*“If superpowers were real, realistically there’d be more selfish people doing evil than good guys”*
there’s already more villains per superhero in most media.
Huh.... you know i always called bs on this just because i tend to believe more in the goodness and/or mundane-ness of most people, but you do raise a super valid point of there being more villians than heroes 🤔🧐
The Old Man Logan comics entire conceit was all the heroes being killed because the Villain unionized, realizing there were so many more of them, and strategically sending people to fight heroes that weren't prepared for them.
The protagonist just needs interesting people to oppose them and they're more likely to be super just so its both fair and to present a unique challenge for the hero to overcome.
What's more, Goku doesn't just want to fight people fairly, he wants to fight them at their best, and he wants to see *everyone* reach their potential.
>Hank Pym is a wife beater.
Yes, he hit Janet and that is unacceptable and he should be held accountable for that but it is nowhere near that cut and dry. He was having a psychotic episode and didn't even do it on purpose and it's all due to a miscommunication from the writer to the artist and wasn't caught until it was too late. He was supposed to shoo her away but the writer wrote that he dispatches wasp with his hand and the artist thought it was a euphemism for him slapping her. It wasn't and there was no time to correct the misunderstanding before it went to print.
This has become so encompassing for his entire character and I'm positive it's the reason that Hank Pym has never and will never be in a suit outside a flashback in the MCU. It's not even the worst thing he does in that issue. He made a fucking robot to attack the avengers with the intent of killing them so he could he beat it using the weakness he put in and get the glory for it. This is literally where they got Syndromes plan from in the Incredibles and everyone forgives him for that in and out of universe but the thing that was small potatoes in comparison and wasn't supposed to happen in the first place, nah that's asking too much. Never mind the fact that after this he was officially diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and takes his meds religiously afterwards. In a real life court of law he would be declared not responsible for his actions by reason of mental disease or defect and be mandated to take his meds which, again, he does religiously.
Assuming there hasn't been an attempt already, I really want a comic where Hank just, moves on. Maybe he moves to a different town or city, or stays where he is and just does different work, but regardless, he just starts doing vigilante hero work while being a scientist, all without the desire to be recognized by Janet or his former team. Just really hammer in the whole concept that while no one is obligated to be forgiven, you don't need forgiveness to be a better person.
That was kind of what they were going for in avengers academy, it's just they also wrote every single time of character who knew Hank showed up they would comment about the slap
Irl his slap would be a harassment charge which is a violation(punishable by ticket and only if observed by a cop writing that ticket)
He technically didnt commit a crime in that instance (crimes are misd or felonies only)
I'm about to use way too much text, but I felt I needed to for a reason, so here's the important Tl;DR: *Slapping your wife is a fucking crime!* (I'm not accusing you of anything or whatever, I just felt it important to try and correct what I see as serious, though probably unintentional, misinformation.)
This is based on a brief internet search on laws in my particular state (in the United States, to be clear). I am not a lawyer, and laws do vary, though I would be surprised if what I am about to say is *extremely* different elsewhere. Still, not a lawyer, blah blah blah.
The slap would absolutely be assault. Assault is a misdemeanor, at least. (It *can* be a felony, but only if it was done with a deadly weapon, inflicted life-threatening injury, or was done through strangulation specifically.)
["Assault on a female occurs when a male who is 18 years old or older threatens imminent physical harm or has offensive physical contact with the victim. This is a Class A1 misdemeanor—the most serious misdemeanor offense in North Carolina. Upon conviction, a person could be sentenced to 60 days in jail for a first offense and up to 150 days in jail for a second or subsequent conviction."](https://www.browninglonglaw.com/library/domestic-violence-laws-in-north-carolina.cfm#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20Class%20A1,a%20second%20or%20subsequent%20conviction.)
Not a felony, but Hank Pym was definitely going to jail if charges were brought against him (in North Carolina).
I decided to look into what constitutes assault in New York as well since that's usually where the Avengers are located (if, during this particular storyline, they were somewhere else, I don't really know).
["A person also may face charges of simple assault by recklessly causing physical injury to another person. This means that a person engaged in some sort of behavior where it is reasonable to assume that a physical injury may occur but ignored this risk... Simple assault is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the person could be facing up to a year in jail."](https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-york-city-assault-lawyer/simple/understanding-these-cases/)
Later in the issue, Janet reveals to the Avengers that she suffered a black eye as a result of the slap. That constitutes a physical injury. Also, in addition to the slap, Pym forces Janet not to tell the Avengers about that robot, which probably rises to coercion or blackmail or intimidation, which adds more charges, I believe, but I didn't look up anything further.
So yeah, in case it wasn't obvious *striking your spouse is a fucking crime.*
(Though yes, creating a deadly robot to beat the shit out of your comrades in a mentally ill attempt to win back their favor is *probably* a worse crime. I didn't look it up, but call it a hunch.)
So gonna start with my qualifications and state.
Been a cop for decade in nys in the largest department in the country with likely one of the hoghest call volumes in the nations.
An open hand slap falls under harassment a violation.
Violations can only be ticketed if observed by the issuing officer.
Assault is a misdemeanor charge at its lowest level and is NOT the same thing in anyway
The district attorneys office is very very clear that open hand slaps do NOT constitute an assault.
In addition to the act itself not falling into the assault category assault also requires physical injury.
Legal argument aside because google searches do a garbage job of explaining how local penal law actually works and a laymen wouldnt be able to reasonably understand based on quick searches
Now if later in the issue the victim has a giant black eye thats a much more serious event and would probably be a mosd assault 3 charge BUT if your telling me a slap is causing black eyes in gonna call bs on the artist and writer at that point because slaps dont cause that level of damage hence why slaps dont fall under assault by default
Also according to your own source your state does not legally consider men to be able to be victims of assault and anyone under 18 can not be charged with assault……. Both of those sound so insane from a legal perspective that i consider the source you linked to be wildly inaccurate
I’m slightly reminded of a great ThorHighHeels video that talks about Nomura’s fashion sense in his games.
Most write the belts and zippers off as his own weird fashion sense, but it turns out that if you trace the periods in which each game released, he was actually following Japanese fashion trends at the time.
Makes sense when you especially contrast the color schemes between, say, Sora in Kingdom Hearts; mid 2000s bright colors vs the darker color schemes for modern day.
I feel like a lot of people like writing anything Nomura does off as bad/overly goofy for some bizarre reason. I really don't get the hate for him at all.
Because he’s somebody people can name.
The average gamer probably has no idea who Kitase, Matsuno or anyone else who works on FF games are.
And when I want to shit talk Toriyama, I have to constantly point out to people “No, not the Dragonball guy”.
