Annotated 3-10
Ask me what my biggest writing pet peeve is and it’s not even close: it’s the use of pure torture and intimidation to extract information. Byron’s narration is a pretty good explanation of why this does not work. But I understand why it keeps showing up regardless: action stories rarely have time for more realistic interrogation methods, and just shouting the truth out of somebody is an appealing power fantasy.
Regarding the alt text: I guess Phil changed his mind about who he heard Sundar as. Still sounds like Peg Leg Pete to me, but Patrick Warburton is an old favorite too.
I cannot imagine Sundar with Patrick Warburton’s voice. He’s the voice of Brock Sampson and Sundar is no Brock Sampson. Now Scipio I can imagine with Warburton’s voice. All that being said Peg Leg Pete as voiced by Jim Cummings would be a suitable voice actor for Sundar.
Yeah but Warburton is also the voice of Flynn in the Skylander’s games so I can definitely hear that voice for this.
Interestingly I had trouble hearing Sundar with Pete’s voice when it was brought up before, but this one’s seamless for me.
Said it before, I’ll say it again: John DiMaggio
The two men in the last panel are the bystanders from the previous page, and here it is important that they are men, to establish that not only women react that way to Best. Also if they were women, then Syr’Nj might get green with envy. I mean greener.
Good inquisitor/bad inquisitor is one common strategy. If you already have a bunch of information but the subject doesn’t know how much, the other strategy is to start by asking about things you already know and punish them only when they lie or hesitate to answer. Once you’ve got them conditioned to reflexively tell the truth, then you start mixing in questions you don’t already know the answers to.
Either method takes more time than TV dramas or movies can spend on it, hence the caricature of interrogation techniques you see there.