Beautiful contrast between Snowfall’s and Cailleach’s faces in the first two panels. Cailleach’s expression in particular is awesomely rendered! And her nails/claws are a nice touch. (Like how her fangs show in the fourth panel but not yet in the second.)
It’s interesting that Cailleach apparently needed to ask for Snowfall’s permission to let it all out. And it paints Snowfall’s remark that she didn’t train to actually fight in a rather sinister light…
Last, this last panel really reminds me of the Jean Grey/Phoenix dialectic in olden X-men. (I mean that in a good way; the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne era is my favorite extended comics series.)
it’s just me being a weirdo about the tags since it’s a flashback rather than a full appearance hahah
ALSO, right enough! that was just another misspelling from me because I don’t proof read myself, appreciate ye keepin’ me honest as always buddy!
Oh no, the guy who burns people (there is *DEFINITELY* a body count with that) to commit crime is going to get killed for his villainy?
Hmm, now where did I put that… hard to find violins that are not just microscopically but *atomically* small…. gotta find it so I can play “my heart bleeds for thee”… hmmm….
Nope, can’t find it. People using force without ethical justification *SHOULD* get more force flung back at them. If that was always the case, the world would be a much, much, MUCH, MUCH, *MUCH* better place.
Well, not that I’d advocate hugs and kisses for murderers, but “an eye and a tooth and a finger for an eye” sounds… like it would inevitably lead to continual, all-out war on all sides.
I don’t necessarily agree with “an eye for an eye,” but it’s far more limiting in its potential for escalation, and as a basis of human law it is at least equitable in theory.
““an eye and a tooth and a finger for an eye” sounds… like it would inevitably lead to continual, all-out war on all sides.”
We have plenty of history to look at for how that turns out. You don’t have to guess at how it would turn out.
When “trying to take someone’s eye” leads to “losing your own eye”, the vast majority of people *QUIT TRYING TO TAKE EYES*.
That’s the whole point. If unethical force was always met with force, *people would stop using force unethically*.
When there is no penalty for using force to get what you want, you get a lot more people using force to get what they want. That’s why there is a massive uptick in crime in areas where prosecutors refuse to prosecute, for one obvious current example.
I’m not sure you got the point I was trying to get across.
Equitable justice I get. Punishment of some sort (not necessarily the exact same thing being returned to them–that has serious limits) is obviously necessary in society, as a deterrent if nothing else.
Extreme overkill (specifically, “more force”) is what I question. If that’s legit, might as well blow away every little girl who trespasses on your front lawn to pick daisies. I don’t see that ending well.
“Extreme overkill (specifically, “more force”) is what I question. If that’s legit, might as well blow away every little girl who trespasses on your front lawn to pick daisies. I don’t see that ending well.”
“On you lawn picking daisies” is not “using force unethically” and thus a complete red herring… I will politely assume that was just you choosing your example poorly, not arguing in bad faith (which is what it looks like).
“More force” is explicitly what the police are trained to use, for one very, very, very obvious example.
You resist by simply not cooperating? They move you.
You start swinging your fist? They pull a baton or night stick. Maybe a taser, if they have one. Maybe only their own fists if you are much smaller/weaker than them.
You swing a bat? Maybe a taser, if they have one. Otherwise, gun.
You pull a knife? Gun.
MORE force. EQUAL force is insufficient.
“Overkill” is step 2, when “more force” turns out to be insufficient, making “overkill” just “even more force, since more force didn’t work.”
Now, self-defense is much simpler. When you are in “reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily injury”, you may use lethal force. Done. You are not the police, trained and equipped with several very careful levels of force to apply.
300-pound lineman comes up and demands your wallet, “or else”? For a large percentage of people, that is definitely a threat of “serious bodily harm” (for a 400-pound professional body builder with a black belt… maybe not so much). If muggers like that were met with gun fire some significant percentage of the time (25% would be sufficient – probably as low as 5%), THERE WOULD BE NO MUGGERS, and we could all walk about safely. Wouldn’t that be nice?!?
Hmm, last comment never showed up. I’ll try one more time.
