Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3996-4000 (6th-10th May, 2019)
Thrillho:
--- Quote from: Jakk Frost on 10 May 2019, 11:09 ---Happy 4000!
And in point of fact, three more issues and it will be exactly 1000 issues since Bubbles made her first appearance as well!
--- End quote ---
WHAT EVEN IS TIME?
I still feel like Tai is new for fuck's sake.
OldGoat:
--- Quote from: Case on 10 May 2019, 11:22 ---Also: American bartenders have the right to stab customers about to do stupid & dangerous shit?
--- End quote ---
Brun didn't stab Bubbles. She did arm herself with a potentially lethal weapon, but Bubbles has produced a lethal incendiary device. Her proximity to the exit is immaterial, she has produced the potential weapon - Brun is under no obligation to further assess her intentions. She is acting to enforce her employer's policies and protect the property and the safety of the establishment's other patrons. Thus, Brun's response is reasonable. Had Bubbles moved to trigger that device, Brun would have been using reasonable force to prevent her from doing so by going all Queequeg on her.
Bubbles is no fool and knows she fucked up*. She will be reevaluating her protocols with regard to deployment of signal flares.
*She's only human. Well, more human than not.
Milayna:
Surprised no one's mentioned that Brun, in particular, would be extra wary of potential fire hazards. She probably wouldn't have reacted quite so strongly prior to nearly getting burned to death in a bar, what, a few months ago?
Case:
--- Quote from: OldGoat on 10 May 2019, 14:59 ---
--- Quote from: Case on 10 May 2019, 11:22 ---Also: American bartenders have the right to stab customers about to do stupid & dangerous shit?
--- End quote ---
Brun didn't stab Bubbles.
--- End quote ---
So ... you're saying that American bartenders have the right to threaten stabbing customers about to do stupid & dangerous shit, but not the right to actually follow through? That seems impractical. To the point of being stupid and dangerous, truth be told.
On a side-note: Threatening someone with a weapon can be an offence where I live. Is that different in the US?
--- Quote from: OldGoat on 10 May 2019, 14:59 --- She did arm herself with a potentially lethal weapon, but Bubbles has produced a lethal incendiary device.
--- End quote ---
So what you're saying that Bubbles would be 'acting with lawful authority' if she threatened Brun with the 'lethal' pyrotechnical device, in order to defend herself from being harpooned?
How does this work in practise, actually? Do their rights to threaten each other cancel out? Add up? Produce nice interference patterns?
Are we still debating actual laws here, or have we moved into the realm of 'gut feelings about what should be legal'?
--- Quote from: OldGoat on 10 May 2019, 14:59 ---Brun is under no obligation to further assess her intentions.
--- End quote ---
Is that 'Brun is under no obligation to further assess her intentions in order to convince me, OldGoat' or 'Brun is under no legal obligation to further assess her intentions'?
I hope you understand that that the two aren't necessarily the same?
shanejayell:
.... This whole discussion has me going 'what' a bit.
:-D :lol:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version