I actually see this mission going well, for two reasons:
A: Breaking the pattern. They went on a quest directly involving Gravy, it ended terribly. Same with Best and Bandit. Now they’re going on a quest to Syr’s homeland. If this goes as terribly as the last few did, I will lose faith in them as a party altogether.
B: They’re elves. Even assuming they’re xenophobic to the max, they’re a pretty peaceful people by nature. (of course, if you ignore the Gastonian propaganda.)
*Imagines various creative ways the father is going to threaten B with death, dismemberment, and horrible agony* I mean, a race of people who drink through their toes? They MUST have some pretty nasty threats when their daughter brings home the ‘out of race’ boyfriend..
Political discussions usually leave me cold, but you know what I like about this? They’re both well-rounded enough to give a good argument for their camp. I’m not sure this scene would work with anybody else in Syringe’s position.
I’m not so sure. Anyone who refers to an enemy as an “it” gave up long ago, at least if their code of ethics looks anything like mine. I’m not saying this makes Ardaic & kin amoral, but I will say that whatever moral code they have would invoke a “KILL IT WITH FIRE!” reaction from me.
Actually, it’s kind of a self-preservation thing. I read somewhere that a lot of soldiers tend to dehumanize their enemies, as a sort of defense against psychological damage from combat. The same article, as I recall, also mentioned that infantrymen have the hardest time of this, as they’re usually the closest to the enemy. Tank crews and combat pilots can concentrate more on the machine instead of the person/people controlling it. Politically, and even at higher command levels, yeah, never forget that your enemies are people too, but for the guys at the sharp and pointy end, it’s almost a required thing to do for most of them, at some level or another.
It’s especially true when said soldiers are continuously deployed in dubious conflicts far from home, where the objective has more to do with corporate profits than with defense of family and country.
Have you heard about the Christmas Truces of WWI? Back when we had real conflicts, soldiers didn’t need to deaden themselves to the humanity of their enemies.
That’s a property of bogus conflicts.
Not sure if you’re going to read this, but what the heck.
Setting aside just about everything you said (because, trust me, we will NOT agree on it). The Christmas truces during WWI (not sure if WWII had them as well, if they were as formalized as during WWI, etc.), really only worked because of the times (let’s face it, people were, by and large, more polite in the early 20th century than they are 100 years later), the fact that the tactical situation was so slow to change, and that the predominant religion in Europe at the time was Christianity.
Besides that, it’s not a recent thing. It became easier for a soldier to fight when the standard infantry weapon went from melee – the pike – to ranged – the longbow, and then the musket. The simple fact of the matter is that the farther away you’re fighting someone from, the easier – psychologically speaking – it is to fight.
It’s really misguided to bring “politeness” into it even if you eventually hit pay dirt by recognizing that both sides valued the same holiday. Customs change and etiquette is really subjective since it is essentially an informal agreement to honor the same things. Christmas truces don’t so much in warfare largely because warfare has become ideologically driven to the point that first world countries feel they can’t even make a blatant “Because we’re stronger” landgrab anymore without at least ginning up a cover story. If you go to war now, it’s probably going to be with people who have sufficiently different cultures that it becomes hard to even agree upon what the limits should be. If you could agree, you probably wouldn’t even be at war in the first place.
You’ll turn this all to hostility,
You are blinded by this futility,
Don’t utter rot, social mobility,
Don’t make yourself a liability.
You’re here to founder unity,
Useful only for diplomatic utility,
Your race is now your responsibility.
Ardaic wins this battle to me. Also that third panel, the solemn look of a man prepared to do his duty, no matter how distasteful.
Fun pattern we’re seeing here. The leaders on both sides seem largely unconcerned with the moral high ground. More about getting stuff done. I wonder if that could be indicative of reasons behind this war that the citizenry of both sides are unaware of.
When I listen to both sides, I hear Patton calling for enemy blood.
–Which makes for a cracking read.
“Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything, we’ll let the Troll do that. We are advancing constantly, and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose, and we’re going to kick him in the ass.”
We still haven’t gotten a good explanation why the Kid who was making hammertanks for Gastonia had also supplied the Savage Specops Strike team with the Kraken-summoning horn. Moral high ground got defiled before the conflict even started, I think.
Right, but it’s an interesting distinction since as we just saw recently and I’m pretty sure has been illustrated before, the soldiers and the general populace aren’t unconcerned with the moral highground at all.
Basically as near as I can gather those at the very bottom of the chain of command believe they have a holy cause and have done no wrong.