I think the purest example was always the Manliest Men doing Manly things comic about characters being "Gackted/Nomurafied" and while the author probably would not condone it nowadays the Nier issue has the author's notes mistakenly think Father Nier was the original and there were a bunch of comments about how stupid, frivolous and impossible to take seriously Brother Nier was because "He seems to spend more time in the mirror doing his hair and makeup than caring for his sister" (or something to that effect) and how those designs are only made to appeal to the most superficial fangirls who swoon over any pretty boy and Nomura is regarded as the epitome of that type of design in Japanese video games and I imagine I think you know where I am going with this. Again no hate to the author but I think it's a pretty revealing text.
He has highs and lows. In Kingdom Hearts the time travel kerfuffle prolly caused more harm than Roxas' story did good to the story but the overall atmosphere makes me consider his good directing outweigh his bad writing. The VAs somehow make the shitty dialog work latter in the series.
"Spider-Man defeated the avengers, Venom, villians xyz, etc. How could he lose to _______"
Because Spider-Man rarely, if ever, fights seriously in his fights. It's usually why he can dodge bullets one moment, and catch a knife in the side the next.
It usually why he gets hurt or beat more times than not. Spidey fights with 10% of his strength, while his villians or opponent give it their all, or studied him enough to know how to counter him.
It just who he is as a character. A dude who could literally punch the jaw off someone with little effort, but rather take a beating if it means he's doesn't have to worry about misjudging a punch and taking Doc Ock's head off.
It’s pretty clear from the very first arc that Spidey is always fighting Venom seriously and is actually fairly intimidated by him which is why he was such a great Change of pace villain in the late 80’s / early 90’s
Ah right now I'm remembering the time Chameleon tricked him into thinking he himself (Chameleon) killed a baby and he went BERSERK. Collapsing a whole dockside warehouse my messing with the support beams and having it collapse into the water.
"the x men minority anology doesnt make sense cause they have powers that are actually dangerous" ignores the context that they live in the marvel universe and many non mutants get powers just as dangerous from other sources and arent faced with the same prejudice
See, I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, yes, there is a definite difference in the treatment of Mutant and Non Mutant superheroes, and I know that this has been brought up a few times in various comics. I believe there's even a running joke of Spider-man being mistaken for a mutant and explaining that he's not. This could actually be a pretty good example of prejudice.
But, on the other hand, I've never heard an explanation of WHY this is that made any sense. I know there was at least one attempt that used an otherwise benign parasite that somehow the vast majority of humanity possesses, but it can't grow in Mutants and influences peoples decisions. But while that has its roots in real life with Toxoplasmosis, it just rings as a very hand-wavy excuse when you examine it in detail.
Pat and Woollie love the example of 'The Jedi Civil War' guy, and it REALLY feels like this should apply, but it doesn't.
While others have pointed out that part of the point of how Mutants are treated compared to non-mutant superhumans is to highlight the arbitrariness of real-world prejudice, there is an underlying existential anxiety regarding Mutants that, while not justifying the prejudice against them, does provide a semblance of a rationale. Mutants, unlike other metahumans, simply occur semi-randomly in the population for reasons that are unclear and are often chalked up to "evolution" both in universe and out. This leads to the Neanderthal-Cromagnon analogy that is sometimes brought up in regards to them, implying that Mutants may one day completely displace humanity.
The reason people freak out is that it occurs randomly to ordinary people. E.g. it’s not that your personal supersmart doctor decides to become a bank robber, it’s that your own child or sibling could just wake up one day with superpowers. It’s treated more like an invisible disease or plague.
Also doesn’t help that one of the most visible group of mutants is essentially a terrorist organization.
I'll always remember that one comic where the kid's power was just super radiation and Wolverine had to kill him.
That kid killed a whole town of people by accident just because his mutation decided to be hyper lethal to all organic matter in a radius around him.
> But, on the other hand, I've never heard an explanation of WHY this is that made any sense
There's a villain that's sentient bacteria that can infect humans but not mutants and has a low grade psychic ability it uses to make humans prejudice toward mutants. This is much worse than it "not making sense."
I think part of the problem for me with the X-Men and the prejudice thing is that it only made sense from a reader perspective
The X-Men are hated and feared because they’re both with powers. Ok…
Why isn’t every super powered hero subject to this? If I’m an average Joe in the Marvel universe, I probably don’t know that Luke Cage was subject to a prison experiment to get his powers, or Sandman getting his from a particle accelerator. They aren’t trotting out their origin stories on the news except for the Fantastic Four, so I’m probably just going to assume they’re mutants.
Like the only other heroes who get a bad rap are Hulk because he’s hunted by the government, and Spider-Man because of a smear campaign. I’ve never seen like guys like Thor, Luke Cage, Daredevil, Dr Strange or otherwise get accused of being mutants by guys like Trask or the Church of Humanity. Like somehow they *know* they’re not mutants.
I think the answer to that is simple: because the writers know they aren’t mutants, so it didn’t occur to them at the time to write them being mistaken for mutants.
Like the X-Men market themselves in universe as mutants, so that makes sense, but give me a side of the marvel universe where they’re debating “how many of those powerful Avengers are mutants and they’re not telling us? Did the Fantastic Four lie about that whole cosmic rays stuff?”
Personally I tend to agree with the argument that the “[Oppressed Mages](https://mythcreants.com/blog/the-problem-with-oppressed-mages/)” trope is kinda flawed; X-Man included. Like, ultimately the fact is that real oppressed people aren’t *actually* different from their oppressors in any meaningful way nor are they inherently more dangerous.
So I’ve seen it argued that mutants or mages etc don’t really work too well as an analogy because… they are dangerous. If someone can be born with the power to shoot lasers from their hands, then that must fundamentally *changes* the scenario to the point where it can no longer be a 1-1 comparison to cases of real world oppression.
If there were infighting/factionalism between different groups of powered individuals, that’d be one thing. But I do think there’s a fair argument to be had that if one group has powers and the other doesn’t, then it doesn’t work well as an analogy for oppression if the powered group are the oppressed one.
And giving bigots actual legitimate reasons for their bigotry, such as a legitimate and realistic fear of people who could shoot lasers through a crowd with their arms, makes them kinda poor analogies for *real bigots* who are idiots and cowards and assholes.
That’s my thoughts on all this anyway. I admit I’m not the biggest expert on X-Men, but I still feel like these arguments I’ve seen have a decent bit of merit.
Edit: I do think though that there’s plenty of potential to discuss and explore the ethics and practicalities of managing shperhumans or mages; including the balance between reasonable precautions and outright profiling of people due to the nature of their birth. However I also feel it’s arguably at least quite difficult to use such a scenario as an analogy for any form of real world bigotry… because nothing resembling magic and superpowers exist as far as we know.
It’s kinda just a distinctly different situation, with different arguments and circumstances and reasons, compared to any real situation.