Is “trespassing on your front lawn to pick daisies” a form of “using force unethically”? No, it is not. Please argue in good faith.
“Punishment” has nothing to do with it. At all. That’s after the fact. That is irrelevant to this conversation.
“More force” is literally and explicitly what the police are trained to use, for one relevant example. You swing your fist? They pull a night stick or maybe a tazer. You use a bat? They use a taser, or maybe a gun. You use a knife? They use a gun.
Self-defense is even more simple: if you are under threat of serious bodily harm, you may use deadly force to defend yourself. Full stop. If you are 80 pounds dripping wet and there’s a 350 pound lineman taking a real swing at you with his fist, *your life is in danger*, and you may legally and ethically respond by pulling a gun and shooting him, even before the punch lands (as after, you may well be unconscious or dead). Assuming you didn’t start the altercation, of course!
And if that’s what “using force unethically” got people most of the time, they would overwhelmingly *stop using force unethically*. If muggers were met with a firearm even 10% of the time, in very short order, there would be no muggers, and there certainly wouldn’t be any “career criminal” muggers.
If you like the wilderness, yes, it would be a better place. But, well, I think we’ve disagreed on that topic quite a few times already, now haven’t we?
I like actual civilization, so I support policies that result in peaceful, civilized behaviour for the greatest number of people. As best I can tell based on actual, real-world history and crime data, encouraging people to robustly defend themselves from unethical assault is easily the best way to get there, as people willing to unethically use force to get what they want (and there are *ALWAYS* such people available, in all times and places) are highly discouraged from doing so and resort to more civilized methods.
Until I see any evidence AT ALL that your point has any merit or likelihood of being accurate, I will refuse to change my mind. Feel free to offer evidence to change my mind… or to look at evidence, which will change yours.
Beautiful contrast between Snowfall’s and Cailleach’s faces in the first two panels. Cailleach’s expression in particular is awesomely rendered! And her nails/claws are a nice touch. (Like how her fangs show in the fourth panel but not yet in the second.)
It’s interesting that Cailleach apparently needed to ask for Snowfall’s permission to let it all out. And it paints Snowfall’s remark that she didn’t train to actually fight in a rather sinister light…
Last, this last panel really reminds me of the Jean Grey/Phoenix dialectic in olden X-men. (I mean that in a good way; the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne era is my favorite extended comics series.)
Just checking: I think the second panel would make more sense if it said “the flames were bearing down on me” instead of “baring”. What do you think?
(Also, is it normal that there isn’t a character tag for Backdraft? Come to think of it, probably, as there wasn’t one in the previous page.)
it’s just me being a weirdo about the tags since it’s a flashback rather than a full appearance hahah
ALSO, right enough! that was just another misspelling from me because I don’t proof read myself, appreciate ye keepin’ me honest as always buddy!
“And Backdraft was going to pay for it.”
Oh no, the guy who burns people (there is *DEFINITELY* a body count with that) to commit crime is going to get killed for his villainy?
Hmm, now where did I put that… hard to find violins that are not just microscopically but *atomically* small…. gotta find it so I can play “my heart bleeds for thee”… hmmm….
Nope, can’t find it. People using force without ethical justification *SHOULD* get more force flung back at them. If that was always the case, the world would be a much, much, MUCH, MUCH, *MUCH* better place.
Well, not that I’d advocate hugs and kisses for murderers, but “an eye and a tooth and a finger for an eye” sounds… like it would inevitably lead to continual, all-out war on all sides.
I don’t necessarily agree with “an eye for an eye,” but it’s far more limiting in its potential for escalation, and as a basis of human law it is at least equitable in theory.
““an eye and a tooth and a finger for an eye” sounds… like it would inevitably lead to continual, all-out war on all sides.”
We have plenty of history to look at for how that turns out. You don’t have to guess at how it would turn out.
When “trying to take someone’s eye” leads to “losing your own eye”, the vast majority of people *QUIT TRYING TO TAKE EYES*.
That’s the whole point. If unethical force was always met with force, *people would stop using force unethically*.
