|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 27, 2019 7:05:13 GMT
It's going to take me a while to digest the implications of all this.
|
|
|
Post by madjack on May 27, 2019 7:09:21 GMT
This is pretty much confirming the most common speculation re: Renard. It's going to get real interesting when we see how/if it applies to the robots. Interesting callback: Anja at least may very well be aware of how all this works, as hinted all the way back in chapter 7.
|
|
|
Post by arf on May 27, 2019 7:12:51 GMT
You, too, could have a contract of ownership with a pop doll Annie!
|
|
|
Post by rafk on May 27, 2019 7:15:03 GMT
Jones Jones calling Doctor Jones
|
|
|
Post by Sky Schemer on May 27, 2019 7:26:03 GMT
They are getting mansplained.
|
|
|
Post by Futurismo on May 27, 2019 7:36:49 GMT
I'm wondering if this concept of etheric ownership could be why Blinker Stones can be summoned by their owner effortlessly. If so, maybe this relates to how the Donlans' technomagic can summon objects to anyone with permission performing the access sequences (gestures).
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 27, 2019 7:37:59 GMT
Right. When Renard inhabited the toy there was a set of preexisting obligations that adhered to him by virtue of Antimony's ownership of the toy. It now appears that there wasn't anything special about the relationship between Surma and Antimony being mediums, or etherically gifted, or mother and daughter or whatever, that created the contract. I suppose it remains a contract when there is only one party because the nature of the Gunnerverse, being a matter-ether continuum, requires this else humans cannot expect proper behavior of inanimate objects. I can easily generate problematic situations for this system for which the bureaucracy that manages contracts most likely exists. For example, if you steal a coin from someone and hire someone with it, do they own it when you pay them? Or more interestingly, if you shoot a magic arrow at someone with the intent to wound or kill them, who owns the arrow while it is in flight? If it misses it's probably counted as mislaid, but what if it hits? Does the recipient own it like it was some other gift?
Currently watching someone get rekt in mario cart, will ponder this more later.
|
|
|
Post by madjack on May 27, 2019 7:45:27 GMT
Or more interestingly, if you shoot a magic arrow at someone with the intent to wound or kill them, who owns the arrow while it is in flight? If it misses it's probably counted as mislaid, but what if it hits? Does the recipient own it like it was some other gift? Gonna go with none of the above, any kind of arrow would probably be 'used with intent to discard' and thus be the property of whoever claims it afterwards, in this case Annie.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 27, 2019 8:07:44 GMT
Or more interestingly, if you shoot a magic arrow at someone with the intent to wound or kill them, who owns the arrow while it is in flight? If it misses it's probably counted as mislaid, but what if it hits? Does the recipient own it like it was some other gift? Gonna go with none of the above, any kind of arrow would probably be 'used with intent to discard' and thus be the property of whoever claims it afterwards, in this case Annie. On further reflection, weapons would have to have a different contract from standard items. I don't think this system could operate otherwise. So when Diego created the arrow, he made it to violate the most sacrosanct contract, that of people's body/soul integrity, and moreover with a remote and binding effect. It was a way of gaining/usurping an ownership of Jeanne, interestingly enough, that he was denied through normal means. The two yahoos currently in front of the main character(s) are present by virtue of humanity's collective desire for their clothes, tools, weapons and other property to behave in predictable ways (and beliefs that inanimate objects will and should behave that way) and can be expected to act in the interests of that etheric motion indirectly by advancing the interests of their bureaucracy, which exists to manage those human desires and beliefs. Diego's arrow, with its ability to forcibly transfer contracts, caused a tear in the etheric flow that supports aforementioned bureaucracy and potentially could do so again and again. That makes it a major problem and possibly an existential threat. That being the case, I can't see any way that they'd let Kat (or anyone else) retain possession of the arrow; it's going to have to be turned over to them or destroyed. Or they're going to have to fight them.
|
|
|
Post by bicarbonat on May 27, 2019 9:17:19 GMT
Jones Jones calling Doctor Jones Ah, Jones. Her body isn't alive or dead, so that's as Object as an object gets; she has no etheric substance of her own (not even like Kat, who is on a different kind of etheric "track" than Annie, but definitely occupies one), so whose Wandering Eye is it? Is she like some primordial robot - ie, possessing a "mind" but created by someone (unknown); having a certain level of durability & strength (prodigious); with inner workings unfathomable to "common" intelligence (x-rays & modern medicine are useless)? Does Jones own herself? And how buckwild wild Westworld would it be if she didn't? Perhaps this is in wildspec terrain. Or "God, I need to go back to sleep" terrain.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 27, 2019 9:56:39 GMT
If Jones was created by a one-time paradoxical flow of ether into a (vaguely?) woman-shaped rock, forming an etheric oxbow-lake as a permanent feature, she can bind but can't be bound by any of this ownership contract stuff... but the binding should be by virtue of the abstractions caused by the flow that supports the contract system overall, not by anything she herself directly contributes to the system. I'd expect the agents of the contract bureau to treat her with deference like the 'pomps but maybe a little less so.
