|
Post by fronzel on Dec 28, 2010 5:02:10 GMT
...Surma misleading Renard about the status of the private relationship between them, as part of a plan to ultimately capture a creature of the forest, meant that her relationship with the forest creatures was a sham, and that she had always been nothing more than a servant of Court interests. As a diplomat, that's a very severe transgression... You mean to suggest that the diplomats of a polity aren't supposed to be servants of that polity's interests? Remember that the Court wanted to bring Renard over the bridge (for what exact purpose we still don't actually know, though he ended up killing someone and imprisoned) because they apparently feared Coyote's motives in trying to give Renard his power. If the Court's fear was well-founded, how morally indignant could Coyote possibly be that a woman of the Court (which is what Surma was, medium or not) helped foil him?
|
|
|
Post by strainofthought on Dec 28, 2010 5:40:38 GMT
...Surma misleading Renard about the status of the private relationship between them, as part of a plan to ultimately capture a creature of the forest, meant that her relationship with the forest creatures was a sham, and that she had always been nothing more than a servant of Court interests. As a diplomat, that's a very severe transgression... You mean to suggest that the diplomats of a polity aren't supposed to be servants of that polity's interests? Remember that the Court wanted to bring Renard over the bridge (for what exact purpose we still don't actually know, though he ended up killing someone and imprisoned) because they apparently feared Coyote's motives in trying to give Renard his power. If the Court's fear was well-founded, how morally indignant could Coyote possibly be that a woman of the Court (which is what Surma was, medium or not) helped foil him? Maybe "a servant of Court interests" was the wrong phrase to use. Again, I'm not suggesting that Coyote didn't or shouldn't have expected Surma to be loyal to the Court, first and foremost. I'm saying, if he expected her to use her standing invitation to visit the forest as means to arrange for his beloved cousin's capture, he probably wouldn't have allowed her to come and go as she pleased, now would he? Yes, diplomats are meant to serve their polity's interests, but they are expected to do so through open and honest means. A foreign representative in your land who openly professes friendship while secretly working to undermine it is not a diplomat; they are a saboteur.
|
|
|
Post by Goatmon on Dec 28, 2010 5:48:23 GMT
Well, the cat's out of the bag.
It, uh, certainly seems to have wiped the smirk off Coyote's face.
Hoooo boy.
|
|
|
Post by fronzel on Dec 28, 2010 5:55:02 GMT
Yes, diplomats are meant to serve their polity's interests, but they are expected to do so through open and honest means. Sorry, I laughed at that.
|
|
|
Post by Goatmon on Dec 28, 2010 6:07:10 GMT
...Surma misleading Renard about the status of the private relationship between them, as part of a plan to ultimately capture a creature of the forest, meant that her relationship with the forest creatures was a sham, and that she had always been nothing more than a servant of Court interests. As a diplomat, that's a very severe transgression... You mean to suggest that the diplomats of a polity aren't supposed to be servants of that polity's interests? Remember that the Court wanted to bring Renard over the bridge (for what exact purpose we still don't actually know, though he ended up killing someone and imprisoned) because they apparently feared Coyote's motives in trying to give Renard his power. If the Court's fear was well-founded, how morally indignant could Coyote possibly be that a woman of the Court (which is what Surma was, medium or not) helped foil him? That argument is moot. He never had any reason to accept Coyote's power until the court tricked him into believing Surma loved him, which spurred him to find a way to win her over, and thus led him to getting help from Coyote. Their interference is the cause of the whole mess. Once again, acting in self-interest, the court screwed over others who had not acted against them out of paranoia and greed. And if you're going to use the dead student as evidence? That death wouldn't have occurred if Renard hadn't been seduced in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by strainofthought on Dec 28, 2010 6:08:36 GMT
Yes, diplomats are meant to serve their polity's interests, but they are expected to do so through open and honest means. Sorry, I laughed at that. Then you must have been rolling on the floor with mirth earlier this month when Britain expelled a Russian diplomat who was caught spying. No sovereign power tolerates spies and saboteurs, whether they call themselves diplomats, immigrants, or tourists. It would be insane to do otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Dec 28, 2010 8:09:49 GMT
Sorry, I laughed at that. Then you must have been rolling on the floor with mirth earlier this month when ... a diplomat ... was caught spying. Not to drift into real-world politics here, but the keyword is "caught". Diplomats are infamous for their lies and intrigues, and any competent embassy is a hot bed of spies. It's absolutely necessary, everybody knows, everybody does it, and everybody is properly shocked and outraged when circumstances demand that a particular spy or action be made public. Again, not to drift into real world current events, but I think there's been a recent document dump of some sort that confirms this in a fairly major way...let me think, what was it called? Wicker Basket, Leaky Faucet, something like that...no no, don't tell me, I'll remember.... Back to the comic: A diplomat is assumed to be acting primarily in the interests, and on the orders of, a particular polity, as has been said. A diplomat acting instead on her own interests, as Annie does here, is wildly untrustworthy, even moreso than a diplomat acting in the interests of a polity other than the one that issued her credentials; her actions become unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 28, 2010 10:25:06 GMT
The difference between a diplomat and a medium, is that a medium is NOT supposed to favour one side. Neither covertly or overtly.
