|
Post by dietcokeslamma on Oct 12, 2010 0:39:18 GMT
Tom just saw Snake!
Also, D'awwww, they finally got together.
Also also, eeeyeboooows...
|
|
salsa
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by salsa on Oct 12, 2010 1:28:14 GMT
"Houston, we have liftoff. I repeat, we have liftoff."
_ _
. .
I foresee a meme about panel three in the near future. And all I have to say about Parley revealing her emotions, "'Bout dang time!"
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 12, 2010 1:57:39 GMT
Yes. Eyebrows sez it all.
|
|
|
Post by zylonbane on Oct 12, 2010 2:16:24 GMT
I love how the entire forum is loling about Smitty's eyebrows, and is hardly discussing the "gosh golly PARLEYXSMITTY 4EVER" Tom's already as much as said that they end up married, so no real surprise there.
|
|
lovecraft1024
Full Member
What does anything mean? Basically
Posts: 118
|
Post by lovecraft1024 on Oct 12, 2010 3:28:20 GMT
I love how the entire forum is loling about Smitty's eyebrows, and is hardly discussing the "gosh golly PARLEYXSMITTY 4EVER" ... I think this should be expected. Once the tension over whether they ever will hook up is gone, there's little reason to talk about it. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about their resolution. It's nice to see something good happen, but what's next? The good thing is that they are not the main character(s) and the plot involves a lot more than just "will they ever?"
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 12, 2010 3:58:24 GMT
I think the fact he smiled at Jeanne's distress in panel 3 here suggests that, underneath his Nice Guy exterior, Diego has a genuinely nasty streak. But yes, no one is universally, mustache-twirlingly evil. I recall Tom mentioning in an interview (if it's the one I'm thinking of, it's since been taken down) that there aren't any evil people in his comic, just people who do things that can be considered evil. I agree with your point about there not being a clearly evil villain in GC. If you wish to build a case for Diego being evil I am not sure that the comic you mention shows how Diego would normally react to a young lady in distress. Remember, to Diego the Jeanne he helped kill is the bitch who broke his heart and smashed all the gifts of his affection she had deceitfully accepted. I think the man who imagines himself as the main character in this play would make a point of chivalrously helping any random damsel he came across, though perhaps not because of genuine altruism. If you wish to make a case for Diego being evil, and I think one may be right to do so, it might be better to connect the sentiments in the play with those Diego voices on his deathbed. Since it must have taken Diego a while to construct the machines for that macabre play there would have been plenty of time for him to cool off and reassess his interaction with Jeanne. However much time has passed, Diego has apparently rewritten his memory of events. He either forgave Jeanne or reinterpreted her actions in a more favorable light, probably since his memory of her was too precious to leave as it was at the end of S1. To do so without accepting his own role in Jeanne's tortured demise he recast Young as the main villain of the scheme, and apparently kept that attitude to his deathbed. [Since he was still designing robots when he died that makes dementia unlikely, he was probably voicing his real feelings.] One could say that the character of Diego probably went through his entire life with that sort of immaturity that led him to kill someone who hurt his feelings. He was regretful but probably not penitent. One can't help but suspect that he reacted in similar ways when other people fell foul of his ego later in life, perhaps to the extent of harming others again. That sort of mentality is a good depiction of a coward heart, I think, and probably a decent depiction of evil as well. It isn't a loud and glaring evil, but it is an understandable and petty sort that I can remember in myself when I was still a child. To cultivate your own ignorance so as to deny your own responsibilities and continue to wrong others in comfort is almost as bad as wronging others deliberately and joyfully, I think. The caveat here is that the circumstances of the Court at the time of the separation from the Wood are not fully known. Young may have played a more sinister role than we know; the sacrifice of Jeanne may have been more necessary that we believe. Perhaps one day I will revise my opinion of Diego upward but I expect not. I think others on this board have brought up the fact that Jeanne, as a soldier of the Court, was deserting her post when she decided to run away with Greeny McElfboy. Perhaps understandable, but not completely innocent. I'm one of those folks. Since she was a soldier of the Court I'm pretty sure that she had to swear oaths to serve and defend it even if the Court was made from a collection of idealists and free-thinkers. Once you take the King's shilling it is not easily returned. I also wonder if Jeanne would be seen in a harsher light if genders were reversed in this situation. If it were John deserting the Court to be with his luscious leafy Woodland dame, would it still be as romantic? Or would there be people accusing John of thinking with his frankfurter? Either way, I take a very dim view of desertion but I am willing to admit that the devil and/or angels are in the details of Jeanne's situation. At the moment it looks like she was planning to sneak off while being sent inexplicably to the edge of the Annan. I suspect she'd have asked why she was being sent and the obvious excuse they could use would be picket duty. If she was not on watch then taking off would be slightly less irresponsible; if she'd left a letter of resignation that might be even better. There may be other mitigating circumstances that I haven't yet thought of, too.