Those at the top of the chain of command are completely unconcerned with morality. They care about the big picture, the large-scale goal.
Now Syrnj and the gang seem to be in this middle-ground where they pretty much speak directly to one of the council members. They do care for the morality, but are forced to work in grey areas, and ultimately are always willing to do what has to be done if a more righteous alternative is unavailable.
Now, you’ll forgive me for traveling off into new territory, but just as I’m spelling it out like this it occurs to me that the nearest parallel on the other side would be that troll guy with the mechanical arm and whatnot. Don’t remember what his deal was, but there was that big ol fat thing eating decadently and then the troll guy marches in and clearly he’s aware of what’s going on and views this leader who by the sounds of things is similar in position to Ardiac as just short of a complete monster, but cedes that the fat thing’s leadership is necessary for what they’re trying to do. If I were to hazard a guess he and his group will become the primary antagonists of our little guild.
Ah, just looked through the cast page. A couple corrections and clarifications. Ardaic isn’t a council member. More of a military man than a politician I guess. The fat thing is Don Gobligno. Sounds like the troll was probably Harky and we all remember him.
I think one thing seperates Gastonia from the monsterous races.
They are willing to use diplomacy to minimize the losses. Not just to their own troops, but to the humanoids. It may be incidental, but at least they are still willing to perserve life.
The monsterous races are in full on kill the bastards mode.
Both sides are evil bastards, but one side at least is willing to give the enemy a chance to live. As for killing the bird…. It only makes military sense. She may be faking her stupidity. She can fly. She can represent quite the scout. High mobility, keen eyes, and now she has a reason to hate humanity.
Releasing her could easily supply the enemy with a tool that can greatly help them win the war. They have to kill her.. or worse, keep her in a gilded cage.
Keep in mind how she was caught, too. That was, for all intents and purposes, a spec ops strike behind enemy lines to cripple trade. You don’t get missions like that by being ‘kinda into’ the cause.
On the other hand, how would we feel about it, if the Taliban caught a specops team sent to landmine a landing strip, then proceed to turn over its members to an angry mob? Would we double our efforts to kill the hell out of them? Little bit.
Syrnj is right, they ought to split up the savage alliance, but then Gastonia probably drove the savage races out of their homelands, forcing the inevitable gang-up.
Good thing about how messed up Gastonia is, we won’t miss it if it accidentally gets flattened… if Tectonicus falls on his ass, for instance.
The Gastonians and the savage races are living in a “eat or be eaten” world right now, and it’s pretty much everyone for themselves. The Gastonians at least are willing to show some morality in many cases, where the racism I kepe people calling towards the Gastonians is probably just as muh, if not more, the case with the savage races, as you could have seen earlier in the comic.
Plus I certainly for one will miss it, with it having a lot of good people in it, guess you seem to have forgotten that :/
You mean in the way that the Dwarves and Goblins see their “allies”? From the last comic pages it was made quite clear that they don’t consider each other quite as “equal” as you might think.
Also last time I checked we still don’t know much about their relationship within their organisation, aside from the mistrust among each other as they were slaughtering that village.
As a show of good will, and to confuse you, I will direct your attention to the fate of the Orcs.
The savages are pretty savage. They’re ruled by selfish, brutal, uncaring bastards, willing to sacrifice their own for personal gain.
Thing is, so is Gastonia. Gastonians just dress nicer.
The only chance of better things comes from people who are not caught up in the hate that’s keeping Gastonia together.
Syrnj could win the war, Gravedust could win the war.
Ardaic? He can just prolong it.
The savages are pretty savage. They’re ruled by selfish, brutal, uncaring bastards, willing to sacrifice their own for personal gain.
–That’s a horrible thing to say about the Osmonds.
A lot of good people in it, that go to theatres to see minorities degrade themselves for money. Oh, yeah, that’s high culture right there.
Did you miss the part where all Gastonians are racist shitheels, with fake authoritarian religions and corrupt rulers (with psychopathic offspring)?
The other ones, Rachel, Bandit, E-merl, Scipio AREN’T really Gastonians, they’re players. So, no, not a lot to be missed.
Last I checked the savage races were the ones who are slaughtering/raping/pillaging! From your view I could just as well say that the savage races won’t be missed either!
Are you seriously trying to turn this around? Do you think I am pro-savage because I don’t agree with Gastonia? Don’t you think you’ve bought the bogus opposition a bit too much?
In wartime there is always this phony “you’re either with us or against us” crap being spouted, and always by the ones most eager to kill and maim for the hell of it. When GWB said it, the right response would have been “Grow out of it, you baby”.