Surma favoured the court enough to lie to Renard. Who took over the body of an unidentified 'young' man and killed him.
The kicker is how it was done. I don't think Coyote minds when one of his own is caught, especially if it's their own trick. But to be tricked by someone he trusted? That never goes well.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Dec 28, 2010 12:45:50 GMT
"a medium is NOT supposed to favour one side" Where is this idea coming from? Ysengrin favours the forest, without a doubt, and he's the forest medium. The medium is the one skilled enough to act as an interface, not "neutral" enough.
|
|
|
Post by Eisenblume on Dec 28, 2010 13:29:09 GMT
I am not sure, and perhaps the "Wandering Eye of Ra" is more credible, but someone who has a wandering eye is one who is cheating on their partner, right? Might it be a roundabout way of "mildly" calling Jones a whore? =/ That was my first thought at least...
|
|
|
Post by menschenjaeger on Dec 28, 2010 14:08:26 GMT
I was actually thinking of something a bit more literal - perhaps she is a (former) part of Coyote? We've seen how he can replace missing bits rather easily.
Which reminds me...when do you think we'll see that particular "gun on the mantelpiece" get fired? In the epic conclusion to Gunnerkrigg, or...very soon?
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Dec 28, 2010 16:20:27 GMT
Why do I feel Annie has just destabilised the court forest relationship? Coyote probably already knows. Ysengrin probably already is as angry as he can get. Annie's rest was interrupted (not that it was a relaxing dream anyway) and she still feels bad. This little barking over her bones could be very interesting in any other time, but now it made her extremely unamused. That is... I suspect it was Annie's attempt to vex Jones back. Sadly, she isn't in a proper shape to enjoy her achievement shold she succeed and see Jones changing the facial expression. Can Jones seriously fight off Coyote, a god? Why not? "Jones" may be one herself, after all. coyote says that jones is "demanding" antimony to come back with her, whereas jones had only said "you SHOULD come back," not "you MUST come back." obviously, there's something pretty ugly between coyote and jones, that coyote is bending (?) the truth.[...] what he's saying may be true, technically (although, isn't that what coyote does?), but it's more...posturing that anything else. Maybe just usual posturing exchange... or it would be, but Annie already is in extremely foul mood and can derail everything just because it anoys her. Nah. Look at her face as she makes her proclamation. That's concern, not anger. People are trying to read some scheming intent into Annie's actions here. I'll tell you, I don't see it. I think Annie is doing this because she *likes* Coyote. I don't see it as "concern". More of hurt. And she's not very likely to have a lot of illusion about Coyote either. Right now it looks like Annie's too sour and tired to care about remote consequences or anything else. She just flips out again, but haven't much fire left for RAGE, hence... this. If the Court's fear was well-founded, how morally indignant could Coyote possibly be that a woman of the Court (which is what Surma was, medium or not) helped foil him? It's incosequential. The decision was her, either way. Coyote perfectly knows this too - though of course still may try to use it in his game with the Court.
|
|
|
Post by Stately Buff-Cookie on Dec 28, 2010 16:28:00 GMT
I was so utterly BLOWN at Coyote's "wut" face that I nearly forgot about something interesting.
"this again"
What an interesting thing for Coyote to say.
Also, is it 2012 in the comic? Cause the apocalypse is about to happen. That, or we'll see the single creepiest moment to ever grace this comic. Coyote will not act in anger. He will calmly sit, stare at Annie, and ask her to explain. Through the whole story he will not crack a smile or even snicker. Just that same look of, "I cannot get my brain to process this." the whole time. He'll thank her for telling him, ask them politely to leave, and walk off.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 28, 2010 20:09:18 GMT
Off Topic: It seems that there may have been a bit of confusion and a translation error.
According to some out there, the Mayan calendar 'apocalypse' may not be in 2012. It may have already happened, as of 2008...