|
|
lovecraft1024
Full Member
What does anything mean? Basically
Posts: 118
|
Post by lovecraft1024 on Oct 12, 2010 4:37:13 GMT
Nice analysis.
I wonder how much Diego himself had to do with the rift between the Court and the Forest. After all, there he was creating these amazing robots, powered by unknown (etheric?) means, representing the ultimate in technology. Is this what pushed the rift?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 12, 2010 5:39:11 GMT
"Luscious leafy Woodland dame" has to be the best combination of four words as I have seen today! And I've seen a lot of words today in particular.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 12, 2010 11:35:48 GMT
I think that some of the sympathy towards Jeanne stems from her choosing love over what seemed to her like a senseless feud (while we still don't know the details about how the quarrel between the Wood and the Court began, I do have the suspicion that both sides behaved equally badly and were equally to blame; for all we know, it might have already reached the point where if an arbitrator were to ask the two sides what they were quarreling about and how it began, they'd have to admit that they didn't know).
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 12, 2010 13:07:47 GMT
My sympathy for Jeanne stems from how horribly she was treated.
On the desertion charges: If you were in the military and while you were serving, the Berlin wall surrounded your loved ones and you could never see them again and no one was even considering returning you to them or they to you..... would you just keep serving and do nothing?
Assuming she would be guilty of intent to desert, the punishment was the murder of her loved one, being left to die on a riverbank, then her spirit used for all eternity in a constant state of rage.
Back to the example, say you left your post to climb the Berlin wall but before you do, your loved ones are murdered (in front of you), then you're executed and you're not even allowed to join them in the afterlife.
*blinks* That's a bit harsh, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 12, 2010 13:14:25 GMT
On the other hand, any person who thinks war is hell should praise desertion.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Oct 12, 2010 15:29:00 GMT
Either way, I take a very dim view of desertion but I am willing to admit that the devil and/or angels are in the details of Jeanne's situation. At the moment it looks like she was planning to sneak off while being sent inexplicably to the edge of the Annan. I suspect she'd have asked why she was being sent and the obvious excuse they could use would be picket duty. If she was not on watch then taking off would be slightly less irresponsible; if she'd left a letter of resignation that might be even better. There may be other mitigating circumstances that I haven't yet thought of, too. Absolutely. It's just a weird situation all around - Jeanne apparently being held captive in the tower, lowered into the ravine in the dead of night, not just on some guard detail. As a soldier, she could expect to perhaps lose her life in the line of duty (battle, even as a guard). But 'stand here and let us kill you (and bind your soul to serve us after your death)' is a little different.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 12, 2010 18:53:03 GMT
I think that some of the sympathy towards Jeanne stems from her choosing love over what seemed to her like a senseless feud (while we still don't know the details about how the quarrel between the Wood and the Court began, I do have the suspicion that both sides behaved equally badly and were equally to blame; for all we know, it might have already reached the point where if an arbitrator were to ask the two sides what they were quarreling about and how it began, they'd have to admit that they didn't know). Agreed, I expect we'll find out at some point that neither side is better than the other, like Jones said about the Court and the Forest in the present day. I don't know if the feud can be said to be senseless or not since we don't know what happened, but there does seem to be a clear ideological difference between the two sides. I will add that the Court side uprooting the trees and the Forest side razing the buildings is a pretty clear message from both sides to the other, "We will destroy your way of life." If the buildings are self-perpetuating in the magical soil and the trees can be turned into weapons via Forest magic there were