The thing is, that real military strategy is never served by cruelty or mob mentality. It’s inefficient and ineffective, and tends to raise the enemy soldiers’ morale.
So excuse me for not condoning stupidity, least of all from those who should know better.
The World’s Rebellion is a coalition of several races (trolls, goblins, avians, gnolls, dwarves…) so I’d say they’re being plenty “diplomatic”. Gastonia is trying to assemble its alliance just now but unlike the Rebellion, which is united by a common cause (hatred/fear of Gastonia), the relations between humans, gnomes and sky elves are strained at best. Not that the Rebellion doesn’t have its share of inter-political shenanigans.
All in all I don’t see the “good guys” having much of an advantage diplomacy-wise, I’d even make a claim that the opposite is true.
Someone in the NHR Department (Non-Human Resources) forgot the Racebook invite for the Orcs. Perhaps they’re working on an HR office too… Assuming any are left.
I like the way you think.
Now let’s put on our conspiracy hats: The Horn led to the Hammertanks, yet they’re supposedly used by different sides in the conflict. How does this add up?
What if Gastonia is really in this, playing both sides, in order to screw over their “allies”, who being non-humans, obviously need to be brought to heel? Gastonia couldn’t touch the sky-elves without looking bad, but if they rile up the avians, maybe the avians will do their dirty work?
Gastonia couldn’t touch the wood-elves, but if they rile up the goblins, maybe the goblins will do their dirty work?
Repeat as necessary/ad nauseam.
And then when allies and enemies are worn down Gastonia will just wipe them all out. End the “non-human problem” once and for all.
The various refugee elves will of course be given housing.
In special camps.
With tall smokestacks.
As will gnomes and other disgusting abominations.
And they lived happily ever after.
Yeah, ok, I disagree. Gastonia is also perfectly willing to start a war with the wood elves over the wood elves’ timber. Not really consistent with the “steadfast, but fair” image you’re painting of them.
I agree. I was really hoping Ardaic wouldn’t be lumped in with the rest of the corruption, and he doesn’t seem to be. He just wants what’s best for his country, no matter the cost.
Being naive and causing suffering to your own people by not being willing to do grey area things is just as bad, if not even worse.
Keep in mind that you were raised in a time where you have gotten luxery not even the nobility of that time could dream of. Right now it’s eat or be eaten, and while his ways may seem unjust right now, in practice and “reality” that is sadly often how things go.
The grass is always greener on the other side, remember that!
That kind of thinking is what created Al Qaeda.
It was Reagan’s willingness to do “grey area things” that led him to send Osama to Afghanistan.
Also, “grey area things” is a name for “evil stuff that doesn’t work anyway, but makes macho idiots feel like they’re being effective”.
That crap never works as intended. But macho idiots are too dumb to ever learn from mistakes, so they’ll just keep doing them.
No offence to Andreas and Asterai, but I would have to disagree with your stand points here.
You just look at a situation at first glance, take some popular liberal based opinions, and then make a judgement without thinking through the consequences.
This isn’t in the present time, and I hardly doubt that the savage races are any less racist in this regard. Things in those times were never “black or white”, it’s always grey, and creating such a simple opinion of the world without realizing how the other races would react if they had the power and competence of the gastonians isn’t fair.
It’s like people talking about how bad the europeans were to the arabs during the crusades, and how the europeans were the “villains”, like in games such as Assassins creed and such.
What these people seem to forget is that those “poor suppressed arabians” first started by making the holy land unsafe with their fueled wars, as well as them at one time killing the christian population of Jerusalem at one point.
Not to mention that the Muslims at that time held spain tightly into their grip, which also fueled resentment amongst the europeans. With the situation at Jerusalem being the boiling point.
Yes, that’s right, the Muslims invaded europe FIRST. They weren’t poor suppressed people, nor were they monsters or anything. They were people like anyone. Funny thing is, only at the end of the 20th century did the arabs care again about the crusades. Before that time they couldn’t care less about that past, now all of a sudden they talk about how “evil the europeans truly are”. An old yet usefull propaganda tactic.
Funny thing is, amongst those Moors (the Muslim invaders who took control of spain, and only were pushed out the same year that the crusaders were pushed out of Jerusalem) were many Africans, so in a historical sence they also invaded europe, took europe’s riches, and took european slaves long before it became the way around. Only with the help of the Franks (the early French and Germans) and their Leader Martel, did they turn the tide. Funny how history works right? ;p
Perhaps that is also the case with these savage races? It might be a interesting feature :)
We didn’t start the fire. It was always burning since the world’s been turning.
