Book 3 - Page 116

CONTRACT CLAIM FROM CHARLESCOMM IN REDRESS FOR BREACH OF AGREEMENT

Book 3 - Page 116
Comic - Book 3 - Page 116
Recent posts... (See full thread)
I don't think the ethical discussions have been a derailment at all; I kind of think ethical issues *are the whole point of the comic*.
Spruce wrote:

1. Looks like the Chrome icon. Charlie's connection speed? Not working properly.


Flashing back to tech support days...

"Thank you for calling Charlescomm Support; So sorry to hear about your dish problems. Have you tried turning it off then on again?"

"Have there been any recent changes to the system? Yes, a rogue Archon firing an RPG into the central column does count as a change to the system sir."

"Have you tried putting the Arkendish in bag of rice overnight?"
Spruce wrote:
Nightseraph wrote:
Number 9 on your list made me immediately think of Research and Development. Its a corporate symbol from something I believe I just can't figure out what.

We can assume one of the red symbols represents Shockomancy, and I'm guessing the red headset is Thinkomancy evesdropping. No way charlie is plucking strings right now.

I have to assume that each of the symbols represents something permanent about CC the side, so no specific symbols for GWK.

10 I'd be guessing would be something like intelligence. (The military kind.)
11 could easily be natural allies.


2. Is there any electric/power symbol that looks like this? :)

9. Maybe you're thinking of the molecule symbol, it's often used with R&D and has three axis (rotational) symmetry.

11. Good point! It would seem like a good symbol for it.




Oooo! I could totally see either 5 or 11 being the "Natural Allies" icon. I'm leaning toward 5 now, as Charlie has more than two natural allies right? Gobwins, hobgobwins, and . . . . giants? I think?
Liminaut wrote:
I don't think the ethical discussions have been a derailment at all; I kind of think ethical issues *are the whole point of the comic*.



Perhaps derailment is the wrong word. It just seemed a discussion that I would have expected to see in a different part of the forums, rather than the Page 116 thread.

Nothing inherently wrong with the discussion at all. It just stopped referencing this comic as a primary source. By all means continue it. :)

I'm just significantly more interested in the pretty pictures and decoding them. ;)
I should add I like that final panel in this update. With Parson, and the menacing looking Charlie. It would make a good title page, and illustrates the theme of the book
'Hamsterdance vs the Charlie Foxtrot'

In general I like the art in the text updates that has been happening in lately. Without needing to tell a story with the art (like in regular strips), it gives the artists more artistic freedom. They have been using that freedom well :)
@Lipkin: But thats not whats is under debate here, it doesn't matter if they wouldn't care that they're unhappy, just so long as it was known that the common reaction was to be unhappy. Maggie can't tell us that any unit would be happy to follow the order if in fact they wouldn't be because that would be a flat out lie.

That was my entire point. Sure units could be ordered into bed, not want to do it, be really unhappy and the individual giving the order could not give a damm, (see point C of my last post where i acknowledged that point), but you can't then have a character claim as a generalisation they'd be see nothing wrong with receiving such an order.
Infidel wrote:
dholm wrote:

Anyway, this is not the case for Charlie: he is not ordering them to bed *him*. He is ordering them to bed *clients*. The distinction is important, because the Duty/Loyalty bond isn't to that particular client, but to Charlie. In other words, their own feelings are actually in play here.


See, the problem here is that someone might be ordered to kill, but that person doesn't want to kill. My problem is the people consider having sex a greater monstrosity than killing people.
Oh he ordered that girl to kill a guy. Bad charlie.
Oh he ordered that girl to go have sex with a guy. OMG! Human Trafficking. Charlie is EVIL.

I have so little patience with people who try to argue morality.


All Sides are forced to commit the atrocity of war for their own survival.

No one is forced to sell their own people as sex slaves.

I don't consider sex a greater monstrosity than killing people, and I would thank you not to put words in my mouth.
Charlie wants Parson's mind dissected to be able to destroy 'fate' or to conquer the Stupidworld.
dholm wrote:

All Sides are forced to commit the atrocity of war for their own survival.

No one is forced to sell their own people as sex slaves.


What is the difference? Sex slaves provide money and intelligence, both valuable assets for a side's survival, and decrease the money available to a potential rival side. It is just yet another convenient atrocity.

BTW,

http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%202/34

Wanda orders archons to form a flash mob, following a plan designed by our ever so sexually respectful hero. Instead of go about it dragging her feet and mumbling about sexual exploitation, chauvinism and male pigs, as she should, the archon answers "Oooh! Yes Mistress." Is it just the Arkenpliers talking?
cu wrote:
dholm wrote:

All Sides are forced to commit the atrocity of war for their own survival.

No one is forced to sell their own people as sex slaves.


What is the difference? Sex slaves provide money and intelligence, both valuable assets for a side's survival, and decrease the money available to a potential rival side. It is just yet another convenient atrocity.

Many things can be valuable assets for a side's survival. But they are not required, the way waging war is.

cu wrote:
BTW,

http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%202/34

Wanda orders archons to form a flash mob, following a plan designed by our ever so sexually respectful hero. Instead of go about it dragging her feet and mumbling about sexual exploitation, chauvinism and male pigs, as she should, the archon answers "Oooh! Yes Mistress." Is it just the Arkenpliers talking?


"Should"? We have been speaking of a hypothetical situation where an Archon would be reluctant to go along with an order to have sex, which is not necessarily a realistic assumption. It's entirely possible they are perfectly willing, as is the case in that example. That would remove any issue I personally have with it. It is being forced I have a problem with.

Even if they are willing, there's a difference between being part of a flash mob, and a sexual encounter. Being willing to do one is not the same as being willing to do the other.

We've seen people be reluctant to have sex -- even Jillian, who is otherwise the most promiscuous character in the story (having had no less than three serious lovers). It is not a stretch to assume a situation could arise where an Archon is not willing to have sex with a client, despite the client having paid for "full service." We don't know how Charlie would react to that situation, but the fact that he sells his Archons in that manner in the first place is telling, in my opinion.