practical reasons for doing so as well, but the message remains unchanged. On the other hand, any person who thinks war is hell should praise desertion. There are some circumstances where someone might have a moral obligation to desert but war being bad isn't one of them. As a soldier, she could expect to perhaps lose her life in the line of duty (battle, even as a guard). But 'stand here and let us kill you (and bind your soul to serve us after your death)' is a little different. Maybe, but Jeanne didn't know that at the time. Unless Jeanne was some sort of conscript she had an obligation to the Court, and since she's a woman I think that incredibly unlikely. If you were in the military and while you were serving, the Berlin wall surrounded your loved ones and you could never see them again and no one was even considering returning you to them or they to you..... would you just keep serving and do nothing? This may be hard for some people to understand but yes. Someone who serves a flag is by definition not a free agent. The effects of the separation that service families experience is a theme deeply ingrained. Assuming she would be guilty of intent to desert, the punishment was the murder of her loved one, being left to die on a riverbank, then her spirit used for all eternity in a constant state of rage. Back to the example, say you left your post to climb the Berlin wall but before you do, your loved ones are murdered (in front of you), then you're executed and you're not even allowed to join them in the afterlife. *blinks* That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Not really. Like I said before it is slightly more harsh than what was historically imposed, but they did some pretty brutal stuff back in the day. Before the 17th century the standard punishment was death, the manner and brutality of death varying depending on the nation and period in question. There was also the potential to be exiled to a prison colony (so that you would never see your family or friends again), flogged to within an inch of your life and then returned forcibly to service, branding, horsewhipping, public humiliation, etc. or some combination of the above. The circumstances and the will of the commanding officer was often what determined what punishment was delivered. I was going to link you to a resource but there are too many good ones (maybe try the military history companion from Answers.com, but stuff is scattered through many articles). And Jeanne's Kermit perhaps isn't an innocent bystander in the Court's opinion. So yeah... there is ample historical precedent for Jeanne being killed and made to serve against her will, just not in that order. I don't think Young was there that night because nobody else had a pocket watch, he was acting as Jeanne's commanding officer as judicial punishment was delivered.
|
|
lovecraft1024
Full Member
What does anything mean? Basically
Posts: 118
|
Post by lovecraft1024 on Oct 12, 2010 19:49:39 GMT
All this is very interesting discussion, but the conversation in 656 does make it sound like Diego made the decision to have Jeanne be the "sacrifice", not that Jeanne was punished for something.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Oct 12, 2010 19:57:20 GMT
Maybe, but Jeanne didn't know that at the time. Unless Jeanne was some sort of conscript she had an obligation to the Court, and since she's a woman I think that incredibly unlikely. We've never seen any indication that Jeanne neglected her duties prior to the plan being devised (nor the opposite, I suppose, though that would be harder to prove in flashbacks). Jeanne's obligation to the Court ended the moment they locked her in the tower for no wrongdoing. There can't be a 'judicious punishment' for desertion when the impetus for the desertion was wrongful imprisonment in the first place. I mean, yes, of course back in the day you could be imprisoned for basically whatever reason, and killed if you somehow escaped your unjust punishment. But we now celebrate things like Bastille Day because we now realize that that's wrong. I think part of the point of these flashbacks is to revisit those events from a modern perspective. And even without taking that into consideration, the plan's contemporaries considered its morality borderline at best. Else, why bury it? (I chose the Bastille as an example relatively carefully. It seems clear to me that the reasons for Jeanne's imprisonment are primarily political. And I think it seems that way to her, too.)