…literally in this case. This conflict has probably actually been going since the very creation of this universe. Regardless I doubt this war’ll boil down to a simple “These guys are the evil ones who fucked everything up” type situation.
Interesting point though, dwarven society has been forced to live in the mountains after their desert was taken on account of the Gastonians or so the story goes. The thing is, I get the impression that dwarven society is pretty well situated and settled in the mountains at this point. Not like it’s a group of refugees camping there or anything. They’ve probably been in those mountains for generations. To further the point I don’t think we’ve actually seen much of a Gastonian presence in that desert. Whatever it is they were doing there I think it’s probably done. Certainly they didn’t populate the area and live there or anything. Whenever we’re in Gastonia the land seems pretty lush and green. Not a full-blown jungle or anything, but certainly not any kind of desert.
Not like I know a lot of history so I can’t speak to that, but there does seem to be enough within the story to reinforce the parallel.
“I would argue that it’s somewhat disingenuous to lump Greek and Roman empires into Europe, as they were both very different societies that invaded both Europe AND the Middle East.”
This!
The europe that we know now and it’s most known cultures originated from the Franks who united everyone against the invaders.
Sorry, but while it may sound politically correct to blame everything on europe, it isn’t historically correct.
Also, you seem to go out of your way to call gastonia a country that “should be destroyed”, while the savage races are I think far from any less racist/innocent. It’s called the grey areas, and being super duber (self?)critical isn’t always fair)
Grasping for straws much?
This europe comes from Rome. Rome came from Greece.
Lumping together the franks with Nazi germany makes as much sense as lumping together romans and franks. Except, of course, that the Franks were acting as Protectors of Rome, and were closer to roman times than to modern times.
Anyway, you still don’t share how it relates to supporting warmongering, torture and lynchings.
I could say the same about you supporting “warmongering, torture and lynching” when supporting the savage races like this. Last time I checked they were they were the ones doing that the most :/
And this europe may have gotten influence from europe, but after it’s fall the Franks took over. Sorry, but I would have to agree to disagree with you here :)
I do not support the savage races.
I just refuse to support savagery in the civilized races.
That’s my problem; you seem to think that engaging in savage cruelty is somehow more excusable to the civilized than to the savages, where in fact it is the opposite.
A third-grader can be expected to make spelling mistakes, those mistakes are more excusable than the spelling mistakes of a person with a Ph.d.
Also.. Your saying that you connect Nazi germany with the Franks? I could as well then connect all countries in the middle east with Al’quaida, or all countries in Africa to those “black supremist” groups they have there…
Sorry, but the Franks may have first acted as “protectors”, they quickly turned against the Romans once things went in their favor. The romans have always tried to suppress the Franks and the Germanic tribes after all, and once Rome fell the Franks took control of europe, created France and Germany and all the other countries in europe, and as such they are the ones from whom europe originated.
In the same way that your reasoning, I could as well say that the middle east has a connection to rome as well. Rome left a lot of influence in the middle east too, even more then it had on europe (see Islamic golden age), and the europeans (though supported by roman influence) had to largely push themselves towards the age of enlightenment themselves.
You were the one linking the franks and modern Europe. Nazi Germany was a part of the modern age of Europe. I am the one saying that the Franks, under Charlemagne – and Emperor of the Romans, had more in common with Rome than with Modern Europe. Since, like, he was in effect the ruler of the direct continuation of the Roman Empire, right down to his title.
And, for the last time, criticizing the civilized nations for indulging in acts of cruelty against prisoners, and failing to take advantage of tactical and strategic possibilities thereof is NOT the same as supporting their opposition. I hold Gastonia to a higher standard, because Gastonia has the potential for civilization, but fails to use it – whereas the savage races have a much longer way to go.
If the civilized nations allow themselves to torture prisoners and abducted civilians by waterboarding them in unmarked prisons outside protection of law, then they’re definitely on the slippery slope to inhumanity. And, torture doesn’t work.
Wait a minute… did you just say that you hold the Gastonians to a higher standard because, they’re like, the White Guys? And therefore the Master Race? I think all of the “races” we have seen in GA are dominated by racisism, and a medieval brutality, with only a minority of individuals listening to their better angels.
I assume that Gastonians have schools, and that having a money-based economy, would have people that can think for a living. That’s how culture usually progresses.
Sort of like the Dwarves used to have, before the usurpation.
I would argue that it’s somewhat disingenuous to lump Greek and Roman empires into Europe, as they were both very different societies that invaded both Europe AND the Middle East.
