Topic: Alice Grove MCDT - December 2014 (Read 93737 times)

Undrneath · « **Reply #150 on:** 24 Dec 2014, 10:50 »

I'm not sure if Alice is a guardian because she chose to or possibly as community service.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #151 on:** 24 Dec 2014, 11:40 »

Unless Alice had access to a quick way to shut down Ardentsis with less harm, it was not excessive force. Alice was acting to protect innocent life from an immediate lethal danger.

Kugai · « **Reply #152 on:** 24 Dec 2014, 12:02 »

And enjoying it a wee bit too much

Beware the Dark Side young Alice

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #153 on:** 24 Dec 2014, 12:06 »

Breaking her shield and knocking the wind out of her with a one-two sucker punch was sufficient force to stop the immediate threat and re-open dialog. Straddling Ms Explosion and beating her bloody with an evil grin was pure excessive force.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #154 on:** 24 Dec 2014, 13:07 »

I can't imagine Ardent's sister put any more effort into looking at the history and culture of the "Grove" than Ardent did. Ardent wasn't expecting Alice either.

Given the fact that the locals feel obligated to thank Alice for playing carefully balanced harmony cop, and her positive glee at beating up Ardent's sister, I tend to doubt the theory that Alice is doing this under duress. It's not ruled out as an idea, but Alice seems like a believer.

I would hope that Alice is something other than the self-appointed caretaker of the Grove. After all, having her there as some sort of super powered community service injects questions. Why is she doing community service? Why would something sentence her to that? What could enforce that sentence?

It's not that there aren't enough unanswered questions. Some of them are even about Alice. It's just that "I believe this is the right thing to do" is an answer. It resolves more questions than it raises.

explicit · « **Reply #155 on:** 24 Dec 2014, 20:39 »

Frankly, I like the idea of her character being more of an anti-hero. Or at least being kinda messed in the head. Makes it more interesting and less predictable.

And to be fair, girl tried to blow her up.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #156 on:** 25 Dec 2014, 04:33 »

I've come to the conclusion that the only things that would be wrong about killing Ardent's sister in this situation are A) she's beaten. You shoot a mad dog when it's loose, but when it's contained and unable to resist there are more humane methods. Beating LEJ death with punches, at this point, is uncalled for. B) Ardent is there. Alice doesn't owe him anything, but on the other hand she doesn't have anything to hold against him, other than being annoying. Being annoying is not a good enough reason to beat someone's sibling to death in front of them.

I guess we'll son find out what kind of person Alice really is. I don't think she's going to kill anyone, this time. How she goes about not killing anyone ought to be instructive.

explicit · « **Reply #157 on:** 25 Dec 2014, 09:36 »

I mean, she's obviously a bit too smart not to try to figure this situation out.

FunkyTuba · « **Reply #158 on:** 26 Dec 2014, 17:05 »

Right... With now two unexpected and unwelcome visits from the same source, the stronger move as a caretaker is to find the source of these new threats and see if there's anything to be done at a higher level

jwhouk · « **Reply #159 on:** 26 Dec 2014, 17:46 »

Explosions From The Sky! Who is our ethereal explosives expert?

Ardent's mother. 5 (15.6%)
Ardent's guardian. 4 (12.5%)
Ardent's master (as in, pet). 4 (12.5%)
The Caretaker from the Next Block Over. 6 (18.8%)
Someone who likes things go Splodey. 4 (12.5%)
The Explosion Messiah. 0 (0%)
Alice's best friend from seventh grade. 1 (3.1%)
Alice's Nemesis from High school. 1 (3.1%)
Juicy's descendant. 2 (6.3%)
Just like Jeph said: Lady Explosion Jesus. 3 (9.4%)
Except she pronounces it "HAY-zeus." 2 (6.3%)

Total Members Voted: 32

---

Sadly, the correct answer wasn't a poll option.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #160 on:** 27 Dec 2014, 01:33 »

Quote from: FunkyTuba on 26 Dec 2014, 17:05

Right... With now two unexpected and unwelcome visits from the same source, the stronger move as a caretaker is to find the source of these new threats and see if there's anything to be done at a higher level

Agreed. Gathering information is always a smarter move than violence. If Spock taught us anything, he taught us that.

