | | "Would there be nearly as many killers out there, if they knew that, if caught, they would be KILLED and their victims restored to life?"
Hey, I liked this, so I wanted to reply about it. Yeah, people don't like consequences, especially dying, so it's very good reason, along with statistics and crime rate studies, that Capital Punishment can significantly lower the murder rate. But, get this. I'm all for bringing people back if it were possible, but here's a thought: If people could be brought back like that, would it cause mankind as a whole to take for granted the sanctity of life? If no one can truly die, some sadly ill-willed people might take advantage of it. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: CartoonistWill | | | | I bet that little girl could become New York's next best selling author if she wrote about that. lol -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: Tssha | | 5 | Yeah, the only circumstances I'd worry about killing a man to bring back his victim is if the justice system made a mistake.
It happens way too frequently. Hell, people have confessed under the pressure of an interrogation only to be proved innocent by the DNA evidence. One case, up here in Canada, was just such an occurence. A man was in prison for most of his life because of a false confession, and only in the last decade was he exonerated.
You'd have to be damn sure the guy did it before you could use such a device...but, of course, I have no objection to its use if it can be conclusively proven that he did it. I just think that the best reason not to have a death penalty is because the justice system can be wrong sometimes.
...Hmm, provocative comic. I'm going to have to give it a 5. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: Xade | | 5 | | interesting -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: alschroeder | | | | And we have to note that MM really hasn't told LB what she thinks of HIM, either. She will, but not in the next few updates. We've got some other stuff to get through first, and in two updates or so MM will have a lot more to worry about than LB's opinion of her. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: Linkara | | | Erm, just remember, Neil - Lightbringer isn't a pacifist - in fact, his entire premise is about rejecting pacifist beliefs. XD
And subsequently, in Lightbringer's eyes, learning about the osiristor is simply the proverbial straw that broke the equally-proverbial camel's back. He has noticed a continued pattern of behavior from MM that shows (to him, at least) that he has no regard for the lives or status of others and he lists all of that above.
Mind you, each of these occurrences have their own set of circumstances involved with them, but how would YOU feel from LB's point of view and seeing what he's seen? ^_~ -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: Neilsama | | | Well, we've sparked a little philosophical discussion here, haven't we? I knew that this was going to be one of the more interesting pages in terms of feedback.
What I find most striking now is all those movies where someone is killed, and one of the character seeks retribution, only to be stopped by another character that says, "Killing her won't bring her back." Now we can call say, "Well, actually..."
alschroeder[/quote Said:
Hey, I LIKE the touch about the dog. But you're right, LB would take a different view...
I envision him having a conniption fit over that. Not just a little girl, but a dog, too. Better that he not know about that. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: Net | | 5 | How is MM's version really any different from putting someone to death for the murder of the innocent? (Well, beyond the bringing them back to life aspect...) We kill people all the time for murdering (hell, in Texas, they're PROUD of this fact), and do you think it would be even REMOTELY taboo if technology existed that could RESTORE the dead to life from the body/life force of their killer?
Would there be nearly as many killers out there, if they knew that, if caught, they would be KILLED and their victims restored to life?
MM's not a sociopath. I wish this technology existed. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: ArdRhi | | | Actually, retributive justice is a quite valid form, so long as it is done impartially, according to a strict code of values, and knows when to STOP. If it is simply one person (or group) raining down punishment because they feel mistreated or slighted, THAT is vengeance. But if they are meting out punishments in which they have no personal stake, to right a perceived moral wrong, within a defined scope, and with respect for established law, that may retributive, but it is NOT, by definition, vengeful.
I have to make this point time and time again when I talk to reporters, and make the distinction between lawful use of force for potentially lethal self-defense, and "violence". Contrary to popular opinion, force can be lethal and still NOT VIOLENCE. How? By respecting the boundaries of law, by only being used when, and to the simple degree called for by the circumstance, and no more.
If someone is trying to kill you, you may generally employ lethal force to stop them. But once they are lying helpless on the ground, you may NOT continue to shoot them in the head. While you were in danger, it is self-defense. Once they are down and you are OUT of danger, it becomes an execution -- you step over the line, out of controlled use of force to a wanton act without respect for law and society. It becomes violence.
The use of the orisistor to mete out a dispassionate punishment, to return a life in exchange for lives taken, may be LETHAL. But it does not sound VIOLENT. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: alschroeder | | | Hey, I LIKE the touch about the dog. But you're right, LB would take a different view...
TomCHuskey: point taken, although I suspect she only seems sociopathic compared to the average super-hero, who is extremely altruistic. Usually policemen and firemen at least get paid for their heroics. (Not ENOUGH, obviously...)
Which is going to make it REALLY funny at the end of this storyline, when MM realizes to her horror that...
Nyaaahhh. That's giving something away. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: God of War | | 5 | | Smiling Man could teach people how to manipulate others and destroy friendships. -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: KAM | | 5 | -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: TomCHuskey | | | Well, I for one agree with part of each character's point of view.
Like MindMistress, I'd have made that trade in a heartbeat with no regrests.
Like LightBringer, I agree that MM is a sociopath. Sorry, Al, whether it's your intention or not that's the way you write her . -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | | User: Neilsama | | | Being a pacifist, Lightbringer does not believe in applying force to achieve any end. To him, it would be desirable to bring an innocent girl back to life, but not at the expense of another human life, even that of the person who had killed her. To Lightbringer, doing so would make him no better than the killer himself. Justice is not vengeance in Lightbringer's eyes.
Mindmistress, however, is much more pragmatic and will act upon the desired goal. Mindmistress does not have the sort of philosophical roadblocks that Lightbringer has. This allows her to act upon an injustice, such as a brutal murder, and reverse the consequences. She saved a life at the expense of the one who took it.
They both represent opposing points of view. Lightbringer's is more noble, however Mindmistress' is more realistic. They seem destined to be at odds with each other, incapable of resolving their issues.
Although, I suspect that if they sat down and hashed out some of their differences, they actually might find a lot of commonalities.
Whatever you do, Double-M, don't tell him about the DOG! -Posted on Oct 27, 2009 | |
