Book 3 - Page 118

"That settles that, then."

Book 3 - Page 118
Comic - Book 3 - Page 118
Recent posts... (See full thread)
>Also, in erfworld, money literally appears out of and disappears into nowhere. There is no "limit" to the amount of shmuckers in circulation.

It's the same in our world. Ordinary high street banks create money when you borrow it, as do credit cards, and when you pay it back that money is destroyed.
Link to bank of England quote here: http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/ which further links to the bank of England report.
Liminaut wrote:
I wonder if one day Charlie is just going to be able to write a check for the whole kit and kaboodle. Just buy everything in Erf all at once.


I don't think that's actually a stable end game, oddly enough, even if he could also buy out or conquer the Magic Kingdom.
Diminishing returns means that the upkeep of all those cities will far exceed their income (I suspect there are several other diminishing returns mechanics as well), and randomly popped barbarian warlords potentially means that new sides can form even if all existing sides are removed.

The Titans seem to have carefully engineered Erfworld to make multi-side war the most stable condition. It's a beautifully paradoxical - in Erfworld, the most stable situation is the chaos of eternal war between ever-changing sides.
Turtlewing wrote:
I don't think she'll try to hit Parson.

I think she will be mad at herself and Charlie, not Parson, as she'll pretty quickly put together that her rocket attack caused another penalty and that's how Charlie got Parson.

IMO the X factor here is to what extent she's loyal to Parson specifically, as she's already surprised herself by ratting Wanda out to him. If her regard for him is strong enough she might try tuning to CC both to hit them with a penalty (last act of spite) and so he'll have someone to watch his back against Charlie.

However more likely, is that she'll dive for the portal out of despair or start breaking things out of not caring anymore and being really really mad.

This is really interesting. We've seen some of the way Lilith thinks - she is strongly guided by her training under Charlie, and under pressure she seems to look for a Rule she can apply to the situation. I think her reaction to Parson arriving would be logical and rules based, but it will depend on her motivations.

Her motivations are complex:
  • Duty - to Gobwin Knob

  • Loyalty - I'm not sure if this applies only to GK, or to Stanley, or also to Wanda, or to Parson. Her past Loyalty to Charlie probably isn't relevant.

  • Love - She presumably has (or had?) Love for Wanda, a past Love for Charlie, and no other Love that we know about. Could she Love Parson?
    We know that unlike some decrypted Archons (eg Phoebe) she no longer loves Charlie. She is bound to the Pliers, but her conflict with Wanda ordering her not to shoot Charlie seems to have shaken that bond.

  • Fate - Love and Fate seem like the big Wildcards of Erfworld. Is Lilith an instrument of Fate herself? Can Parson's Fate affect Lilith's choices, or only her dice rolls? I don't know.


She won't be taken by surprise, anyway. She will already have felt her Chief Warlord bonus disappear, and will be considering what that means.

Also, I can't see that turning to CC would trigger a penalty if she does so of her own accord.
ManaCaster wrote:
Mnemnosyne wrote:
although if it is a tool of fate, then I absolutely don't see anything wrong with destroying it; indeed, that would seem like an unequivocally good action.

Thing is, the Jester being a tool of Fate doesn't preclude it from also having other important functions. The jester was her inner warlord, her drive, and her connection to her father. Charlie didn't simply cut Jillian from Fate or make her aware of its manipulations; He lobotomized her.

Don't forget about the part where Jillian killed Charlie's innocent (till proven guilty) daughter.
-D- wrote:

Mnemnosyne wrote:
the only two things he's done that I find objectionable, I really don't get the hate-on for him. I'm hoping that with Parson turned to CC, we learn a lot about Charlie and Charlescomm.

Yes, lets forget following:
  • Destroying DigDoug's side, by selling them twice to their enemies and their treacherous brother.

  • Attempting to kill Parson

  • Probably having something to do with Saline IV's downfall

  • Regularly screwing over his customers

If Digdoug's side can't fend off an enemy whom they payed to attack themselves, then it's Digdoug's Side's own fault for falling.
Amake wrote:
Charlie? Of course the obvious psychopath with the sleazy mind control tentacles all over the world's population and the army of sex slaves and the penchant for devil-level contracts isn't a bad guy. He's just the least likable character we've seen so far, and an antagonist to many of the other characters we care about.