I would argue that every modern state in Europe or North America owes its present form directly to Rome.
They didn’t invade Europe. Europe was what came into existence due to their invasions. They invaded a bunch of hugely dissimilar nations, and left behind one single European culture (with local variations).
So, yeah, I’m saying that we, descendants of the Roman Empire, are lumpable with Rome, more than we are Lumpable with anybody else.
The europe that we know now originated truly when the Franks took over, and while they were influenced by the romans, they were NOT like the romans. The real europe that we know and which was united was united by the FRANKS, who used christianity to unite all the smaller pagan religions. The romans may have laid the foundation in a sence, but they did the same for the middle east. Difference is is that the Franks apparently were more competent and as such build a stronger europe.
The romans oppressed the middle east as much as they did europe itself, don’t get things twisted up here.
They did not. It was the Roman expansion that birthed Europe as a coherent area.
You two overlook the fact that the French and Spanish speak West Roman languages, and that these languages were not indigenous to those areas!
The west roman languages came into being due to the brilliant Roman tactics of seeding the provinces with well served legionnaires. The west roman protolanguage was most likely the “lingua legiones”, the form of Latin spoken by the non-romans legionnaires. The depth of influence required to supplant the indigenous languages CANNOT be underestimated. Rome was absorbed into Europe before it even wobbled. When it fell, it was already everywhere.
A vast majority of what made Rome ‘Rome’ was washed away with it’s fall. The buildings were torn down and even the paving stones torn up to build houses. The local governments collapsed and forms of administrative organization were entirely abandoned. The very term ‘Dark ages’ refers to the complete breakdown of the Roman political system and the reformation of those European states as their own respectable local authorities.
About all that was left was the conceptual importance of infrastructure, after seeing the effectiveness of roads and taxation. Roads hardly make one Roman.
Still not european :/ And they were still living in the middle east, so regardles of their race they were not from europe. No offence, but why are you going to such great lengths to portrait the europeans badly here? Is it because it’s politically correct?
I don’t care who started it to be honest, people are people, and there is no such thing as one race being more evil or guilty then the other one during that period. It was eat or be eaten back then.
Aaaaugh! You were the one who started harping about how the arabs started it!!! You! Not I.
This is your dead horse we’re beating, except you’ve yet to even hit it yet.
I don’t know why you’re so keen on justifying bad things with other bad things, it’s ridiculous. It’s the kind of thing people spout who want to justify tacitly supporting neo-nazies. Leave it already.
Also, it is Nielspeter’s argument which seems irrelevant, I have yet to hear how these historical misconceptions have to do with suggesting that Ardaic is in the right here.
I’m sorry, but that’s patently false. Charlemagne was ruler of the west roman empire, after rebuilding it, he just didn’t rule it from Rome.
The fact that the specific institutions of the Roman Empire were dismantled in the short period of disorder after the collapse of the authority of the city of Rome doesn’t mean that the culture – the thing that made the Roman empire an Empire, rather than a colonial military dictatorship – collapsed as well. It did not. It continued to exist, and the Church succeeded in absorbing a lot of the institutions, as well.
Sorry, but I don’t agree with you here saying that because the Romans ruled them for all those years, they were suddenly romans themselves. Yes, the romans did influence the Germanic tribes, but they also influenced the arabs, does that mean that the middle east is european as well? Or how about the 18th century colonies? The europeans spread a lot of their influence to said colonies, does that mean those are now “european” as ell? I don’t really think that the chinese will consider themselves european now because of your arguments to be honest.
And no, Charlemaine did learn a lot from the romans and took this over, but that doesn’t mean that the French were suddenly “roman” themselves.
What your doing here is a) accusing me of being historically incorrect, yet b) desperately trying to hold on to your statement that the europeans “started first” because of the Romans, while ignoring everyone else their arguments in that Rome fell, and while the rest of europe was influenced by them, they still had their OWN culture. Christmas for instance was based on a old pagan festival, as well as many other things.
And to get back to your question: My point is is that you see the bad sides of the Gastonians here, and suddenly say that “they deserve to be destroyed”. But I counter that argument saying that 1) there are definately a lot of good Gastonians and 2) the savage races appear to be worse.