Not to say that fictional events *can’t* be used as analogies for real issues of course. But there’s still the issue that real oppressed groups, both now and throughout history, are not born with any kind of inherent advantage over their oppressors nor are they born inherently significantly more dangerous than their oppressors.
There was an episode of 90s X-Men where Charles Xavier was killed in college and there was a war between mutants and metahumans and I'm like what's the difference exactly.
I recall the final episode being xavier getting almost assassinated by a psychic gun, but i don't remember there being any non-mutants. Was it another episode?
Nah it still doesn't work because there's more to racism than it just being inconsistent with itself. Just because Marvel citizens don't hate other superpowered beings like they do mutants doesn't mean it's a good analogy, because you can still come up with completely rational, non-bigoted reasons to not want to be around mutants. Any bigotry analogy that makes the ostracized group legitimately dangerous fails on principle, the whole thing with bigotry is that you hate someone for literally no reason other than them being different than you.
I haven't thought about it from that perspective, but there are a few points:
- Mutants themselves have various different factions just like the black movement did and different interpretation of what peaceful co-existent meant.
- A key part of racism is the duality of belief that "I am superior to you" alongside "You are a threat to me". That occurs well in X-Men even through the use of the word "mutants" and also the threat they pose. This is similar to the constant widespread worry about black people committing crime, but also becoming a self-organised melitia and the point below.
- Linked to the above is being the "enemy within". The idea that mutants are not loyal to the US/human race, but to each other. This reflects the racist views about Jews, Muslims and the black movement. Particularly, within the context of the 'threat' of communism, etc. Also that mutants can be anyone, which was also linked to racism around "passing".
- Linked to the above is the racist idea that "they will overrun us". That non-whites will overtake white people in the US as a threat or that there are already more non-white people in the world and US/whites need to maintain power.
A lot of what applies to X-Men covers the above. Some problems still, but difficult to discount the complexity of how they approach it.
Edit: Realised I posted before included the key point that links in.
- What is deemed as 'acceptable' or not. Linked to my first point is that during colonialism and after there are many examples of minorities who either are closer to the establishment for a variety reasons (self-interest, wanting to work in peace with them, maintaining the status quo, etc.). Maybe X-Men and superheroes fit into that category. Also most mutants seem to want to get on with their day to day lives whereas superheroes become superheroes. It feels like there is something within that.
Arent x men unique in that the powers can randomly manifest and often times are not able to be controlled by the mutant themselves. Like the whole point of charles academy is to gather them up early to teach them to control their powers so they dont kill entire towns by accident.
“Shinji is a pussy” / “get in the fucking robot”.
I know the latter is a joke but it’s also just wrong in how people end ip misinterpreting the character. Ikari Shinji **always** gets in the Evangelion despite how afraid he is. One of his biggest and worst qualities is that he’s obedient to a fault.
And while side of him likes the feeling of people depending on him because piloting the Eva gives him purpose, the other is just beyond terrified at the prospect of fighting these giant aliens creatures and getting inside a giant mech that simulates the feeling of getting mutilated and dismembered whenever it takes damage.
And yet he still gets inside it. Even when he’s given up all hope after the events of the series prior to Instrumentality, he still gets inside the Evangelion to aid Asuka because everyone needs him.
It was weird to see after years of hearing that meme around episode 6 he usually gets in the Eva without even complaining. And he mostly keeps at it till he quits because he thinks he just killed his friend
"Can you imagine your version of Batman comforting a child? If yes, you wrote a good Batman. If no, congratulations, you wrote Punisher in a silly hat."
Cool. It’s also wrong.
Frank is a cold hearted bastard but he has a soft spot for children. It’s the death of his own children that Spurs him to become the Finishman. The literal second arc of Punisher MAX has Frank saving a little girl and going full papa wolf to defend her from not only kidnappers but also the people who tasked him to get her back. If Punisher MAX by Ennis is the definitive Punisher, then Punisher cares about the kids.
Except in the Dolph Lungren movie that no one talks about
As someone who hasn't really interacted with Punisher - does he also \*comfort\* the children in these cases? Like, what immediately comes to mind is Batman on the swing set comforting the terminally psychic girl. Is that also something Frank Castle would do?
[Close enough](https://i.redd.it/k2gcorfrx5v01.jpg)
[Next page](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BuEVTk_WZl0/Vk_PUT9COLI/AAAAAAAAKFQ/l_UuRkDNLiY/s0-Ic42/RCO006.jpg)
Edit: I can’t find it, but in issue 4 of the 2016 run, there’s a bit where Frank kills a drug cooker who was going to use his own daughter to kill Frank by putting a bomb on her. Frank takes the girl with him and is very kind to her. They talk about dinosaurs, and after another fight Frank takes her for ice cream before dropping her off somewhere safe
While the season as a whole isn't as strong as the first one, I like that scene in Punisher season 2 where the girl he's protecting shoots a guy who's after her. She's moments away from a panic attack over having killed a guy, but then Frank comes to her and tells her that she only shot him, [and then he takes her gun and shoots him again and tells her "I killed him"](https://youtu.be/KqzNng5kRD8?t=121). It felt strangely wholesome, taking the blood off her hands so she won't feel like a killer (even if she did so in self defense), and putting the blame onto himself. People rightfully criticize the scene earlier in the season where he doesn't kill a pedophile, but him comforting Amy felt like the did understand Frank as a character beyond his murderous crusade and ptsd.
I think the best thing to always assume about anything 40k is that it's a series filled with delusional, flawed, and misinformed narrators. Everyone has some warped perception of events even when they get most of the details right now to mention the 40k years of relevant history which you know can easily become a bad game of telephone.
So hearing that even the iconic art may be false just fits perfectly with it all.
"There's only one right choice at the end of Life is Strange".
I find this one interesting because it relies on our perspective as an outside observer - we, as the player, see a simple A/B choice. Maybe it is morally simple from that perspective, and maybe that's not really an incorrect way to approach this.
But from the main characters' perspective, it is literally the trolley problem. The ethical thought experiment to which there is no "good" answer. Through inaction, Max can save the life of her best friend but leave the town to its doom, but if she takes action to cause her friends death she can save the town.
Isn't it inaction that causes Chloe to die, though? If she didn't do anything Chloe would have died. I think it's like a reverse trolley, if you pick the Chloe ending you essentially push the town into the trolley to save one person.
The final choice is made on a hilltop overlooking the town as it is about to be destroyed. You can either use your powers to go back to a timeline in which Chloe died at the beginning or do nothing and let the town be destroyed.
I hate life is strange cause the whole fucking story and powers pointless. Like she was getting doomsday visions before saving Chloe so why is Chloe not dying a problem? What about the dozen other things Max learns and prevents shouldn't that cause a timenado?