But it comes at a risk LEJ is a threat to lives and livelihoods (which is to say "lives" again). Alice doesn't need her to find out about the next levels up the chain. She has Ardent. So, the logical question becomes, "is this woman's knowledge worth risking more lives to obtain?"

I'm not advocating killing her--that would be boring* storytelling, at the least. I'm just having fun with the moral quandry LEJ has become. One could argue, for any position, that any choice Alice makes is right and wrong.

*_{Unless Alice Grove is the origin story of an ancient blood feud between Ardent and Alice}

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #161 on:** 27 Dec 2014, 07:47 »

I disagree. Killing Ms Explosion right now would be straight up murder. It would be an execution without trial or even arrest. Initially she had proven to be a threat, willing to cause mass damage and potentially lethal force to get her way. But after she had the fight literally knocked out of her and is laying there in a dazed state, killing her because maybe when she recovers she could do more damage is not morally justified. Now is the time to disarm her if possible and move her to a more secure area. I'm certainly not justifying anything Her Expodiness did looking for Ardent, and she should face repercussions for blowing up the town and scaring, possibly injuring or killing townsfolk and making an attack on the person trying to defuse (literally) the situation. But murder should not be considered a reasonable option.

FunkyTuba · « **Reply #162 on:** 27 Dec 2014, 11:31 »

We've seen showy explosions, and at one point Alice thought LEJ enough of a threat to tell her wards to get to safety, but we haven't seen much actual damage (yet). I'll be interested to see what aftermath there is and how big a threat she really was.

Kugai · « **Reply #163 on:** 27 Dec 2014, 12:27 »

Back to repairing the Wind Turbine - again

BenRG · « **Reply #164 on:** 27 Dec 2014, 14:53 »

ARDENTSIS: "You hit pretty hard."

ALICE: "Well, I was trying to kill you."

ARDENTSIS: "Ditto."

JACK: "Hey, weren't they ready to kill each other five minutes ago?"

ARDENT: "They're Caretakers. It's sort of a bonding ritual with them."

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #165 on:** 28 Dec 2014, 01:24 »

Murder assumes the existence of a justice system. We don't know that any such thing exists. I don't doubt that Alice was going to kill her, or worse (That last panel is not the face of someone who could resist. Alice was already beating the helpless).

It's easy to say that X is not morally justified because Y might happen. But then Y happens, X is retroactively justified and Not X becomes the immoral action. It's all perspectives. You might stick to your guns, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Perspectives are academic except to the person what actually has to choose. That makes it easy to declare that This is not morally justified.

Alice didn't beat Ardent's sister down because she's a threat. She did it because she was angry. And because she seemed to enjoy it. But that doesn't change the fact that Ardent's sister is a weapon on mass destruction. Or the fact that she launched a large scale attack without any reasonable justification. (Trying to kill people and destroy their infrastructure--which amounts to a repetition in this instance--because they might know where that "rat" can be found is not morally justified.) Alice would be justified in construing LEJ's actions as an act of war.

The question, as yet unanswered, is whether Alice answers to a higher authority, or is the higher authority. In the later case, trials aren't relevant.

On a more personal level, the question of what is or isn't justified in this case IS the interesting point. Were LEJ a threat to Alice, Alice would be justified in killing her. Self defense. It all boils down the the perception of imminent danger If Alice believed she was in danger from LEJ, even now, lethal force would be justified. To a lesser extent, if Alice believed there was danger to others, she would also be justified. Legally, under most western law.

Morally? That's a moving target. But that's not fully relevant. Alice is NOT in danger. LEJ doesn't represent any kind of threat to Alice from what we've seen. To the extent that she represents a threat to others, as logn as Alice is near by, the threat is limited in scale. LEJ might kill one or two people before Alice could intervene, but it's unlikely she could introduce the same level of havoc as she'd created before Alice arrived.

So, one could argue that Alice doesn't have a moral justification to kill. If she does not, and someone else dies because she didn't, does Alice's moral uprightness justify that death? How much ar Alice's town, her people, her rectitude worth? Is she willing to trade one for the other two? What might happen because of that trade is an unknown, but the moment she chooses, she betting one for the others. She could make the "Moral" choice, avoid stains, and hang the town and the people in the balance.

Or she can get dirty and ensure the safety of the innocent. Depending on what element you consider more important (lives or morals) you can frame any choice Alice makes as the wrong choice. Not just incorrect, but morally lacking.