Sorry to say this, but I think your basing this opinion on a comparison of the savage races being like “africans” and the Gastonians on “europeans”. And with the general unfair and outdated viewpoint of “europe was mean to everyone else in the past, but never the way around, because europeans and white people are evil”. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is pretty much what this boils down to.. It’s the worlds oldest cliche, and it’s getting old! The only difference between the europeans and the rest of the world was that they were more competent, and if I may be so bold, perhaps more kinder (like you could say the same for the gastonians), because for all their short comings, their racism and ignorance and all, they still fought for the freedom of the black man, they still created laws to protect people with a different ethic later on, they still send a lot of wellfare money to other nations once they were not that much in danger themselves anymore after they have gotten their wellfare. For all the flaws you keep seeing, you keep forgetting that things are never black nor white, and that the grass is always greener on the other side.
Charlemagne ruled nearly a thousand years after the Persian invasions of Greece. The Persian Empire included a huge chunk of inarguably Arabic lands. By your own logic, Arabs invaded Europe first.
You’re trying to argue that a NAME half century after the fact somehow suddenly alters nationality and descent, but it doesn’t. The name ‘Holy Roman’ is religious in origin and bears no actual authority beyond that which the church conveyed. What’s more, the Holy Roman Empire didn’t even come into its power until well after Charlemagne’s death, and by that point was a loose union of countries under individual princes. Even then, Charlegmagn was only crowned ‘Emperor’ by the pope because he’d CONQUERED Italy, not because he set out to establish a Roman Empire.
Again, suggesting that European powers are analogous with the Roman Empire is absurdism at its finest. Also, stop making me argue history while I’m drunk.
And what we learn from this is: A debate is when two open-minded people argue with the ability to accept the other may be right, and know when to quit.
It aint a debate when no-one is able to step back and admit they were wrong. Or even admit the possibility. Instead you defend the indefensible…. to the death. Which is a bit silly really.
Gotta say though, personally, im with Niel on this one- The idea that the flaws of an entire continent of nations can be traced back to one individual culture is… pretty insane. What your ultimately arguing here is human nature. And guess what… people are dicks.
Agreed. Anyway, these two still haven’t told me how that all relates to the Guilded Age…
Let’s just say that history is a work in progress and leave it at that.
Well there is the Lich queen ofcourse, though I think she’s going to be a raid boss in Mists of Pandaria along with Garrosh after seeing what kind of stunts she’s pulling in Cataclysm ^^;
Personally I feel like out of the two sides each has very corrupt officials at their top, but also those who are following their moral compass.
Ex: Ardiac for whatever racism he feels doesnt fight for fighting or money, he fights for his country.
One the other side Tharky and his Avian Aide seem to be doing what they feel is best for their people and see the slaughter of Gastonia’s people as good due to its history.
I see the only real corruption being in the Goblin leader, Iver (but only after the war started, not to say he wasn’t bad before, just that he felt that he was doing what was best), the two gnome professors, and pretty much all of the Gastonia’s Head Houses (and their kids judging from that one brat.)
This is gonna end well. I wonder if the wood elves are half as racist as the Gastonians?
Everyone is racist. And terrible. And evil.
There’s nothing awaiting us but misery and death. The good will perish, the evil will thrive.
Delete it all, purple-tie man. Just burn this mother down.
And all the humans and gnomes and elves will look up and shout, “Save us!”
And Bandit will whisper, “Pay in advance.”
Ha! Indeed.
Dolash used “Wild Optimism.”
It failed epically.
I actually see this mission going well, for two reasons:
A: Breaking the pattern. They went on a quest directly involving Gravy, it ended terribly. Same with Best and Bandit. Now they’re going on a quest to Syr’s homeland. If this goes as terribly as the last few did, I will lose faith in them as a party altogether.
B: They’re elves. Even assuming they’re xenophobic to the max, they’re a pretty peaceful people by nature. (of course, if you ignore the Gastonian propaganda.)
AHAHAHAHAAA!
Elves? Peaceful?
Seriously?
*Imagines various creative ways the father is going to threaten B with death, dismemberment, and horrible agony* I mean, a race of people who drink through their toes? They MUST have some pretty nasty threats when their daughter brings home the ‘out of race’ boyfriend..
“OH GOD! Is that his pollen all over you?!”
“No, Daddy! It was just that crude maple out front. You really should have him cut down for showering all your guests with… unborn maples.”
Damn elves always win at pointing appendages.
A game they often win, despite playing it by ear.
That was painful.
That was the point!
dur hur, point.
Panel three is awesome. Ardaic is the god damn MAN
Political discussions usually leave me cold, but you know what I like about this? They’re both well-rounded enough to give a good argument for their camp. I’m not sure this scene would work with anybody else in Syringe’s position.