|
|
|
Post by csj on May 27, 2019 9:57:11 GMT
stupid humans and their silly objectivity / stop these heinous robo-thieves / kat did nothing wrong
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on May 27, 2019 10:27:31 GMT
I'm going with "Arthur needs his own contract over things, miss Donlan. You can't just go around copying other people's contracts.", or something along these lines.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on May 27, 2019 11:05:40 GMT
"Since the beginning of time", what a whole lot of baloney, pffffft.
|
|
|
Post by theonethatgotaway on May 27, 2019 12:00:50 GMT
Could be it becomes even harder than this. They had a very clear contract "Annie owns Toy ==> Annie gifts Toy to Kat, Owner changed", and Kat, out of... curiosity (it's gonna kill her some day), decided to "filter" (did she know what the hell she was doing back then?) the simple "Kat gifts Toy to Annie, Owner changed" through an etheric arrow, meant to break, tear and bind all sorts of etheric contracts.
SO, the Arbiter let it pass the first time, since it was just "an inanimate object" being passed along, even though the pristine paper of the contract was now smudged with tarlike blobs of whatever made up that prison-of-the-mind inside the arrow. But now we're talking about giving a BODY to a SOUL, those smudges might make everything very very complicated.
Wait a minute... did Rey have contracts with the bodies he possessed???
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 27, 2019 12:03:39 GMT
This is pretty much confirming the most common speculation re: Renard. It's going to get real interesting when we see how/if it applies to the robots. Interesting callback: Anja at least may very well be aware of how all this works, as hinted all the way back in chapter 7. Which speculation do you mean? That Kat tried to copy the contract of ownership of the stuffed toy, or something else?
They are getting mansplained. What?? I have researched and read twice what this word means, and I have no idea how it applies to today's comic.
|
|
|
Post by madjack on May 27, 2019 12:31:55 GMT
Which speculation do you mean? That Kat tried to copy the contract of ownership of the stuffed toy, or something else? Mostly the smaller bits of conjecture about how the bodysnatching works, such as taking an object doesn't make it yours.
|
|
|
Post by csj on May 27, 2019 14:02:47 GMT
They are getting mansplained. What?? I have researched and read twice what this word means, and I have no idea how it applies to today's comic. Godplained. "There's a difference. It's a rather simple mistake. But you're a mere mortal, you wouldn't understand. Now, let me tell you the way things really are, how they have been "'forever'" and why you're wrong because screw you I'm an etheric deity and you're going to jail. I know better."
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on May 27, 2019 14:16:25 GMT
"Since the beginning of time", what a whole lot of baloney, pffffft. I wonder if "since the beginning of time" means that time travel shenanigans negate all the Arbiter's rules.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 27, 2019 15:25:11 GMT
What?? I have researched and read twice what this word means, and I have no idea how it applies to today's comic.
Godplained. "There's a difference. It's a rather simple mistake. But you're a mere mortal, you wouldn't understand. Now, let me tell you the way things really are, how they have been "'forever'" and why you're wrong because screw you I'm an etheric deity and you're going to jail. I know better." One page ago, Renard said: "We are not familiar with any of this. Please explain." Now Clippy explains it. Starting at the beginning, since these people just admitted not knowing "any of this". I do not realize what is unusual about this.
Besides, neither Saslamel nor Clippy have revealed whether they are gendered, or are any kinds of deities - they could as well be servants of deities, or just another Etheric department doing their jobs, just like the psychopomps do.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on May 27, 2019 18:15:51 GMT
Or more interestingly, if you shoot a magic arrow at someone with the intent to wound or kill them, who owns the arrow while it is in flight? If it misses it's probably counted as mislaid, but what if it hits? Does the recipient own it like it was some other gift? Gonna go with none of the above, any kind of arrow would probably be 'used with intent to discard' and thus be the property of whoever claims it afterwards, in this case Annie. Although Diego's intent wasn't to discard the arrow. His intent was for it to remain down there forever, if it weren't for those meddlin' kids. Of course, there are all sorts of etheric entanglements involving that arrow, the Court, Jeanne, Diego, Annie, Kat, Rey, etc. etc. Olmec and Clippy will need a whole bottle of conditioner to untangle this mess.