I still don't think Alice is going to kill anyone today. But the WHY has the potential to be interesting.

Orkboy · « **Reply #166 on:** 28 Dec 2014, 08:43 »

I suspect that most of you are fairly peaceful people, so I should explain how an actual fight works. You don't win by knocking the other person down, or hitting them a little bit and then they stop, or by restraining them. You win by hurting them badly enough that they never want to fight you again. When that person can explode things with their mind, explodes things a lot, and greeted you by attempting to murder you via explosions, extra beatings seem like a reasonable way of discouraging them from ever trying that again. Explodo-lass is clearly some kind of homicidal lunatic, wandering into town and blowing shit up as a means of information gathering.

de_la_Nae · « **Reply #167 on:** 28 Dec 2014, 10:33 »

Ender up here gets it (though Reindeer breaks it down pretty damned well).

Method of Madness · « **Reply #168 on:** 28 Dec 2014, 18:41 »

Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 28 Dec 2014, 01:24

Murder assumes the existence of a justice system.

I really want to respond to this, but I can't think of a way that wouldn't start a capital punishment debate.

Kugai · « **Reply #169 on:** 28 Dec 2014, 19:09 »

Please don't

Method of Madness · « **Reply #170 on:** 28 Dec 2014, 19:09 »

Well...yeah, I know. That's why I didn't.

explicit · « **Reply #171 on:** 28 Dec 2014, 20:00 »

I'm all for grit. And for a story with female MC who can kill people without being an over the top villain, 2-dimensional mercenary/assassin, psychotic or get really whiny after they kill someone. For online comics only flipside and grrlpower come to mind atm. Guys get to be badasses all the time.

Although egregious violence is sufficient - I guess.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #172 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 00:52 »

Quote from: Method of Madness on 28 Dec 2014, 18:41

Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 28 Dec 2014, 01:24
Murder assumes the existence of a justice system.
I really want to respond to this, but I can't think of a way that wouldn't start a capital punishment debate.

Meh. I wasn't making a value judgment vis a vis systems of law. That's a whole different moral debate. I was responding to "would be murder."

I mean "murder" has several meanings that (almost) all point to the same thing in different contexts. It just seems to me that all homicide is murder outside the legal context--except for accidents. That is to say, if A kills B during the act of attempting to harm B, most people wouldn't bat an eye if you said "A murdered B." So to look at Alice killing LEJ as murdering her, now, but not before now does imply the legal context of murder. For that, you have to have a justice system.

I'd really think my suggested that Alice might be the law would rather more lend itself to a capital punishment debates, but again, that wasn't my intent.

I suppose, the internet being what it is, one could construe my interest in the subject as a judgment that LEJ deserves to die. I don't think that at all. I once said that no one deserves anything. I meant it. "To die" is a thing. QED.

I simply hesitate to judge Alice's actions, or potential actions, because I'm putting myself in Alice's place. I can see a number of perspectives Alice could look on the matter from. I'm putting myself in Alice's place because what she has already done makes me uncomfortable. The Ender Wiggin theory of conflict resolution has a point, but I always thought Ender erred on the side of "you can never be too sure." which is why so few people survived his lessons. If your aim is to make sure your assailant knows not to make the mistake of attacking you again, you have to leave them alive. The dead know nothing. I never liked that side of Ender (partly because he managed to be oblivious to the fact that he did kill people). I've never liked it in action heroes because they tend to be so off hand about it. I can't say I'm overly fond of it in Alice. (I also can't help but think the story has been structured to make me feel that way. Leaving aside "deserves," Alice being asked to stop, refusing, and then a shot of what she'd already done left with question of whether she will do more unresolved doesn't seem calibrated to make the reader sympathize with Alice.)

But we don't know what this really means. We really don't know anything about Alice as a person. The down side to a twice weekly update schedule. We know she's capable of great violence and continuous altruism. We don't know why for any of it.

BenRG · « **Reply #173 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 01:24 »

For now, I'm sticking with my "Alice is an ex-con doing community service" theory. It is quite possible that she has experience with murder and may not be 100% mentally stable when in a fight-or-flight situation or when people and things she values are threatened.