When there is no penalty for using force to get what you want, you get a lot more people using force to get what they want. That’s why there is a massive uptick in crime in areas where prosecutors refuse to prosecute, for one obvious current example.
I’m not sure you got the point I was trying to get across.
Equitable justice I get. Punishment of some sort (not necessarily the exact same thing being returned to them–that has serious limits) is obviously necessary in society, as a deterrent if nothing else.
Extreme overkill (specifically, “more force”) is what I question. If that’s legit, might as well blow away every little girl who trespasses on your front lawn to pick daisies. I don’t see that ending well.
“Extreme overkill (specifically, “more force”) is what I question. If that’s legit, might as well blow away every little girl who trespasses on your front lawn to pick daisies. I don’t see that ending well.”
“On you lawn picking daisies” is not “using force unethically” and thus a complete red herring… I will politely assume that was just you choosing your example poorly, not arguing in bad faith (which is what it looks like).
“More force” is explicitly what the police are trained to use, for one very, very, very obvious example.
You resist by simply not cooperating? They move you.
You start swinging your fist? They pull a baton or night stick. Maybe a taser, if they have one. Maybe only their own fists if you are much smaller/weaker than them.
You swing a bat? Maybe a taser, if they have one. Otherwise, gun.
You pull a knife? Gun.
MORE force. EQUAL force is insufficient.
“Overkill” is step 2, when “more force” turns out to be insufficient, making “overkill” just “even more force, since more force didn’t work.”
Now, self-defense is much simpler. When you are in “reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily injury”, you may use lethal force. Done. You are not the police, trained and equipped with several very careful levels of force to apply.
300-pound lineman comes up and demands your wallet, “or else”? For a large percentage of people, that is definitely a threat of “serious bodily harm” (for a 400-pound professional body builder with a black belt… maybe not so much). If muggers like that were met with gun fire some significant percentage of the time (25% would be sufficient – probably as low as 5%), THERE WOULD BE NO MUGGERS, and we could all walk about safely. Wouldn’t that be nice?!?
Hmm, last comment never showed up. I’ll try one more time.
Is “trespassing on your front lawn to pick daisies” a form of “using force unethically”? No, it is not. Please argue in good faith.
“Punishment” has nothing to do with it. At all. That’s after the fact. That is irrelevant to this conversation.
“More force” is literally and explicitly what the police are trained to use, for one relevant example. You swing your fist? They pull a night stick or maybe a tazer. You use a bat? They use a taser, or maybe a gun. You use a knife? They use a gun.
Self-defense is even more simple: if you are under threat of serious bodily harm, you may use deadly force to defend yourself. Full stop. If you are 80 pounds dripping wet and there’s a 350 pound lineman taking a real swing at you with his fist, *your life is in danger*, and you may legally and ethically respond by pulling a gun and shooting him, even before the punch lands (as after, you may well be unconscious or dead). Assuming you didn’t start the altercation, of course!
And if that’s what “using force unethically” got people most of the time, they would overwhelmingly *stop using force unethically*. If muggers were met with a firearm even 10% of the time, in very short order, there would be no muggers, and there certainly wouldn’t be any “career criminal” muggers.
If you like the wilderness, yes, it would be a better place. But, well, I think we’ve disagreed on that topic quite a few times already, now haven’t we?
Yes, we have.
I like actual civilization, so I support policies that result in peaceful, civilized behaviour for the greatest number of people. As best I can tell based on actual, real-world history and crime data, encouraging people to robustly defend themselves from unethical assault is easily the best way to get there, as people willing to unethically use force to get what they want (and there are *ALWAYS* such people available, in all times and places) are highly discouraged from doing so and resort to more civilized methods.
Until I see any evidence AT ALL that your point has any merit or likelihood of being accurate, I will refuse to change my mind. Feel free to offer evidence to change my mind… or to look at evidence, which will change yours.
I just noticed your reply today. There’s a new page up so I’d rather take up this debate when next the opportunity presents itself.
Still, it bears noting that I agree with a lot of what you just said.
Holy crap! Snowfall? Yeah, that’s a nice, gentle name to downplay the true nature of her power.
you ain’t seen nothin’ yet 😉 hahah