How is Charlie an unlikeable character? He's charming, witty, a troll, and funny.
happyturtle wrote:
As long as he's hoarding the wealth, sides have to go to war, and hire him, so he can get more wealth....

I hope there's another reason that isn't so circular.

Circular logic is the best logic because it's roundness makes it the perfect shape. And it proves itself, making it more efficient in that you don't need any other logics to prove circular logic. And the fact that it proves itself means that you can't disprove it because you can't disprove things that are proved.
lloyd007 wrote:
sometimes he just wants to bust a nut, incinerate some trees


Who doesn't?
Anomynous 167 wrote:
Circular logic is the best logic because it's roundness makes it the perfect shape. And it proves itself, making it more efficient in that you don't need any other logics to prove circular logic. And the fact that it proves itself means that you can't disprove it because you can't disprove things that are proved.


It is quite laughable how you totally perverted it. Thanks for the chuckle. :lol:

Circular logic, also known as Circular reasoning wrote:
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.
Liminaut wrote:
My guess of 4,000 was intentionally way high. Let's say there are fewer, say 400 (sides can split and form new sides). Then the point becomes more salient. Charlie has the vast majority of shmuckers in Erf. What is he planning on doing with it? And why?

Lots of discussion on that topic already here:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7758
Quote:
If Digdoug's side can't fend off an enemy whom they payed to attack themselves, then it's Digdoug's Side's own fault for falling.

You really need sarcasm tags. For a moment I thought you were serious^^°
False logic is the best logic, because you know it is wrong.

Circular logic is the best logic, because it never goes anywhere it hasn't been, like a fly with only one wing.

Fart logic is the best logic, because he who smelt it dealt it, and if you are doling out wisdom, you must have had your Logic-O's this morning.

Troll logic is the best logic, because if the only person who believes you is you, then the rest of the world can suck it. Besides, if you aren't going to laugh at your own jokes, who will?
Mirage GSM wrote:

Quote:
If Digdoug's side can't fend off an enemy whom they payed to attack themselves, then it's Digdoug's Side's own fault for falling.

You really need sarcasm tags. For a moment I thought you were serious^^°


I tend to like to leave my posts ambiguous because True Art is Up to Multiple Interpretations (insert Martin Billany's Nylocke voice there), and I like to see debates over the interpretation, and the more interpretations the more likely someone'll agree with me. Take this post for example, I actually managed to get Jimmy/The Commander just by offering an alternate interpretation to my earlier comments, and he doesn't suspect that I am a Charlie-fanboy.

That and I like to RP, as my avatar (along with my screen-name) subtlely effects my forum behaviour. That one forum where I was RPing as Dr. Claw didn't end up well for me as I ended up getting in a feud with an admin.
Mirage GSM wrote:
Anomynous 167 wrote:
Tiax wrote:
Are we sure Charlie is really the big bad guy here?

Sure he is. He's like Darth Vader, a sick man in a suit.

You know... Vader is really the wrong example to pull out of your pocket here.
He was redeemed in the end and helped Luke defeat... actually defeated the real big bad guy instead of Luke.
Though I will be disappointed if Charlie turns out to be just misunderstood instead of a bad guy. I fully expect him not to be the final boss Parson has to defeat, but he's gone to far to be redeemed.

That being said, in this other quote that you quoted a while ago, I was a failure to communicate.

The problem with sarcasm tags in this scenario is that it would of ruined the quick wit presented by slowing down delivery.
CorrTerek wrote:
Tiax wrote:

To me, Charlie's Signamancy is a combination of a lot of odd characters, none of which scream out "bad guy." Unless fat, bald, old and crippled are fundamentally 'evil' physical characteristics.


Well, his side's Signamancy is that of a cable company, and anyone who's had dealings with those for any length of time probably would have no trouble calling them evil. :lol:


No, not a cable company. A satellite TV company. 24 month contracts, lose all your rights when you enter the contracts, the courts just upheld that loss of rights, etc.

Plus, there's inherently limited competition, there's only a small number of satellite slots. They ignore rules that the FCC issues to try to let people only pay for the channels that they want, by making sure that most people will want one or two channels only in the top tier package, etc. (You want 1 or 2, but have to buy 60 to get them).

Illusion of choice, and basically required to do what the company wants.