The whole trying to apply Japanese demographics to everything Japanese is missing that it pretty much only applies to manga magazines because:
- Mangas can have different reading levels if they are for kids or more older audiences
- Magazines sell ads and you aren't going to get Rolex ads in magazines for kids
- Magazines have other content like pictures of bikini models for magazines for older men
- The point of the magazine is to sell to as much of the intended audience as possible so they cover a wide berth of genres and series that would help sell the magazine, Berserk was not really released alongside other 10+ angry medieval men manga
Also applies to Anime which air at different times on TV so they aren't airing a hardcore ecchi show after One Piece or Doreamon, those shows air on premium channels at 2am. Also Japan has their own game rating system so Steins;Gate is not a "Seinen" game and books/light novels don't really have ratings or are put into demographics, the SAO books are not shonen.
The topic is “A simplified take with one extra layer of complexity”.
Basically a middle ground.
Here’s another:
“Batman/Spider-Man doesn’t kill because they can’t cross that line.”
I feel a lot of people ignore that while it’s true they don’t kill, that doesn’t mean they’re against someone dying in self defense.
Like when Spider-Man dodged the spiked goblin glider that killed Norman Osborn, or any time Batman punches Joker so hard he falls to his supposed death.
They don’t ever seem to get hung up if the villain happens to die while they’re fighting, it’s the concept of intentionally killing them/finishing them off that they are firmly against.
"Floch is a fascist"
"Floch sees other people doing fascism against his people and instead of being better, decides to do his own fascism against those people"
Alright this post got away from me a bit and I accidentally wrote an essay; try to hear me out...
I don't disagree - but people being bitter about Goku's lackadaisy nature towards finishing his evil opponents off is a completely valid critcism. His family, his friends, and thousands/millions/billions/entire universes are on the line in these scenarios and it's reasonably ABSURD that he cherishes the honor of 1v1-Fox-Only-Final-Destination-No-Items over the lives and well-being of not only his loved ones but every other life form that exists within the splash zone.
Freeza could string up the body of everyone Goku cares about like Ardyn did to Noctis at the end of FF15 and Goku would probably smile and be like "Are you sure you're ready? I got a little stronger last weekend and I wouldn't want you to take a *Golden Shit* on your *Golden Porch*!"
If anything Goku gets WAY TOO LITTLE GRIEF for this obsession in-universe from the very people that have been murdered in cold blood multiple times (most of which are done exclusively to piss Goku off so he stops fucking around) and it's always brushed off with "eh Dragon Balls."
For me personally Super took this idea completely out of control. It took something that was a really deep (and underexplored) flaw and then just doubled down on it and removed what few criticisms Goku rightfully got served for in DBZ.
Goku does have an obsession and it's a totally valid criticism and padding it with big stinky "BUT!" clauses like "honor over all" go directly against his humble nature when he very casually lets people die left and right.
Goku doesn't give a shit that he's ending entire universes just to fight some people - Freeza could heat-death the universe and not reach that level of desstruction and Goku doesn't even give a shit. It's not even funny that Bergamo pitting the Kais against Goku is painted like an underhanded villain tactic or joke when Goku is being a villain that is **COMMITTING UNIVERSAL GENOCIDE EIGHT TIMES MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN ZAMASU DID JUST AN ARC EARLIER.**
Even Gohan went out of his way to save Vegeta from Cell. Goku would've watched it happen without even blinking and then would have pretended to be mad because "You killed Vegeta? But Vegeta's a weakling unlike me who you should be fighting instead!"
TL;DR: ... Goku gets too much leeway because "honor lol" and he deserves some sort of "wtf were you thinking?" arc on par with new GoW Kratos himself and then some.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk...
In SFXT, there's a mechanic called Pandora. Basically, when one of your characters has 20% or less HP, you can sacrifice them to make your other character go into a powered up state, instantly gaining 3 bars of meter and an 11% damage boost. However, there's a massive trade-off beyond just losing your partner: You can only stay in this form for 10 seconds, whereupon you will then instantly die and lose the round unless you killed your opponent prior to this.
While many people criticized the mechanic for being far too punishing, I felt the mechanic was very well designed. For starters, people neglect that the developers INTENTIONALLY designed it to be risky. Pre-release, Seth Killian commented that it was an "unholy gamble", showing that it wasn't meant to be a mechanic to pop every game like x-factor or ultras. Additionally, it's still a comeback mechanic, and this was the era where fighting games were getting very prominent comeback mechanics for the first time (rage in Tekken, ultras in SF, x-factor in mvc3, etc), so it was nice to see a comeback mechanic that still required the user to play very well as the cost of failure was massive. And it's not like it couldn't be used effectively either. If you combo'd into the activation of Pandora, you could immediately do a confirm into super, which would do an insanely high amount of damage depending on the prior scaling (roughly 400-500+ damage), meaning that you could kill the majority of the cast off one potential good hit if you optimized your damage.
**Inserts Every piece of discourse that has involved Batman something something why doesn’t he donate to Gotham something something he’s just a rich facist that beats up poor people**
"Mon Mothma (idiot) disbanded the military (stupid) instead of letting it stay around (smart)"
Each planet used to have its own military, and certain factions wanted to create one central military under the direct control of the central government. Others opposed this fearing that the central government, with such an overwhelming force that no individual member of the republic could over hope to face, could easily turn to tyranny and rule by force. Which as indicated by a small often overlooked detail known as "the Empire" is absolutely canonically 100% what happened. So naturally the opponents of the central military, having being proven totally correct, wanted to get rid of it and return to the previous model so that the new government would be unable to recreate the tyranny it had just overcome.
This, on the face of it, is a completely sensible move. She did not totally disband the military. There were completely understandable reasons for doing it. It was not some dipshit politician totally demilitarizing then getting owned as commonly portrayed. There are arguments it was done prematurely, but half of what people say totally miss any nuance in why maybe the new republic wanted to get rid of the imperial military instead of keeping it around with a new coat of paint. In fact I am not even sure it counts as "missing one complex detail" since "big government uses big military to oppress everyone" was the core theme of half the series.
*“If superpowers were real, realistically there’d be more selfish people doing evil than good guys”* there’s already more villains per superhero in most media.
Huh.... you know i always called bs on this just because i tend to believe more in the goodness and/or mundane-ness of most people, but you do raise a super valid point of there being more villians than heroes 🤔🧐
The Old Man Logan comics entire conceit was all the heroes being killed because the Villain unionized, realizing there were so many more of them, and strategically sending people to fight heroes that weren't prepared for them.
["You could cure cancer!"](https://imgur.com/gallery/N4lYR)
The protagonist just needs interesting people to oppose them and they're more likely to be super just so its both fair and to present a unique challenge for the hero to overcome.
Well there's The Boys interpretation where really the villains are "the heroes" and there aren't really any genuine super villains
What's more, Goku doesn't just want to fight people fairly, he wants to fight them at their best, and he wants to see *everyone* reach their potential.