I'm also sticking with my theory that Ardent's sister may not be aware of just what she did and why it would be considered criminal and even evil. It is quite possible that, thanks to nanotech, even most forms of death are curable (especially if the process begins immediately post-mortem). In such a society, it is possible that killing someone because you're annoyed is not considered too different from cussing them out or slapping them for an insult. She could be quite horrified if Alice tells her that there was the real likelihood that some of her targets would have remained dead. The nature of their society leaves people of their culture emotionally and mentally stunted, with all the impulse control of a toddler and a borderline-psychotic sense of selfishness (because there is no serious impact such a mindset could have on society and others - indeed their society is designed to fulfil every selfish whim instantly).

We could easily have a fascinating few dozen strips with Alice explaining to Ardent and his sister about society works without self-modification and other technologies that make any wish come true immediately and without consequence. Jeph could turn the normal narrative on its head by, instead of having the primitive wandering slacked-jawed through a technologically advanced society, instead have the children of a techologically-enabled utopia trying to understand a world where one has to sweat and work to gain anything and actions often have irrevocable consequences.

Oh, and a prediction - Ardent is going to become Alice's special friend: the Angel on her shoulder who helps her rein in her bloodthirsty impulses when the dark tide swallows her up.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #174 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 18:34 »

It would seem Alice is the law.

SubaruStephen · « **Reply #175 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 18:52 »

I guess that means ArdentSis is still alive.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #176 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 18:56 »

But for how long?

Just kidding.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #177 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 19:06 »

I wonder if her blue right hand is a mistake, a bruise, or something else!

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #178 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 19:33 »

$5 on mistake.

Also, every time someone points one of these error out, it makes me question my sanity in wanting to produce a comic of my own.

ysth · « **Reply #179 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 20:57 »

I would totally buy a LEJ on eBay. If cheap enough.

BenRG · « **Reply #180 on:** 29 Dec 2014, 23:26 »

So! Alice has a personal authority that seems to go beyond being held in respectful awe by the locals; maybe even an official authority, recognised by the local government. Maybe she is considered to have jurisdiction over any 'weird' happenings and persons. It's also quite possible that she has standing instructions not to allow those from Outside to interact too much with the 'Livestock'.

Quote from: Method of Madness on 29 Dec 2014, 19:06

I wonder if her blue right hand is a mistake, a bruise, or something else!

It could be a mistake. However, that may be their natural skin colour and the damage Alice has done is causing the nanotech disguise to start to break down.

anahata · « **Reply #181 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 03:10 »

Quote from: BenRG on 27 Dec 2014, 14:53

ARDENTSIS: "You hit pretty hard."

ALICE: "Well, I was trying to kill you."

I don't think she was. Alice's intention was to disarm ArdentSis, and maybe to find out what all the fuss was about, but not to kill her.

OK, maybe there was a momentary lapse when she seemed to be enjoying the violence, but I don't think that's her main motivation in life. So far, she's been portrayed as a moral-minded force for good.

Ardent's sister may have been trying to kill Alice. I don't think we have enough information about her even to be sure about that.

Skewbrow · « **Reply #182 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 13:13 »

Quote from: BenRG on 29 Dec 2014, 23:26

It could be a mistake. However, that may be their natural skin colour and the damage Alice has done is causing the nanotech disguise to start to break down.

My theory, too.

For Chris'sake, Alice. Let the Doc take a look.

The Doc may actually overrule Alice here. He seems like an ok dude, so whatever they have in this 'verse in place of the Hippocratic oath kicks in.

Kugai · « **Reply #183 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 13:16 »

Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 29 Dec 2014, 18:34

It would seem Alice is the law.

Judge Alice?

"I have an IsoCube ready for her."

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #184 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 13:30 »

As badly as Alice beat her, I don't think LEJ is in the woods, as it were. Doc's attitude doesn't strike me a professional interest. He's either seen to her already, or he believes she's not in need of his services, based on the phrasing.

Alice also doesn't strike me as the "its not okay to kill you, but its okay to let you die" type. I figure if she was going to do LEJ in, she'd have gone ahead and done it.

Even more speculatively, I suspect there's something to the assumption that Outsiders are harder to kill because their nanotech makes injury and death less of a long term issue. Doc may not be equipped to help, and Alice may know it. That said, the "none of your business" motif is beginning to look like a character flaw of Alice's.

ysth · « **Reply #185 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 13:43 »

Is it a character flaw if it is not their business?