I’m not so sure. Anyone who refers to an enemy as an “it” gave up long ago, at least if their code of ethics looks anything like mine. I’m not saying this makes Ardaic & kin amoral, but I will say that whatever moral code they have would invoke a “KILL IT WITH FIRE!” reaction from me.
Actually, it’s kind of a self-preservation thing. I read somewhere that a lot of soldiers tend to dehumanize their enemies, as a sort of defense against psychological damage from combat. The same article, as I recall, also mentioned that infantrymen have the hardest time of this, as they’re usually the closest to the enemy. Tank crews and combat pilots can concentrate more on the machine instead of the person/people controlling it. Politically, and even at higher command levels, yeah, never forget that your enemies are people too, but for the guys at the sharp and pointy end, it’s almost a required thing to do for most of them, at some level or another.
It’s especially true when said soldiers are continuously deployed in dubious conflicts far from home, where the objective has more to do with corporate profits than with defense of family and country.
Have you heard about the Christmas Truces of WWI? Back when we had real conflicts, soldiers didn’t need to deaden themselves to the humanity of their enemies.
That’s a property of bogus conflicts.
Not sure if you’re going to read this, but what the heck.
Setting aside just about everything you said (because, trust me, we will NOT agree on it). The Christmas truces during WWI (not sure if WWII had them as well, if they were as formalized as during WWI, etc.), really only worked because of the times (let’s face it, people were, by and large, more polite in the early 20th century than they are 100 years later), the fact that the tactical situation was so slow to change, and that the predominant religion in Europe at the time was Christianity.
Besides that, it’s not a recent thing. It became easier for a soldier to fight when the standard infantry weapon went from melee – the pike – to ranged – the longbow, and then the musket. The simple fact of the matter is that the farther away you’re fighting someone from, the easier – psychologically speaking – it is to fight.
It’s really misguided to bring “politeness” into it even if you eventually hit pay dirt by recognizing that both sides valued the same holiday. Customs change and etiquette is really subjective since it is essentially an informal agreement to honor the same things. Christmas truces don’t so much in warfare largely because warfare has become ideologically driven to the point that first world countries feel they can’t even make a blatant “Because we’re stronger” landgrab anymore without at least ginning up a cover story. If you go to war now, it’s probably going to be with people who have sufficiently different cultures that it becomes hard to even agree upon what the limits should be. If you could agree, you probably wouldn’t even be at war in the first place.
Also: “BKAW BKAWW!”
Bok bok Easter Bunny!
It’s not like they haven’t been feeding Yalaria well, they just cook cooked some tasty fried chic… er, I mean scrambled eg…
despite the seriousness of their argument, the first panel poses out of context make me chuckle.
You’ll turn this all to hostility,
You are blinded by this futility,
Don’t utter rot, social mobility,
Don’t make yourself a liability.
You’re here to founder unity,
Useful only for diplomatic utility,
Your race is now your responsibility.
Ardaic wins this battle to me. Also that third panel, the solemn look of a man prepared to do his duty, no matter how distasteful.
Re: alt text – that would depend on the POW’s lactose tolerance.
Alt text: Poor taste? Are you kidding? It’s DELICIOUS.
Oh, god… your avatar… your post …!! XD
<– We are going where? Oh, I hate that fucking place, can't see the fucking city for the fucking trees.
Gold Star.
Fun pattern we’re seeing here. The leaders on both sides seem largely unconcerned with the moral high ground. More about getting stuff done. I wonder if that could be indicative of reasons behind this war that the citizenry of both sides are unaware of.
When I listen to both sides, I hear Patton calling for enemy blood.
Not a lot of Eisenhower on either side out there calling for a peace afterward that everyone can live with.
When I listen to both sides, I hear Patton calling for enemy blood.
–Which makes for a cracking read.
“Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything, we’ll let the Troll do that. We are advancing constantly, and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose, and we’re going to kick him in the ass.”
We still haven’t gotten a good explanation why the Kid who was making hammertanks for Gastonia had also supplied the Savage Specops Strike team with the Kraken-summoning horn. Moral high ground got defiled before the conflict even started, I think.
I’m under the impression that both sides find the current moral highground by using jackhammers on bedrock….
Right, but it’s an interesting distinction since as we just saw recently and I’m pretty sure has been illustrated before, the soldiers and the general populace aren’t unconcerned with the moral highground at all.
Basically as near as I can gather those at the very bottom of the chain of command believe they have a holy cause and have done no wrong.
Those at the top of the chain of command are completely unconcerned with morality. They care about the big picture, the large-scale goal.