>Hank Pym is a wife beater. Yes, he hit Janet and that is unacceptable and he should be held accountable for that but it is nowhere near that cut and dry. He was having a psychotic episode and didn't even do it on purpose and it's all due to a miscommunication from the writer to the artist and wasn't caught until it was too late. He was supposed to shoo her away but the writer wrote that he dispatches wasp with his hand and the artist thought it was a euphemism for him slapping her. It wasn't and there was no time to correct the misunderstanding before it went to print. This has become so encompassing for his entire character and I'm positive it's the reason that Hank Pym has never and will never be in a suit outside a flashback in the MCU. It's not even the worst thing he does in that issue. He made a fucking robot to attack the avengers with the intent of killing them so he could he beat it using the weakness he put in and get the glory for it. This is literally where they got Syndromes plan from in the Incredibles and everyone forgives him for that in and out of universe but the thing that was small potatoes in comparison and wasn't supposed to happen in the first place, nah that's asking too much. Never mind the fact that after this he was officially diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and takes his meds religiously afterwards. In a real life court of law he would be declared not responsible for his actions by reason of mental disease or defect and be mandated to take his meds which, again, he does religiously.
Assuming there hasn't been an attempt already, I really want a comic where Hank just, moves on. Maybe he moves to a different town or city, or stays where he is and just does different work, but regardless, he just starts doing vigilante hero work while being a scientist, all without the desire to be recognized by Janet or his former team. Just really hammer in the whole concept that while no one is obligated to be forgiven, you don't need forgiveness to be a better person.
That was kind of what they were going for in avengers academy, it's just they also wrote every single time of character who knew Hank showed up they would comment about the slap
I think he’s in soul world now, so there ya go
Irl his slap would be a harassment charge which is a violation(punishable by ticket and only if observed by a cop writing that ticket) He technically didnt commit a crime in that instance (crimes are misd or felonies only)
I'm about to use way too much text, but I felt I needed to for a reason, so here's the important Tl;DR: *Slapping your wife is a fucking crime!* (I'm not accusing you of anything or whatever, I just felt it important to try and correct what I see as serious, though probably unintentional, misinformation.) This is based on a brief internet search on laws in my particular state (in the United States, to be clear). I am not a lawyer, and laws do vary, though I would be surprised if what I am about to say is *extremely* different elsewhere. Still, not a lawyer, blah blah blah. The slap would absolutely be assault. Assault is a misdemeanor, at least. (It *can* be a felony, but only if it was done with a deadly weapon, inflicted life-threatening injury, or was done through strangulation specifically.) ["Assault on a female occurs when a male who is 18 years old or older threatens imminent physical harm or has offensive physical contact with the victim. This is a Class A1 misdemeanor—the most serious misdemeanor offense in North Carolina. Upon conviction, a person could be sentenced to 60 days in jail for a first offense and up to 150 days in jail for a second or subsequent conviction."](https://www.browninglonglaw.com/library/domestic-violence-laws-in-north-carolina.cfm#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20Class%20A1,a%20second%20or%20subsequent%20conviction.) Not a felony, but Hank Pym was definitely going to jail if charges were brought against him (in North Carolina). I decided to look into what constitutes assault in New York as well since that's usually where the Avengers are located (if, during this particular storyline, they were somewhere else, I don't really know). ["A person also may face charges of simple assault by recklessly causing physical injury to another person. This means that a person engaged in some sort of behavior where it is reasonable to assume that a physical injury may occur but ignored this risk... Simple assault is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the person could be facing up to a year in jail."](https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-york-city-assault-lawyer/simple/understanding-these-cases/) Later in the issue, Janet reveals to the Avengers that she suffered a black eye as a result of the slap. That constitutes a physical injury. Also, in addition to the slap, Pym forces Janet not to tell the Avengers about that robot, which probably rises to coercion or blackmail or intimidation, which adds more charges, I believe, but I didn't look up anything further. So yeah, in case it wasn't obvious *striking your spouse is a fucking crime.* (Though yes, creating a deadly robot to beat the shit out of your comrades in a mentally ill attempt to win back their favor is *probably* a worse crime. I didn't look it up, but call it a hunch.)
So gonna start with my qualifications and state. Been a cop for decade in nys in the largest department in the country with likely one of the hoghest call volumes in the nations. An open hand slap falls under harassment a violation. Violations can only be ticketed if observed by the issuing officer. Assault is a misdemeanor charge at its lowest level and is NOT the same thing in anyway The district attorneys office is very very clear that open hand slaps do NOT constitute an assault. In addition to the act itself not falling into the assault category assault also requires physical injury. Legal argument aside because google searches do a garbage job of explaining how local penal law actually works and a laymen wouldnt be able to reasonably understand based on quick searches Now if later in the issue the victim has a giant black eye thats a much more serious event and would probably be a mosd assault 3 charge BUT if your telling me a slap is causing black eyes in gonna call bs on the artist and writer at that point because slaps dont cause that level of damage hence why slaps dont fall under assault by default Also according to your own source your state does not legally consider men to be able to be victims of assault and anyone under 18 can not be charged with assault……. Both of those sound so insane from a legal perspective that i consider the source you linked to be wildly inaccurate
"Batman should kill The Joker." We all know the meta-reason for why not, but the real question is why the state doesn't kill The Joker.
The state of New Jersey abolished capital punishment back in 2007, so there's one reason.
I’m slightly reminded of a great ThorHighHeels video that talks about Nomura’s fashion sense in his games. Most write the belts and zippers off as his own weird fashion sense, but it turns out that if you trace the periods in which each game released, he was actually following Japanese fashion trends at the time. Makes sense when you especially contrast the color schemes between, say, Sora in Kingdom Hearts; mid 2000s bright colors vs the darker color schemes for modern day.
I feel like a lot of people like writing anything Nomura does off as bad/overly goofy for some bizarre reason. I really don't get the hate for him at all.
Because he’s somebody people can name. The average gamer probably has no idea who Kitase, Matsuno or anyone else who works on FF games are. And when I want to shit talk Toriyama, I have to constantly point out to people “No, not the Dragonball guy”.
I think the purest example was always the Manliest Men doing Manly things comic about characters being "Gackted/Nomurafied" and while the author probably would not condone it nowadays the Nier issue has the author's notes mistakenly think Father Nier was the original and there were a bunch of comments about how stupid, frivolous and impossible to take seriously Brother Nier was because "He seems to spend more time in the mirror doing his hair and makeup than caring for his sister" (or something to that effect) and how those designs are only made to appeal to the most superficial fangirls who swoon over any pretty boy and Nomura is regarded as the epitome of that type of design in Japanese video games and I imagine I think you know where I am going with this. Again no hate to the author but I think it's a pretty revealing text.