From the stated injuries, I get the impression the fireballs were more show than force. If they'd really been dangerous, I'd expect at least some actual burns. On the flip side, LEJ certainly didn't expect Alice to still be standing there, so you'd have to say she was only surprised that Alice didn't run away, which doesn't seem completely plausible.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #186 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 14:25 »

Quote from: ysth on 30 Dec 2014, 13:43

Is it a character flaw if it is not their business?

I guess that depends on whether you believe in the divine right of kings or self-determination.

Less politically speaking--their business or not, the way Alice says it is kinda rude.

BenRG · « **Reply #187 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 14:45 »

Yes, Alice can be rude, abrupt and apparently has a vicious streak a mile wide that can sneak out under stress. This makes her an interesting character. It all feeds into my idea that she's a violent ex-con whose parole involves protecting this little Bubble World.

Quote from: ysth on 30 Dec 2014, 13:43

Is it a character flaw if it is not their business?

Is it a character flaw if the whole situation has left Alice spooked and upset (allowing her supposedly long-buried former murderous self out to play)? I'd snap too if I'd lost my cool and only a random intervention stopped me from doing something horrible and something for which even I couldn't forgive myself.

ReindeerFlotilla · « **Reply #188 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 16:16 »

I never said Alice shouldn't have flaws.

Like I said, we don't know anything about Alice's character yet. We don't know the shape of the why behind what she does. Since a lot of webcomic dialogue is aimed at the punchline, you can't take any one statement as representative of the character.

Don't get me wrong. It's fun to think about what the odd bit of information might mean. Definitely nothing wrong there.

The first "none of [their] business" was a punch line. This time it's--at least--thematic. It definitely means something. ysth could be totally right. The answer to Doc's question could be Alice Grove's Secret of Salem. A fact so disturbing that knowing it drives most people mad. And there's no real way to know who can handle it and who can't. In that case, it really would be none of their business.

That would be kind of interesting, or maybe super interesting. A mystery is cool. It is hard to say with Alice Grove because we already have more questions than answers (we always have more questions than answers, but sometimes we know enough about a story that we don't think the unanswered questions are pressing, so we welcome a new mystery). It seems fairly common for people to be drawn in by the sense that the new questions are guiding them toward the answers to the first questions.

In Alice Grove, the first question is "who (what) is Alice?" (Okay, the FIRST questions are "who is this guy, and why is he running?" but we know the answers to that.) A character flaw is a pointer toward the answer to that first question. Hindsight may show that "keeps people in the dark/kinda rude" are not the first flaws we saw in Alice. It's hard to tell what aspects of her personality we've seen, because Ardent is annoying from a certain point of view. (I notice that some people did take issue with Alice's reaction to Ardent, but most did not seem to. So, whether he annoyed you or not--he did not annoy me, you can see how he annoyed Alice from something like her perspective.)

It's possible that her behavior to this point has been indicative of who she is, thus making "kinda rude" nothing new (She has been kinda rude to Ardent, but she also seemed to think he was a con man). It's also possible that Kinda rude is not a flaw of this character, but some other flaw brings a little rude out in times like this. Or, it really could be better for all involved if they don't know what Alice knows: That they live in a world that has walls, and they need women with super powers to guard those walls. Who's going to do that? You?

You, Lt. Weinburg? She has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what she knows. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And her existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want her on that wall, you need her on that wall...

Err... Excuse me. I was someone else for a moment there.

MrNumbers · « **Reply #189 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 21:48 »

"Forgive me, but only one of us here has taken the Hippocratic Oath."

"Yes, which means only one of us is equipped to deal with what must come next."

"I'm glad you agree."

"I meant me, Doctor."

"... oh, dear."

Method of Madness · « **Reply #190 on:** 01 Jan 2015, 06:17 »

Quote from: MrNumbers on 30 Dec 2014, 21:48

"Forgive me, but only one of us here has taken the Hippocratic Oath."

"Yes, which means only one of us is equipped to deal with what must come next."

"I'm glad you agree."

"I meant me, Doctor."

"I know you did. And you know I can't allow that."

Not sure if there's anything he can or will do stop Alice, but I do hope he objects all the same.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

Explosions From The Sky! Who is our ethereal explosives expert?

Author Topic: Alice Grove MCDT - December 2014 (Read 93737 times)