Book 3 - Page 151

“Look, there’s a lotta pieces missing”

Book 3 - Page 151
Comic - Book 3 - Page 151
Recent posts... (See full thread)
easter wrote:
Actually, maybe you're right there are way fewer hobgobwins back then. Maybe that's the deal they struck. Wanda had them help make the gobwins rebel in exchange for having the hobgobwins now look more trustworthy by helping put the rebellion down and getting their numbers and rank in GK boosted. In tBFGK KISS was entirely hobs with no normal gobwins after all but back in those days it looks like there was a gobwin riding next to Stanley in his personal honor guard.

Whether or not Wanda or Charlie was responsible its a good point that Sizemore only mentions the Gobwins rebelling and Stanley flying with Gobwins back then. They might have been covertly involved with the coup without Stanley or anyone aside from the conspirator knowing about it which is why they became Stanley's personal guard and yet have something to hide.
ysath wrote:
Parson is pissed about what they are doing to Jack and will be very pissed about what is being done with Maggie, he don't really care about himself here.


If Maggie comes out on top, he will have no reason to be pissed.
Does the Dollamancer abuse her on his own?
Fla_Panther wrote:
Chit Rule Railroad wrote:
It occurs to me that we've seen alliances dissolved at the drop of a hat, and we've seen non-aggression pacts with automagical penalties for violations, but we've never seen allies enter into such a non-aggression pact. I wonder why.

For that matter, in a world where CC regularly uses these tricky contracts why haven't any other sides started using them? You would think someone would've had the light bulb go on and think to themselves, "That's annoying, but probably a good idea. I should probably do the same.

There is an offer of alliance with an automagical penalty in Book 0, wherein Haffaton is attempting to persuade Goodminton to give up Wanda:
Quote:
"They offer a fifty-turn contract of alliance, bound by a severance penalty of ninety thousand Shmuckers. No cities exchanged."

Lord Firebaugh is amazed at the generosity of the offer, but he says nothing about the structure so I assume that such contracts are commonplace and the reason we've only seen Charlie do it is simply that we are mainly following Gobwin Knob which generally prefers battle to diplomacy.
Ave wrote:
ysath wrote:
Parson is pissed about what they are doing to Jack and will be very pissed about what is being done with Maggie, he don't really care about himself here.


If Maggie comes out on top, he will have no reason to be pissed.
Does the Dollamancer abuse her on his own?


Also this is Fate looking out for Parson, in a sense. Something that could happen is Maggie's interrogation conflicting with his and Jack's, invalidating the work they've done on Caesar and Bunny and thus Don King. Bill turning his mandate to interrogate the Thinkamancer into a private pursuit means that threat is neutralized for the time being; for a turn at least, they get to get their licks in.
Althernai wrote:
Fla_Panther wrote:
Chit Rule Railroad wrote:
It occurs to me that we've seen alliances dissolved at the drop of a hat, and we've seen non-aggression pacts with automagical penalties for violations, but we've never seen allies enter into such a non-aggression pact. I wonder why.

For that matter, in a world where CC regularly uses these tricky contracts why haven't any other sides started using them? You would think someone would've had the light bulb go on and think to themselves, "That's annoying, but probably a good idea. I should probably do the same.

There is an offer of alliance with an automagical penalty in Book 0, wherein Haffaton is attempting to persuade Goodminton to give up Wanda:
Quote:
"They offer a fifty-turn contract of alliance, bound by a severance penalty of ninety thousand Shmuckers. No cities exchanged."

Lord Firebaugh is amazed at the generosity of the offer, but he says nothing about the structure so I assume that such contracts are commonplace and the reason we've only seen Charlie do it is simply that we are mainly following Gobwin Knob which generally prefers battle to diplomacy.

I suspect they're uncommon because there's little reason to trust someone making one. let's say Ee-gee and Eye-ee are neighbors who have been skirmishing. One of two things is true. Either one side has an advantage or both sides are about equal. If the former, there's no reason they shouldn't just press their advantage, if the latter, there's no reason to suddenly offer a contractual truce out of nowhere. If someone offers you a truce for X amount of time the question of "why?" comes up. If there's a larger third party coming to get you then you could formally ally into a coalition but a truce isn't an alliance so the person offering the truce probably knows something you don't. Maybe they want to pop an heir but know that slowing down production will let you win. Maybe they have an enemy encroaching on their far border and soon will no longer have the forces to keep fighting. And since truces only last for X amount of time then you can assume they're going to eventually want to come at you again and have some plan for the interim.

If you want to ally with someone you forge a formal alliance or union like the So-Be-It. Truces are just a fancy mexican standoff and whoever's offering one is A) your enemy and B) doing it for a reason.
easter wrote:
I suspect they're uncommon because there's little reason to trust someone making one. let's say Ee-gee and Eye-ee are neighbors who have been skirmishing. One of two things is true. Either one side has an advantage or both sides are about equal. If the former, there's no reason they shouldn't just press their advantage, if the latter, there's no reason to suddenly offer a contractual truce out of nowhere. If someone offers you a truce for X amount of time the question of "why?" comes up. If there's a larger third party coming to get you then you could formally ally into a coalition but a truce isn't an alliance so the person offering the truce probably knows something you don't. Maybe they want to pop an heir but know that slowing down production will let you win. Maybe they have an enemy encroaching on their far border and soon will no longer have the forces to keep fighting. And since truces only last for X amount of time then you can assume they're going to eventually want to come at you again and have some plan for the interim.

If you want to ally with someone you forge a formal alliance or union like the So-Be-It. Truces are just a fancy mexican standoff and whoever's offering one is A) your enemy and B) doing it for a reason.

Perfectly good reason to offer non-aggression terms if you have the advantage: you're fighting more than one side and can't afford to split your forces, but the other side doesn't know that.
Ozamataz Buckshank wrote:

Perfectly good reason to offer non-aggression terms if you have the advantage: you're fighting more than one side and can't afford to split your forces, but the other side doesn't know that.

Precisely my point. The only reason to OFFER non-agression terms is if you only LOOK like you have the advantage but actually don't, which means there's not much reason to ACCEPT a truce. Offering someone a truce from a position of perceived power is almost tacitly admitting that the position isn't as powerful as it looks or that you believe that at the end of the truce term you'll be in a position of far more relative power.
Really disappointed by the forced feeling of the romance happening here.
Forced romance? In this Comic?
Are you sure you have the right thread?
The only part whre there is something remotely resembling romance is in the part with Cesar and Bunny, and those two are supposed to be in a relationship. Considering that, their conversation is quite businesslike.
Mazikeens wrote:
Really disappointed by the forced feeling of the romance happening here.


Forced romance? Wait, Bunny and Caesar. People who have been dating for years in universe? How is it forced?