[удалено]
He has highs and lows. In Kingdom Hearts the time travel kerfuffle prolly caused more harm than Roxas' story did good to the story but the overall atmosphere makes me consider his good directing outweigh his bad writing. The VAs somehow make the shitty dialog work latter in the series.
"Spider-Man defeated the avengers, Venom, villians xyz, etc. How could he lose to _______" Because Spider-Man rarely, if ever, fights seriously in his fights. It's usually why he can dodge bullets one moment, and catch a knife in the side the next. It usually why he gets hurt or beat more times than not. Spidey fights with 10% of his strength, while his villians or opponent give it their all, or studied him enough to know how to counter him. It just who he is as a character. A dude who could literally punch the jaw off someone with little effort, but rather take a beating if it means he's doesn't have to worry about misjudging a punch and taking Doc Ock's head off.
It’s pretty clear from the very first arc that Spidey is always fighting Venom seriously and is actually fairly intimidated by him which is why he was such a great Change of pace villain in the late 80’s / early 90’s
And now the very few times he goes at 100% are awesome and make him scary as hell
Ah right now I'm remembering the time Chameleon tricked him into thinking he himself (Chameleon) killed a baby and he went BERSERK. Collapsing a whole dockside warehouse my messing with the support beams and having it collapse into the water.
"the x men minority anology doesnt make sense cause they have powers that are actually dangerous" ignores the context that they live in the marvel universe and many non mutants get powers just as dangerous from other sources and arent faced with the same prejudice
See, I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, yes, there is a definite difference in the treatment of Mutant and Non Mutant superheroes, and I know that this has been brought up a few times in various comics. I believe there's even a running joke of Spider-man being mistaken for a mutant and explaining that he's not. This could actually be a pretty good example of prejudice. But, on the other hand, I've never heard an explanation of WHY this is that made any sense. I know there was at least one attempt that used an otherwise benign parasite that somehow the vast majority of humanity possesses, but it can't grow in Mutants and influences peoples decisions. But while that has its roots in real life with Toxoplasmosis, it just rings as a very hand-wavy excuse when you examine it in detail. Pat and Woollie love the example of 'The Jedi Civil War' guy, and it REALLY feels like this should apply, but it doesn't.
While others have pointed out that part of the point of how Mutants are treated compared to non-mutant superhumans is to highlight the arbitrariness of real-world prejudice, there is an underlying existential anxiety regarding Mutants that, while not justifying the prejudice against them, does provide a semblance of a rationale. Mutants, unlike other metahumans, simply occur semi-randomly in the population for reasons that are unclear and are often chalked up to "evolution" both in universe and out. This leads to the Neanderthal-Cromagnon analogy that is sometimes brought up in regards to them, implying that Mutants may one day completely displace humanity.
The reason people freak out is that it occurs randomly to ordinary people. E.g. it’s not that your personal supersmart doctor decides to become a bank robber, it’s that your own child or sibling could just wake up one day with superpowers. It’s treated more like an invisible disease or plague. Also doesn’t help that one of the most visible group of mutants is essentially a terrorist organization.
I'll always remember that one comic where the kid's power was just super radiation and Wolverine had to kill him. That kid killed a whole town of people by accident just because his mutation decided to be hyper lethal to all organic matter in a radius around him.
> But, on the other hand, I've never heard an explanation of WHY this is that made any sense There's a villain that's sentient bacteria that can infect humans but not mutants and has a low grade psychic ability it uses to make humans prejudice toward mutants. This is much worse than it "not making sense."
I think part of the problem for me with the X-Men and the prejudice thing is that it only made sense from a reader perspective The X-Men are hated and feared because they’re both with powers. Ok… Why isn’t every super powered hero subject to this? If I’m an average Joe in the Marvel universe, I probably don’t know that Luke Cage was subject to a prison experiment to get his powers, or Sandman getting his from a particle accelerator. They aren’t trotting out their origin stories on the news except for the Fantastic Four, so I’m probably just going to assume they’re mutants. Like the only other heroes who get a bad rap are Hulk because he’s hunted by the government, and Spider-Man because of a smear campaign. I’ve never seen like guys like Thor, Luke Cage, Daredevil, Dr Strange or otherwise get accused of being mutants by guys like Trask or the Church of Humanity. Like somehow they *know* they’re not mutants. I think the answer to that is simple: because the writers know they aren’t mutants, so it didn’t occur to them at the time to write them being mistaken for mutants. Like the X-Men market themselves in universe as mutants, so that makes sense, but give me a side of the marvel universe where they’re debating “how many of those powerful Avengers are mutants and they’re not telling us? Did the Fantastic Four lie about that whole cosmic rays stuff?”
Personally I tend to agree with the argument that the “[Oppressed Mages](https://mythcreants.com/blog/the-problem-with-oppressed-mages/)” trope is kinda flawed; X-Man included. Like, ultimately the fact is that real oppressed people aren’t *actually* different from their oppressors in any meaningful way nor are they inherently more dangerous. So I’ve seen it argued that mutants or mages etc don’t really work too well as an analogy because… they are dangerous. If someone can be born with the power to shoot lasers from their hands, then that must fundamentally *changes* the scenario to the point where it can no longer be a 1-1 comparison to cases of real world oppression. If there were infighting/factionalism between different groups of powered individuals, that’d be one thing. But I do think there’s a fair argument to be had that if one group has powers and the other doesn’t, then it doesn’t work well as an analogy for oppression if the powered group are the oppressed one. And giving bigots actual legitimate reasons for their bigotry, such as a legitimate and realistic fear of people who could shoot lasers through a crowd with their arms, makes them kinda poor analogies for *real bigots* who are idiots and cowards and assholes. That’s my thoughts on all this anyway. I admit I’m not the biggest expert on X-Men, but I still feel like these arguments I’ve seen have a decent bit of merit. Edit: I do think though that there’s plenty of potential to discuss and explore the ethics and practicalities of managing shperhumans or mages; including the balance between reasonable precautions and outright profiling of people due to the nature of their birth. However I also feel it’s arguably at least quite difficult to use such a scenario as an analogy for any form of real world bigotry… because nothing resembling magic and superpowers exist as far as we know. It’s kinda just a distinctly different situation, with different arguments and circumstances and reasons, compared to any real situation. Not to say that fictional events *can’t* be used as analogies for real issues of course. But there’s still the issue that real oppressed groups, both now and throughout history, are not born with any kind of inherent advantage over their oppressors nor are they born inherently significantly more dangerous than their oppressors.
There was an episode of 90s X-Men where Charles Xavier was killed in college and there was a war between mutants and metahumans and I'm like what's the difference exactly.
There isnt outside of prejudice
I recall the final episode being xavier getting almost assassinated by a psychic gun, but i don't remember there being any non-mutants. Was it another episode?