|
|
|
Post by theweatherman on Oct 12, 2010 20:53:40 GMT
Desertion, I never did understand it, people in vietnam suffered horribly, and if they deserted, just think of the horrors they experienced, and tell me you wouldn't run away from it all too. So it seems unfair to punish people for that. But enough of that. Hmm... how much do we actually know about Deigo? -he is a mechanical wizzard, able to create incredibly advanced robots and technology, prehaps with etheric help but none-the-less. -he loved Jeanne alot, he pretty much designed many of his robots just to impress her. -Jeanne hurt him alot and destroyed his creations, this caused him to start a plan (for revenge possibly) but we don't know if the plan is the same one as the whole thing designed to trap her, it might have been completely different. -he obviously hated Jeanne's lover, he built the arrow (but perhaps he was ordered to by Young) to trap her, but did he know what it would be used for? -at the end of his life, he blamed young for pretty much everything. I might be a little desperate to find evidence for his innocence (or atleast to prove he's not so bad) but there is still a hell of alot we don't know about him, in my opinion, ALL the evidence and facts are needed before we accuse him. *also it's probably cos he's overweigh, and us fat guys always get the crap
|
|
|
Post by zylonbane on Oct 12, 2010 20:54:02 GMT
Nobody puts Smitty in a corner.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 12, 2010 22:09:02 GMT
Your link is about legal, not moral circumstances. Sort of.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 12, 2010 22:30:29 GMT
We've never seen any indication that Jeanne neglected her duties prior to the plan being devised (nor the opposite, I suppose, though that would be harder to prove in flashbacks). Mr. Siddell has confirmed by Formspring that Jeanne was "a good soldier." I interpret that to mean that she was disciplined, dedicated, competent in her duties and loyal before the schism happened. Then when forced to choose between her love and her duty she chose love and decided to chuck all that other stuff. So, she was a good soldier right up until she made up her mind to desert. Jeanne's obligation to the Court ended the moment they locked her in the tower for no wrongdoing. There can't be a 'judicious punishment' for desertion when the impetus for the desertion was wrongful imprisonment in the first place. I mean, yes, of course back in the day you could be imprisoned for basically whatever reason, and killed if you somehow escaped your unjust punishment. But we now celebrate things like Bastille Day because we now realize that that's wrong. I think part of the point of these flashbacks is to revisit those events from a modern perspective. And even without taking that into consideration, the plan's contemporaries considered its morality borderline at best. Else, why bury it? I can think of one reason: Since nobody knew what the barrier over the Annan waters was, coming up with a way to defeat it would be a matter of trial and error for those who can't fly. However, it's important to note this wasn't just Young and Diego and Steadman conspiring in secret. They could've pulled off this scheme all by themselves. Diego builds the arrow, Steadman shoots the arrow, Young orders random people out from underfoot and whatever else is needed. So why inform the rest of the Court's leadership at all?
All this is very interesting discussion, but the conversation in 656 does make it sound like Diego made the decision to have Jeanne be the "sacrifice", not that Jeanne was punished for something.
I have no doubt that Diego was the inspiration behind the plan to make Jeanne into the barrier. That does not mean that Jeanne was not a problem to the Court by herself with her pining, letter-writing, and secret plans. Diego's sales pitch: Two birds, one stone, two lovers, one arrow.
I look at the same meeting you reference and think "secret tribunal." I don't know if they called it that, or if they called those proceedings anything at all, but it was a meeting with the gathered leadership of the Court to decide Jeanne's fate. It was secret as far as the rest of the Court was concerned, true, but that is government at work in that meeting. Despite one dissenter they still had quorum.
Desertion, I never did understand it, people in vietnam suffered horribly, and if they deserted, just think of the horrors they experienced, and tell me you wouldn't run away from it all too. So it seems unfair to punish people for that.
Many people who fought in Vietnam were draftees, that's not the same thing as someone who volunteered.