|
|
|
Post by Per on May 27, 2019 18:20:59 GMT
This seems like the ultimate validation of libertarian philosophy regarding property. Stuff can be Found, and then properly Owned, but if it's Taken, such as by a coercive regime... the world remembers.
|
|
|
Post by mturtle7 on May 27, 2019 18:22:13 GMT
Jones Jones calling Doctor Jones Ah, Jones. Her body isn't alive or dead, so that's as Object as an object gets; she has no etheric substance of her own (not even like Kat, who is on a different kind of etheric "track" than Annie, but definitely occupies one), so whose Wandering Eye is it? Is she like some primordial robot - ie, possessing a "mind" but created by someone (unknown); having a certain level of durability & strength (prodigious); with inner workings unfathomable to "common" intelligence (x-rays & modern medicine are useless)? Does Jones own herself? And how buckwild wild Westworld would it be if she didn't? Perhaps this is in wildspec terrain. Or "God, I need to go back to sleep" terrain. Wildspec: Jones was actually "owned" by the first (prehistoric) human being to discover her true nature. She was, indeed, forced to follow that person around as a nameless "tool" for a while, but eventually came to be seen as more of a "companion", such that when they died, they finally gave this object their own name. Unbeknownst to either of them, this exploited a complicated loophole in the ownership contract system, finally giving Jones ownership over herself. Her continuous post-mortem taking of people's names is actually somehow required to keep the loophole intact.
Or, it's just something more boring like Jones is a being way older than the whole contract system and thus exempt from it.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 27, 2019 23:27:31 GMT
"Since the beginning of time", what a whole lot of baloney, pffffft. Yeah I'm going to have to sit down and figure out exactly what this dude means by "object" "possession" "individual" and "enters" before I can even start to figure out what he means by "beginning of time" or "status in the world."
|
|
novia
Full Member
Posts: 224
|
Post by novia on May 28, 2019 1:31:10 GMT
The arrow was owned by Diego. Diego died [citation needed] and did not write down that the ownership of the arrow would pass down to someone else like Hetty's owner did. Thus the arrow had no owner until Kat or idk maybe Annie retrieved it. If Annie is the owner of the arrow, maybe only one Annie will be sent to jail.
|
|
|
Post by crater on May 28, 2019 3:16:37 GMT
the database for these contracts must be as big as a sun
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 28, 2019 5:20:32 GMT
Classic "Good cop", "Bad Cop" con artist tricks. "Not a physical jail" - good cop, "oh bad cop says it is a physical jail".
And the misleading fake confusion about not knowing about both Annies right away... "oh shifted, then ok"... old scam to pretend to not have been very closely watching their prey for a long time.
Obvious Mr. Big who pretends to not speak english wants to add a few Annies to his harem and this is all an elaborate ruse to trade for her friends life or freedom, it worked before "He's going to die, but we can save him if you agree to work for us". Once you are suckered by a Nigerian scam, all the other con artists line up to pull more of the same. Once the Perverted Old Deity gets ownership of Annies, he will order his fiery brides to keep him warm at night, one on each side of him in bed. (Oh, you didn't realise owning you made you my wives.... looks like you need a little education, I have all night to teach you to be women rather than little girls)
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 28, 2019 5:38:33 GMT
If anyone accepts without question all this ownership babble, I found a bridge when I was younger so I now own it and can sell it to you for a few thousand dollars, and if you need proof I can send you paperwork from some magical godlike lawyer/judge entity that you have never heard of before. If it helps I can like the Wizard of Oz, use my movie projector to make a big scary goldlike talking head thing speaking gobbledegook and a little wispy "interpreter".
Cosmic Court of an Ancient Aribitrator:
I Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, ancient arbitrator of Sector 3.793 of the galaxy 3923921, of unisec 239341371 here certify that Davidm did in his youth find the brooklyn bridge after it had been accidently discarded by its previous owner "The City of New York", and is therefore free to gift or sell it to whoever he chooses.
Signed, The Honorable Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
|
|
|
Post by Sky Schemer on May 28, 2019 6:20:49 GMT
They are getting mansplained. What?? I have researched and read twice what this word means, and I have no idea how it applies to today's comic. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Though it's also what you say. I think going out of their way to define of "lost" and "stolen" kinda fall under that umbrella.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 28, 2019 6:41:20 GMT
If anyone accepts without question all this ownership babble, I found a bridge when I was younger so I now own it and can sell it to you for a few thousand dollars, and if you need proof I can send you paperwork from some magical godlike lawyer/judge entity that you have never heard of before. I'm not sure what the exact definitions mean yet but I'm pretty sure that, for example, Jen could cast a curse on someone who stole something from her and it'd work even if she had no idea who it was by virtue of them having stolen the item.
|
|