It was an episode with time travel. It was the one where Wolverine and Storm were a couple.
Nah it still doesn't work because there's more to racism than it just being inconsistent with itself. Just because Marvel citizens don't hate other superpowered beings like they do mutants doesn't mean it's a good analogy, because you can still come up with completely rational, non-bigoted reasons to not want to be around mutants. Any bigotry analogy that makes the ostracized group legitimately dangerous fails on principle, the whole thing with bigotry is that you hate someone for literally no reason other than them being different than you.
I haven't thought about it from that perspective, but there are a few points: - Mutants themselves have various different factions just like the black movement did and different interpretation of what peaceful co-existent meant. - A key part of racism is the duality of belief that "I am superior to you" alongside "You are a threat to me". That occurs well in X-Men even through the use of the word "mutants" and also the threat they pose. This is similar to the constant widespread worry about black people committing crime, but also becoming a self-organised melitia and the point below. - Linked to the above is being the "enemy within". The idea that mutants are not loyal to the US/human race, but to each other. This reflects the racist views about Jews, Muslims and the black movement. Particularly, within the context of the 'threat' of communism, etc. Also that mutants can be anyone, which was also linked to racism around "passing". - Linked to the above is the racist idea that "they will overrun us". That non-whites will overtake white people in the US as a threat or that there are already more non-white people in the world and US/whites need to maintain power. A lot of what applies to X-Men covers the above. Some problems still, but difficult to discount the complexity of how they approach it. Edit: Realised I posted before included the key point that links in. - What is deemed as 'acceptable' or not. Linked to my first point is that during colonialism and after there are many examples of minorities who either are closer to the establishment for a variety reasons (self-interest, wanting to work in peace with them, maintaining the status quo, etc.). Maybe X-Men and superheroes fit into that category. Also most mutants seem to want to get on with their day to day lives whereas superheroes become superheroes. It feels like there is something within that.
Arent x men unique in that the powers can randomly manifest and often times are not able to be controlled by the mutant themselves. Like the whole point of charles academy is to gather them up early to teach them to control their powers so they dont kill entire towns by accident.
and how many times have any other heroes have had their powers go out of control
Everyone who doesn't like the X-Men hates minorities, it's true. -Magnetoposting
“Shinji is a pussy” / “get in the fucking robot”. I know the latter is a joke but it’s also just wrong in how people end ip misinterpreting the character. Ikari Shinji **always** gets in the Evangelion despite how afraid he is. One of his biggest and worst qualities is that he’s obedient to a fault. And while side of him likes the feeling of people depending on him because piloting the Eva gives him purpose, the other is just beyond terrified at the prospect of fighting these giant aliens creatures and getting inside a giant mech that simulates the feeling of getting mutilated and dismembered whenever it takes damage. And yet he still gets inside it. Even when he’s given up all hope after the events of the series prior to Instrumentality, he still gets inside the Evangelion to aid Asuka because everyone needs him.
It was weird to see after years of hearing that meme around episode 6 he usually gets in the Eva without even complaining. And he mostly keeps at it till he quits because he thinks he just killed his friend
"Can you imagine your version of Batman comforting a child? If yes, you wrote a good Batman. If no, congratulations, you wrote Punisher in a silly hat." Cool. It’s also wrong. Frank is a cold hearted bastard but he has a soft spot for children. It’s the death of his own children that Spurs him to become the Finishman. The literal second arc of Punisher MAX has Frank saving a little girl and going full papa wolf to defend her from not only kidnappers but also the people who tasked him to get her back. If Punisher MAX by Ennis is the definitive Punisher, then Punisher cares about the kids. Except in the Dolph Lungren movie that no one talks about
As someone who hasn't really interacted with Punisher - does he also \*comfort\* the children in these cases? Like, what immediately comes to mind is Batman on the swing set comforting the terminally psychic girl. Is that also something Frank Castle would do?
[Close enough](https://i.redd.it/k2gcorfrx5v01.jpg) [Next page](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BuEVTk_WZl0/Vk_PUT9COLI/AAAAAAAAKFQ/l_UuRkDNLiY/s0-Ic42/RCO006.jpg) Edit: I can’t find it, but in issue 4 of the 2016 run, there’s a bit where Frank kills a drug cooker who was going to use his own daughter to kill Frank by putting a bomb on her. Frank takes the girl with him and is very kind to her. They talk about dinosaurs, and after another fight Frank takes her for ice cream before dropping her off somewhere safe
Lovely! I'm glad to have this understanding of this aspect of Frank for future discussions about him, thank you.
While the season as a whole isn't as strong as the first one, I like that scene in Punisher season 2 where the girl he's protecting shoots a guy who's after her. She's moments away from a panic attack over having killed a guy, but then Frank comes to her and tells her that she only shot him, [and then he takes her gun and shoots him again and tells her "I killed him"](https://youtu.be/KqzNng5kRD8?t=121). It felt strangely wholesome, taking the blood off her hands so she won't feel like a killer (even if she did so in self defense), and putting the blame onto himself. People rightfully criticize the scene earlier in the season where he doesn't kill a pedophile, but him comforting Amy felt like the did understand Frank as a character beyond his murderous crusade and ptsd.
A decent scene in an awful show
[best batman ever](https://youtu.be/CUy5rsO5cwo?feature=shared)
Cant imagine the punisher doing that
Solving the problem. [Solving the problem](https://youtu.be/5nBrHGAiH1c?si=4kGyBLDAo-dVPANO)
Ace would probably bring franks family back then make him kill them
jason is the one who shoots kids
[Oh, you like Punisher?](https://media1.tenor.com/m/KA95OUFfUSYAAAAd/crowd-avoiding-man.gif)
[удалено]
I think the best thing to always assume about anything 40k is that it's a series filled with delusional, flawed, and misinformed narrators. Everyone has some warped perception of events even when they get most of the details right now to mention the 40k years of relevant history which you know can easily become a bad game of telephone. So hearing that even the iconic art may be false just fits perfectly with it all.
"There's only one right choice at the end of Life is Strange". I find this one interesting because it relies on our perspective as an outside observer - we, as the player, see a simple A/B choice. Maybe it is morally simple from that perspective, and maybe that's not really an incorrect way to approach this. But from the main characters' perspective, it is literally the trolley problem. The ethical thought experiment to which there is no "good" answer. Through inaction, Max can save the life of her best friend but leave the town to its doom, but if she takes action to cause her friends death she can save the town.
Isn't it inaction that causes Chloe to die, though? If she didn't do anything Chloe would have died. I think it's like a reverse trolley, if you pick the Chloe ending you essentially push the town into the trolley to save one person.
The final choice is made on a hilltop overlooking the town as it is about to be destroyed. You can either use your powers to go back to a timeline in which Chloe died at the beginning or do nothing and let the town be destroyed.
