Book 3 - Page 162

You better brace yourself, before you erase yourself

Book 3 - Page 162
Comic - Book 3 - Page 162
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Fla_Panther wrote:

IIRC the deal was that CC would reimburse GK for any damage she does though.

Charlie reimbursed them for the damage done. I don't see any clause saying he has to pay for any future damage.
zilfallon wrote:
Crisco wrote:
they can defend themselves, they just can't harm/croak Jillian herself

Not being able to deal damage or croak a Level 10 warlord is kinda big problem :D Sure, there are ways, but they won't be able to just disintegrate her into nothing with tower spells.


I had this whole argument about how since CC was able to imprison (well, keep imprisoned) and non-lethally harm Lillith without violating the contract, GK would be able to do the same to Jillian, but then I reread the relevant section and saw that it doesn't use the "material harm" language that the other bit does:

Section 4, Part I wrote:
b. GK agrees not to attempt to cause harm by any means to the units, allies, property or material interests of FAQ, except in the event that GK interests are physically attacked or threatened by FAQ. Even in the event of such provocation, GK shall not cause bodily harm to, or destruction of, JILLIAN, by any means, directly or indirectly. Failure to abide by this clause shall trigger full default of the agreement.


"Bodily harm" definitely seems more restrictive than "material harm", so while GK might be able to imprison her (if they had some way of doing so that didn't involve bodily harm), they definitely couldn't cause-harm-but-not-croak as CC did with Lillith. (I suppose the distinction between "continuing prisoner status" and "causing prisoner status" may be an important one as well; that seems unlikely, but one of the Archons at the portal did stop mid-command to surrender.)

Nightseraph wrote:

Something that may matter. Just re-read the faq section of the agreement, and something very much caught my eye. In section 4, part 1,b of the agreement Faq's allies are protected from GWK unless Faq is attacking GWK.
Does Transylvito have protection from Stanley that they don't know about, and was that another trap from Charlie, set for Parson? Is Jillian about to leave TV vulnerable, without even realizing that she is doing so?


Well spotted (quoted this bit above as well for reference) - what are the chances that Stanley, missing most of the advisors who would normally caution him against this, winds up trying to forcibly rescue Parson and having to beat a hasty retreat?

ManaCaster wrote:
Fla_Panther wrote:

IIRC the deal was that CC would reimburse GK for any damage she does though.

Charlie reimbursed them for the damage done. I don't see any clause saying he has to pay for any future damage.


Agreed. It actually doesn't even say that CC was paying for what Jillian did at all, which is interesting:

Section 4, Part II wrote:
a. CC agrees to immediately, upon Signing of the agreement by both parties, remit the sum of 227,800 Shmuckers directly from CC's treasury to the treasury of GK. This shall constitute payment in full for all damages inflicted up GK by CC prior to the Signing of the agreement.
Sorator wrote:
"Bodily harm" definitely seems more restrictive than "material harm"


I disagree. I think bodily harm is less restrictive, as it leaves open the opportunity to mentally/psychologically harm her (CC's favorite!).

Sorator wrote:
so while GK might be able to imprison her (if they had some way of doing so that didn't involve bodily harm)


Too bad Wanda screwed that up. If her spell were still active that would work.

Section 4, Part II wrote:
a. CC agrees to immediately, upon Signing of the agreement by both parties, remit the sum of 227,800 Shmuckers directly from CC's treasury to the treasury of GK. This shall constitute payment in full for all damages inflicted up GK by CC prior to the Signing of the agreement.


Okay, thanks. I forgot that was only to repay them for past losses, I thought they were allowed to retaliate but not attack, and they'd be reimbursed for additional losses caused by FAQ. But as you just pointed out, that was incorrect.
I still think that one of the most interesting clauses of the entire contract is that Signamancy defines every term in every clause based on the intent and understanding of the signatories at the time of the signing. So, while we've been arguing over what the legal definition of 'material harm' or 'bodily harm' might be, those terms don't strictly speaking have to use common language definitions if Charlie's intent was different than common language and Parson wasn't focusing his intent properly (which seems likely, since he didn't really understand how the contract automagically worked.)

So, I think it is possible (maybe even likely) that the reason Lilith's torture didn't count as a violation is because Charlie never intended it to count as a violation. He knew at the time of signing the truce what he was going to do to Lilith. His intent regarding Lilith could probably have affected the limits of the truce as a result.
kaylasdad99 wrote:
I have a question about the Zero Baron's raiment. What is the emblem at his sternum?