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Dec 28, 2010 20:13:41 GMT
Off Topic: It seems that there may have been a bit of confusion and a translation error. According to some out there, the Mayan calendar 'apocalypse' may not be in 2012. It may have already happened, as of 2008... Aw dang... I missed the apocalypse?? I knew I should have checked my messages... ;D
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 28, 2010 20:18:46 GMT
You mean to suggest that the diplomats of a polity aren't supposed to be servants of that polity's interests? Diplomacy is the art of compromise. You go in with all your demands and wants, as does the other side, then you both work out to a mutually beneficial deal in which both sides gets as much as they want without screwing themselves in the process. That's the ideal, and the illusion, that the real world likes to portray. What really happens? Well, with the whole Wikileaks stuff, and the various spy revelations of late, turns out if you are a saboteur and spy, the hosting country doesn't appreciate it. Annie's revelation to Coyote is pretty much the same thing. And no one takes that well. Oh and Jayne? Please, just give it up. It's pretty well established at this point that Surma led Renard on, with the sole intent of getting captured. She never really cared for him, ever.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Dec 28, 2010 20:21:03 GMT
Nevah! It still doesn't make sense to me so I'm waiting till it pans out in the story. But the question wasn't about Surma, its about where you got this idea: "a medium is NOT supposed to favour one side" I just don't see how this is portrayed in the story. We have two examples of mediums: Ysengrin and Surma. Both of them favour their own side. "Unbiased and Objective" concerning nature versus technology, not the court versus the forest. Annie has no problem dealing with robots* or minotaurs, or ghosts or guides, Coyote or fairies. By the way, you'll notice Ysengrin is NOT unbiased or objective toward nature versus technology. This is strictly the court's criteria for a medium. Ysengrin is the forest's medium because he says he is. *granted, robots are the only technology represented but there sure are an awful lot of them!
|
|
|
Post by fronzel on Dec 28, 2010 21:00:39 GMT
It's pretty well established at this point that Surma led Renard on, with the sole intent of getting captured. She never really cared for him, ever. I don't know how we can say that when we don't know the Court's plan for Renard after he was "lured", as Anja put it, into the Court. Anja also said they didn't expect him to kill someone, and it's quite reasonable to say that his subsequent imprisonment was due to the murder he committed and his theft of a dragon's powerful body. At that point I'd say the Court's hand was forced. Unintended consequences are a bitch. You might as well say that Annie obviously doesn't care about Kat because she's using her as a homework answer bank.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Dec 28, 2010 21:10:12 GMT
Annie obviously doesn't care about Kat because she's using her as a homework answer bank. Gasp!
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Dec 28, 2010 21:42:07 GMT
"Unbiased and Objective"Annie has a human friend (Kat), and a glass eye friend (Shadow2) and a robot friend (Robot) and a ghost friend (Mort) I doubt she could BE more unbiased or objective.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Dec 28, 2010 21:48:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by todd on Dec 28, 2010 23:22:48 GMT
When was it ever said in the comic that Ysengrin was the forest's medium?
|
|
|
Post by fronzel on Dec 28, 2010 23:43:57 GMT
When was it ever said in the comic that Ysengrin was the forest's medium? I think Tom said something to that effect? On Formspring? Notice though that Jones said that Annie's observation was irrelevant. Maybe speaking so neutrally is Jones' way (related to her nature?) and it doesn't really mean anything, and she IS an agent of the Court.
|
|
|
Post by candlejack on Dec 29, 2010 0:11:08 GMT
Oh. Shit...
That is all I can think from the last panel.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzysocks on Dec 29, 2010 0:47:50 GMT
Oh. Shit... That is all I can think from the last panel. Doubley on this.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 29, 2010 3:07:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Dec 29, 2010 6:32:25 GMT
Off Topic: It seems that there may have been a bit of confusion and a translation error. According to some out there, the Mayan calendar 'apocalypse' may not be in 2012. It may have already happened, as of 2008... Aw dang... I missed the apocalypse?? I knew I should have checked my messages... ;D And even assuming no translation error, the end of the Mayan calendar just means the end of one round of a cycle. I have a calendar here that ends on this coming Friday. That also just means the end of one round of a cycle. In both cases, what comes after the end of the calendar is just the beginning of the next round of the cycle. For my calendar, it is specifically called "January 1".
|
|
notacat
Full Member
That's not me, that's my late cat Mimi: I'm not nearly so cute
Posts: 188
|
Post by notacat on Dec 29, 2010 7:56:38 GMT
My impression was that Annie gasped out her revelation to Coyote because she thought that Jones might stop her, and she wants to find out more about what happened. Rather than trying to stir things up, she does not want the "grown-ups" to shove the subject under the carpet, leading to her being caught by unpleasant surprise again.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Dec 29, 2010 18:51:38 GMT
Aw dang... I missed the apocalypse?? I knew I should have checked my messages... ;D And even assuming no translation error, the end of the Mayan calendar just means the end of one round of a cycle. I have a calendar here that ends on this coming Friday. That also just means the end of one round of a cycle. In both cases, what comes after the end of the calendar is just the beginning of the next round of the cycle. For my calendar, it is specifically called "January 1". I wasn't really worried about the end of the Mayan calendar. What's more interesting to me is where they got the idea that the world was supposed to end when the calendar reaches a certain point. Did the discoverers just assume the Mayans were that primitive or did they think the cycle was too long to be a cycle?
|
|
|
Post by Stately Buff-Cookie on Dec 29, 2010 23:31:18 GMT
Also, the colorful and elaborately decorated slab they commonly show to the be the Mayan calender isn't it. News likes to show that one for the scare. The real one is.. uh.. very bland looking. There's so little on it that it makes you wonder how anyone got ANYTHING out of it at all. It's practically featureless.
|
|