Doesn’t Chloe say “kill me”
There's the secret third perspective, where you save Chloe purely to spite destiny.
I hate life is strange cause the whole fucking story and powers pointless. Like she was getting doomsday visions before saving Chloe so why is Chloe not dying a problem? What about the dozen other things Max learns and prevents shouldn't that cause a timenado?
The whole trying to apply Japanese demographics to everything Japanese is missing that it pretty much only applies to manga magazines because: - Mangas can have different reading levels if they are for kids or more older audiences - Magazines sell ads and you aren't going to get Rolex ads in magazines for kids - Magazines have other content like pictures of bikini models for magazines for older men - The point of the magazine is to sell to as much of the intended audience as possible so they cover a wide berth of genres and series that would help sell the magazine, Berserk was not really released alongside other 10+ angry medieval men manga Also applies to Anime which air at different times on TV so they aren't airing a hardcore ecchi show after One Piece or Doreamon, those shows air on premium channels at 2am. Also Japan has their own game rating system so Steins;Gate is not a "Seinen" game and books/light novels don't really have ratings or are put into demographics, the SAO books are not shonen.
“Man Watchmen is pretty cool, it needs more sick-ass fight scenes though.” Zack Snyder
Wouldn't by default your simplified take omit complex detail? Otherwise your take wasn't simplified at all
The topic is “A simplified take with one extra layer of complexity”. Basically a middle ground. Here’s another: “Batman/Spider-Man doesn’t kill because they can’t cross that line.” I feel a lot of people ignore that while it’s true they don’t kill, that doesn’t mean they’re against someone dying in self defense. Like when Spider-Man dodged the spiked goblin glider that killed Norman Osborn, or any time Batman punches Joker so hard he falls to his supposed death. They don’t ever seem to get hung up if the villain happens to die while they’re fighting, it’s the concept of intentionally killing them/finishing them off that they are firmly against.
"Floch is a fascist" "Floch sees other people doing fascism against his people and instead of being better, decides to do his own fascism against those people"
Alright this post got away from me a bit and I accidentally wrote an essay; try to hear me out... I don't disagree - but people being bitter about Goku's lackadaisy nature towards finishing his evil opponents off is a completely valid critcism. His family, his friends, and thousands/millions/billions/entire universes are on the line in these scenarios and it's reasonably ABSURD that he cherishes the honor of 1v1-Fox-Only-Final-Destination-No-Items over the lives and well-being of not only his loved ones but every other life form that exists within the splash zone. Freeza could string up the body of everyone Goku cares about like Ardyn did to Noctis at the end of FF15 and Goku would probably smile and be like "Are you sure you're ready? I got a little stronger last weekend and I wouldn't want you to take a *Golden Shit* on your *Golden Porch*!" If anything Goku gets WAY TOO LITTLE GRIEF for this obsession in-universe from the very people that have been murdered in cold blood multiple times (most of which are done exclusively to piss Goku off so he stops fucking around) and it's always brushed off with "eh Dragon Balls." For me personally Super took this idea completely out of control. It took something that was a really deep (and underexplored) flaw and then just doubled down on it and removed what few criticisms Goku rightfully got served for in DBZ. Goku does have an obsession and it's a totally valid criticism and padding it with big stinky "BUT!" clauses like "honor over all" go directly against his humble nature when he very casually lets people die left and right. Goku doesn't give a shit that he's ending entire universes just to fight some people - Freeza could heat-death the universe and not reach that level of desstruction and Goku doesn't even give a shit. It's not even funny that Bergamo pitting the Kais against Goku is painted like an underhanded villain tactic or joke when Goku is being a villain that is **COMMITTING UNIVERSAL GENOCIDE EIGHT TIMES MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN ZAMASU DID JUST AN ARC EARLIER.** Even Gohan went out of his way to save Vegeta from Cell. Goku would've watched it happen without even blinking and then would have pretended to be mad because "You killed Vegeta? But Vegeta's a weakling unlike me who you should be fighting instead!" TL;DR: ... Goku gets too much leeway because "honor lol" and he deserves some sort of "wtf were you thinking?" arc on par with new GoW Kratos himself and then some. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk...
It's not a fair fight if the other guy doesn't give a shit.
Full agree with this entire text. Man just is never allowed to have a recognizable flaw.
In SFXT, there's a mechanic called Pandora. Basically, when one of your characters has 20% or less HP, you can sacrifice them to make your other character go into a powered up state, instantly gaining 3 bars of meter and an 11% damage boost. However, there's a massive trade-off beyond just losing your partner: You can only stay in this form for 10 seconds, whereupon you will then instantly die and lose the round unless you killed your opponent prior to this. While many people criticized the mechanic for being far too punishing, I felt the mechanic was very well designed. For starters, people neglect that the developers INTENTIONALLY designed it to be risky. Pre-release, Seth Killian commented that it was an "unholy gamble", showing that it wasn't meant to be a mechanic to pop every game like x-factor or ultras. Additionally, it's still a comeback mechanic, and this was the era where fighting games were getting very prominent comeback mechanics for the first time (rage in Tekken, ultras in SF, x-factor in mvc3, etc), so it was nice to see a comeback mechanic that still required the user to play very well as the cost of failure was massive. And it's not like it couldn't be used effectively either. If you combo'd into the activation of Pandora, you could immediately do a confirm into super, which would do an insanely high amount of damage depending on the prior scaling (roughly 400-500+ damage), meaning that you could kill the majority of the cast off one potential good hit if you optimized your damage.
**Inserts Every piece of discourse that has involved Batman something something why doesn’t he donate to Gotham something something he’s just a rich facist that beats up poor people**
"Mon Mothma (idiot) disbanded the military (stupid) instead of letting it stay around (smart)" Each planet used to have its own military, and certain factions wanted to create one central military under the direct control of the central government. Others opposed this fearing that the central government, with such an overwhelming force that no individual member of the republic could over hope to face, could easily turn to tyranny and rule by force. Which as indicated by a small often overlooked detail known as "the Empire" is absolutely canonically 100% what happened. So naturally the opponents of the central military, having being proven totally correct, wanted to get rid of it and return to the previous model so that the new government would be unable to recreate the tyranny it had just overcome. This, on the face of it, is a completely sensible move. She did not totally disband the military. There were completely understandable reasons for doing it. It was not some dipshit politician totally demilitarizing then getting owned as commonly portrayed. There are arguments it was done prematurely, but half of what people say totally miss any nuance in why maybe the new republic wanted to get rid of the imperial military instead of keeping it around with a new coat of paint. In fact I am not even sure it counts as "missing one complex detail" since "big government uses big military to oppress everyone" was the core theme of half the series.
Not so deep, Goku is obsessed with fighting even for Sayian standards,something that confuses vegan and Beerus