Do you mean the zero? If so, it's just stylized a bit, with the slash through it (which is the difference between a zero and an oh in some fonts) a bit larger than normal.
Godzfirefly wrote:
kaylasdad99 wrote:
I have a question about the Zero Baron's raiment. What is the emblem at his sternum?

Do you mean the zero? If so, it's just stylized a bit, with the slash through it (which is the difference between a zero and an oh in some fonts) a bit larger than normal.

A BIT larger than normal? It looks like a spell scroll.
Fla_Panther wrote:
Crisco wrote:
Da Contract wrote:
Whereas, the Parties recognize the other as a sovereign side, the agreement shall not consider the actions of trade, alliance, diplomacy, or any agreements with other parties with regard to their effect on the other Party under the terms of the agreement, except as previously noted.


Emphasis altered.

(... Pray I don't alter it any further??)

Did...did you have commentary on that, or just feel like requoting something? I ignored that part for the purposes of discussion, because there was nothing previously noted in the contract (that I saw) which would be relevant to the transfer/ransom/etc of prisoners among other sides.
kaylasdad99 wrote:
I have a question about the Zero Baron's raiment. What is the emblem at his sternum?
I'm not sure, but it is presumably his personal livery, much like Wanda's skull. All Commanders have a personal insignia, but very few actually use it on their raiment. I don't know the canon details of the character's backstory yet, that will have to wait until I get my Caster Profile published.

As for what precisely the image is, it looks to me like the number Zero with something bisecting it. Possibly a horn, signifying that he's natively a Rhyme-o-mancer?
Fla_Panther wrote:
Sorator wrote:
"Bodily harm" definitely seems more restrictive than "material harm"


I disagree. I think bodily harm is less restrictive, as it leaves open the opportunity to mentally/psychologically harm her (CC's favorite!).


Eh, I suppose they're just different. I was thinking along the lines of "some bodily harm doesn't count as material harm, so prohibiting bodily harm is more restrictive" but you're absolutely right that there can be non-bodily material harm as well.

Godzfirefly wrote:
I still think that one of the most interesting clauses of the entire contract is that Signamancy defines every term in every clause based on the intent and understanding of the signatories at the time of the signing. So, while we've been arguing over what the legal definition of 'material harm' or 'bodily harm' might be, those terms don't strictly speaking have to use common language definitions if Charlie's intent was different than common language and Parson wasn't focusing his intent properly (which seems likely, since he didn't really understand how the contract automagically worked.)

So, I think it is possible (maybe even likely) that the reason Lilith's torture didn't count as a violation is because Charlie never intended it to count as a violation. He knew at the time of signing the truce what he was going to do to Lilith. His intent regarding Lilith could probably have affected the limits of the truce as a result.


Valid point - but I think the definition is set for the purpose of this contract and is consistent for both sides. If CC can do that to Lilith, then Parson could do the same to a CC unit, because it uses the same language for them both. It may well be that Parson doesn't know where that bar is set, though, and thus isn't aware of the options he has... which seems very Charlie-esque.

Again, doesn't matter with regard to Jillian since that uses different language.

Crisco wrote:
Fla_Panther wrote:
Crisco wrote:
Whereas, the Parties recognize the other as a sovereign side, the agreement shall not consider the actions of trade, alliance, diplomacy, or any agreements with other parties with regard to their effect on the other Party under the terms of the agreement, except as previously noted.


Emphasis altered.

(... Pray I don't alter it any further??)

Did...did you have commentary on that, or just feel like requoting something? I ignored that part for the purposes of discussion, because there was nothing previously noted in the contract (that I saw) which would be relevant to the transfer/ransom/etc of prisoners among other sides.


I would imagine that they were (trying to) point out that all of the contract language about "don't do material harm to each other" still stands because of that last bit. If something qualifies as material harm, then it will still be a breach of the contract even if it's done through alliance/diplomacy/etc.

However, I agree with your conclusion in the post quoted: that CC buying the prisoners is fine, but turning them is not.
kaylasdad99 wrote:
I have a question about the Zero Baron's raiment. What is the emblem at his sternum?
For anyone who is curious, I've gotten confirmation that the emblem is indeed his personal crest, akin to Wanda's flower skull and Parson's shirt. The exact design is the number 0 with a slash through it as is seen in certain fonts. But it uses the bar of an iron cross (a la the Red Baron, etc) in lieu of a standard slash.