But... I'm not sure Vietnam was worse than than any other war. And not everybody runs away.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 12, 2010 22:47:58 GMT
Your link is about legal, not moral circumstances. Sort of. I stand behind it. After WW2 there was a great deal of legal thought that went into what to do with the Axis soldiers who'd done some really horrible stuff. The core of the legal problem was that what they had done was not only legal according to German law, but they'd have faced severe punishment if they had objected. The political problem was that the the Allied powers and the Soviet Union were now eying each other uneasily and disputing occupation of Berlin. That came very near to a shooting war instead of a Cold War, and the judges trying the Nazi war criminals in particular were being put under enormous pressure to look the other way as a salve to public opinion in the former Axis nations so that they would be firm allies against the Soviets. There is a lot of great writing about the subject in the rulings of those times (and one great movie about an American jurist who goes to Austria, I think, but I forget the title). [edit] Did you click through to the Rule According to a Higher Law page? That is what they wanted to appeal to in order to solve the above dilemma. [/edit]
|
|
salsa
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by salsa on Oct 12, 2010 22:51:37 GMT
Some things about desertion in the line of duty.
When a person joins the military, they most likely took an oath, even if they were conscripted/drafted. Desertion is a direct violation of that oath, and in many western cultures, especially ones with roots in Christianity, those oaths probably include something akin to a prayer to God. Basically, "I'll serve this country as a soldier as God as my witness." The oath also doubles as a legal contract. Desertion, in this case, leads to a violation of a legal contract and a moral obligation to serve until dismissed. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.
Even ignoring the religious, you still gave your word that you would serve. Breaking it basically makes you a liar, so who would want to trust you after you've deserted.
Most of this is from a modern perspective, where ground troops aren't cannon fodder, but important assets in combat. Back before this time, desertion was common because troops, especially those of the lower classes, were often poorly trained and prepared for combat. Most desertions probably happened due to PTSD. Others because of the barbarism inherent in close quarter combat.
That said, Jeanne didn't desert, in my mind at least. It has been stated by Tom on his formspring account that Jeanne planned her escape after the court told her she was to be lowered into the ravine. Her obligation to the court ended when they planned to kill her. Being the victim of a future murder is probably one of those extreme circumstances that desertion is not only forgivable, but probably encouraged.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 12, 2010 23:12:58 GMT
Some things about desertion in the line of duty. When a person joins the military, they most likely took an oath, even if they were conscripted/drafted. Desertion is a direct violation of that oath, and in many western cultures, especially ones with roots in Christianity, those oaths probably include something akin to a prayer to God. Basically, "I'll serve this country as a soldier as God as my witness." The oath also doubles as a legal contract. Desertion, in this case, leads to a violation of a legal contract and a moral obligation to serve until dismissed. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me. Even ignoring the religious, you still gave your word that you would serve. Breaking it basically makes you a liar, so who would want to trust you after you've deserted. Most of this is from a modern perspective, where ground troops aren't cannon fodder, but important assets in combat. Back before this time, desertion was common because troops, especially those of the lower classes, were often poorly trained and prepared for combat. Most desertions probably happened due to PTSD. Others because of the barbarism inherent in close quarter combat. That said, Jeanne didn't desert, in my mind at least. It has been stated by Tom on his formspring account that Jeanne planned her escape after the court told her she was to be lowered into the ravine. Her obligation to the court ended when they planned to kill her. Being the victim of a future murder is probably one of those extreme circumstances that desertion is not only forgivable, but probably encouraged. Even assuming she's flat out guilty of desertion... what is the correct punishment for that crime? In this case, the punishment FAR exceeded the crime. Even if they shoot deserters, they don't shoot your loved ones and capture your soul.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 12, 2010 23:20:43 GMT
It has been stated by Tom on his formspring account that Jeanne planned her escape after the court told her she was to be lowered into the ravine. Her obligation to the court ended when they planned to kill her. Being the victim of a future murder is probably one of those extreme circumstances that desertion is not only forgivable, but probably encouraged. It was also Formspring'd that Jeanne didn't know they were planning to kill her. It isn't entirely clear but Jeanne may not have been a prisoner in the literal sense. She may be speaking figuratively or maybe nobody was allowed to leave the Court until the crisis was over. It's also been asked if they anticipated Jeanne would flee when they lowered her down, if they were reading her letters, but so far that stuff is "remains to be seen." Until/unless some new transformative event is revealed I'm thinking they gave Jeanne enough rope to hang herself knowing that she'd desert if the opportunity presented itself, and they would be waiting on the cliff. If Kermit hadn't shown up they couldn't have shot him and the plan would've failed.
