Comic Discussion > ALICE GROVE
Alice Grove MCDLT - THE END...?
dexeron:
Yeah, can't really mourn for Pate. Alice's actions (assuming she actually has killed him here) are more revenge than justice, but honestly, dude knew what Church could do, didn't bother to tell him to rein it in, and in fact seemed almost pleased when Ellie was killed. He could easily have said "Church, no violence. Let me lay out my case and we'll see if they're willing to cooperate." Instead, he made it a game, waited and let Church respond with maximum violence, likely as an example to force compliance. Dude's a monster.
(There's a difference between cheering Pate's fate and cheering Alice being the one doing it. He might have deserved what he gets... but her dishing it out still says something about her, and it's not necessarily something very nice.)
Anyway, I don't even fully disagree with what people are saying above, but there are a couple things that just bother me about the solution "whoever" came up with.
- There's a concept in American law (so obviously this isn't some universal moral absolute, but I think it's a good idea) that if some fundamental right has to be violated because the state has a compelling interest, then that violation should be done in the least restrictive way. So: we need to prevent a future war, what's the "least restrictive" way to do it? Is it ensuring that humankind never achieves the level of technology it did last time? Is it ensuring that no new beings like Alice can ever be created? Is there a better way? If a "cage" is required, there are many different kinds of cages
- I think we'd all agree that a nation preventing its people from ever being able to leave is violating those peoples' rights. The fact that no "escape valve" was built into this cage (like allowing people like Pate who chafe at the restrictions to maybe maybe go live in a Praeses world) is just bad design, because it will inevitably lead to malcontents who could, theoretically, threaten the status-quo.
- We all live in "cages" of a sort, but we also have the ability and right to question those cages, to try to change them when we realize that they are unfair or toxic. There doesn't seem to be any such recourse for people in Alice's world. Again: this will inevitably lead to malcontents.
- There's no guarantee that humankind would make the same mistakes again if they did achieve high technology. Sure, it's a risk, but there are also risks associated with the current solution: humankind stuck in stagnation is at risk for the next massive asteroid or superbug, and is inevitably doomed when the sun finally expands. Even the Praeses, at least those we've seen, aren't any farther out than low-Earth orbit. There's no indication we've ventured any farther than that. Enforced stagnation might well prevent war, but it also forces all of our eggs to remain in one basket, and that's terrible for the long-term survival chances of humanity. There's no guarantee that even the Praeses would be able to move enough of us off-world when the time comes for us to survive - and even if they did manage to move themselves and their inhabitants away, that still would mean abandoning all those remaining on the surface to a slow death.
Basically, I think "whoever" acted in a very understandable way in a terrible, horrible situation, and acted to prevent that horror from ever reoccurring, but in doing so, never bothered to consider that there might be other ways of accomplishing that goal that aren't so restrictive. It's basically the same thing as with the Reapers from Mass Effect: (click to show/hide)"AI will inevitably turn on its creators - the solution is to KILL EVERYTHING WITH TECHNOLOGY so that never happens." No one stopped to question whether the initial assertion was even necessarily true, no less whether the solution was even the best one to accomplish the stated goal.
A Duck:
--- Quote from: dexeron on 11 Jul 2017, 15:54 ---It's basically the same thing as with the Reapers from Mass Effect: (click to show/hide)"AI will inevitably turn on its creators - the solution is to KILL EVERYTHING WITH TECHNOLOGY so that never happens." No one stopped to question whether the initial assertion was even necessarily true, no less whether the solution was even the best one to accomplish the stated goal.
--- End quote ---
(click to show/hide)Considering Jeph is a Mass Effect fan, that was probably an inspiration for this whole situation.
Also, someone on reddit posted THIS in regards to Alice's powers.
TheEvilDog:
--- Quote from: A small perverse otter on 11 Jul 2017, 15:43 ---I'm not sure that I'll let Alice off the hook that easily, though -- she can't be judge, jury, and executioner in my mind.
--- End quote ---
A human in good conscience can't be judge, jury and executioner.
Whatever Alice started off as and has become since, its obvious that she hasn't been human for a very long time.
We're talking about a weapon that has been responsible for the death of billions, not a person - a weapon. What rules and morality that we hold to, all that changed with the war the preceded the Blink. It changed with the creation of the super soldiers. Alice was a weapon, one designed to destroy any enemies in her path. Pate was just another in a very long line of enemies.
Consider that before we judge Alice.
sitnspin:
--- Quote from: A Duck on 11 Jul 2017, 15:56 ---Also, someone on reddit posted THIS in regards to Alice's powers.
--- End quote ---
So Emily created the supersoldiers to defeat entropy. Everything after flowed from that.
Tova:
Seeing as sympathy is swaying slightly away from Alice towards Pate right now, let's take another look at Church.
I wouldn't blame anyone for seeing Church as nothing less than an evil monster, and yet he is simply a product of his designers, built with a compulsion to kill, designed to gain positive reinforcement from the act. He is obeying his own nature. Is this more evil than a lion that is compelled to kill for its own survival?
And now we see Alice is fundamentally the same. Fortunately, she is compelled to serve humanity, but we can see here in the execution of Pate the same compulsion to kill along with the same maniacal expression that we saw from Church. They are more alike than different.
Pate, on the other hand, can more truly be held responsible for his actions, and in particular his ruthless exploitation of Church to achieve his agenda. Is he excused by his motivation of wanting to further humanity? Was this truly his motivation, or simply his justification for satisfying his own very human urge to explore, to expand, and even to conquer nature?
I await the final comics with interest, because I see Ardent and Gavia as the true protagonists of this comics, in spite of its title. The comic won't be over until it resolves the question that has existed almost since the beginning: who was responsible for sending them to Earth, and for what purpose?
I still have a sneaking suspicion it might be Alice, but I've been wrong about just about everything so far (except in suggesting that the Praeses would do nothing to intervene in the conflict that has played out).
--- Quote from: sitnspin on 11 Jul 2017, 16:41 ---
--- Quote from: A Duck on 11 Jul 2017, 15:56 ---Also, someone on reddit posted THIS in regards to Alice's powers.
--- End quote ---
So Emily created the supersoldiers to defeat entropy. Everything after flowed from that.
--- End quote ---
Ha, nice insight! I guess Jeph was knee-deep in Alice Grove research when he penned that QC comic.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version