|
|
salsa
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by salsa on Oct 12, 2010 23:34:30 GMT
Even assuming she's flat out guilty of desertion... what is the correct punishment for that crime? In this case, the punishment FAR exceeded the crime. Even if they shoot deserters, they don't shoot your loved ones and capture your soul. I think you misunderstood me, I DO NOT think Jeanne is deserting. As I said, When they planned to kill her, they lost any right they had to claiming that Jeanne was a deserter when she planned to escape.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 12, 2010 23:39:01 GMT
Even assuming she's flat out guilty of desertion... what is the correct punishment for that crime? In this case, the punishment FAR exceeded the crime. Even if they shoot deserters, they don't shoot your loved ones and capture your soul. I think you misunderstood me, I DO NOT think Jeanne is deserting. As I said, When they planned to kill her, they lost any right they had to claiming that Jeanne was a deserter when she planned to escape. I did understand you meant she wasn't deserting. I was just making a point that even if she was, the punishment did not fit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Oct 13, 2010 4:04:33 GMT
I think you misunderstood me, I DO NOT think Jeanne is deserting. As I said, When they planned to kill her, they lost any right they had to claiming that Jeanne was a deserter when she planned to escape. I did understand you meant she wasn't deserting. I was just making a point that even if she was, the punishment did not fit the crime. I'm not sure I agree. Being bound to serve in the afterlife as the unwilling guardian of the country you deserted in life does seem to have a certain poetic justice to it, even if it it is harsh.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 13, 2010 4:10:17 GMT
I can't see the page. The website is down. It was a recoil! From eyebrows. Parley:Your eyebrows! Smitty:My eyebrows! ;D I also wonder if Jeanne would be seen in a harsher light if genders were reversed in this situation. If it were John deserting the Court to be with his luscious leafy Woodland dame, would it still be as romantic? Or would there be people accusing John of thinking with his frankfurter? Both of course, with a flamewar on top. On the other hand, any person who thinks war is hell should praise desertion. Non sequitur. Either way, both issues would end up at the same point where they are probably going to end up now, that is as Kipling wrote - There is no need to give our reasons, though Gawd knows we all ’ad reasons which were fair; But other people might not judge ’em so— And now it doesn’t matter what they were.
|
|
|
Post by Fhqwhgads on Oct 13, 2010 6:18:27 GMT
Apropos of nothing: the two best comments on the front page...
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 13, 2010 11:56:00 GMT
quote] I also wonder if Jeanne would be seen in a harsher light if genders were reversed in this situation. If it were John deserting the Court to be with his luscious leafy Woodland dame, would it still be as romantic? Or would there be people accusing John of thinking with his frankfurter? Few audiences have scorned Romeo for placing his love for Juliet over the feud between his family and hers, so maybe the former (though the two situations are not identical).
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 13, 2010 12:49:55 GMT
quote] I also wonder if Jeanne would be seen in a harsher light if genders were reversed in this situation. If it were John deserting the Court to be with his luscious leafy Woodland dame, would it still be as romantic? Or would there be people accusing John of thinking with his frankfurter? Few audiences have scorned Romeo for placing his love for Juliet over the feud between his family and hers, so maybe the former (though the two situations are not identical). Those audiences kind of miss the point that Romeo & Juliet is supposed to be a plea *against* the folly of romantic love.
|
|