Now Syrnj and the gang seem to be in this middle-ground where they pretty much speak directly to one of the council members. They do care for the morality, but are forced to work in grey areas, and ultimately are always willing to do what has to be done if a more righteous alternative is unavailable.
Now, you’ll forgive me for traveling off into new territory, but just as I’m spelling it out like this it occurs to me that the nearest parallel on the other side would be that troll guy with the mechanical arm and whatnot. Don’t remember what his deal was, but there was that big ol fat thing eating decadently and then the troll guy marches in and clearly he’s aware of what’s going on and views this leader who by the sounds of things is similar in position to Ardiac as just short of a complete monster, but cedes that the fat thing’s leadership is necessary for what they’re trying to do. If I were to hazard a guess he and his group will become the primary antagonists of our little guild.
Ah, just looked through the cast page. A couple corrections and clarifications. Ardaic isn’t a council member. More of a military man than a politician I guess. The fat thing is Don Gobligno. Sounds like the troll was probably Harky and we all remember him.
I think one thing seperates Gastonia from the monsterous races.
They are willing to use diplomacy to minimize the losses. Not just to their own troops, but to the humanoids. It may be incidental, but at least they are still willing to perserve life.
The monsterous races are in full on kill the bastards mode.
Both sides are evil bastards, but one side at least is willing to give the enemy a chance to live. As for killing the bird…. It only makes military sense. She may be faking her stupidity. She can fly. She can represent quite the scout. High mobility, keen eyes, and now she has a reason to hate humanity.
Releasing her could easily supply the enemy with a tool that can greatly help them win the war. They have to kill her.. or worse, keep her in a gilded cage.
Oooh, stealth pun. *Golf Clap*
Keep in mind how she was caught, too. That was, for all intents and purposes, a spec ops strike behind enemy lines to cripple trade. You don’t get missions like that by being ‘kinda into’ the cause.
On the other hand, how would we feel about it, if the Taliban caught a specops team sent to landmine a landing strip, then proceed to turn over its members to an angry mob? Would we double our efforts to kill the hell out of them? Little bit.
Syrnj is right, they ought to split up the savage alliance, but then Gastonia probably drove the savage races out of their homelands, forcing the inevitable gang-up.
Good thing about how messed up Gastonia is, we won’t miss it if it accidentally gets flattened… if Tectonicus falls on his ass, for instance.
Still missing the point!
The Gastonians and the savage races are living in a “eat or be eaten” world right now, and it’s pretty much everyone for themselves. The Gastonians at least are willing to show some morality in many cases, where the racism I kepe people calling towards the Gastonians is probably just as muh, if not more, the case with the savage races, as you could have seen earlier in the comic.
Plus I certainly for one will miss it, with it having a lot of good people in it, guess you seem to have forgotten that :/
Savage races are on equal footing in relation to each other while Gastonia treats Gnomes and its other allies as 2nd class citizens.
You mean in the way that the Dwarves and Goblins see their “allies”? From the last comic pages it was made quite clear that they don’t consider each other quite as “equal” as you might think.
Also last time I checked we still don’t know much about their relationship within their organisation, aside from the mistrust among each other as they were slaughtering that village.
As a show of good will, and to confuse you, I will direct your attention to the fate of the Orcs.
The savages are pretty savage. They’re ruled by selfish, brutal, uncaring bastards, willing to sacrifice their own for personal gain.
Thing is, so is Gastonia. Gastonians just dress nicer.
The only chance of better things comes from people who are not caught up in the hate that’s keeping Gastonia together.
Syrnj could win the war, Gravedust could win the war.
Ardaic? He can just prolong it.
The savages are pretty savage. They’re ruled by selfish, brutal, uncaring bastards, willing to sacrifice their own for personal gain.
–That’s a horrible thing to say about the Osmonds.
A lot of good people in it, that go to theatres to see minorities degrade themselves for money. Oh, yeah, that’s high culture right there.
Did you miss the part where all Gastonians are racist shitheels, with fake authoritarian religions and corrupt rulers (with psychopathic offspring)?
The other ones, Rachel, Bandit, E-merl, Scipio AREN’T really Gastonians, they’re players. So, no, not a lot to be missed.
Last I checked the savage races were the ones who are slaughtering/raping/pillaging! From your view I could just as well say that the savage races won’t be missed either!
Are you seriously trying to turn this around? Do you think I am pro-savage because I don’t agree with Gastonia? Don’t you think you’ve bought the bogus opposition a bit too much?
In wartime there is always this phony “you’re either with us or against us” crap being spouted, and always by the ones most eager to kill and maim for the hell of it. When GWB said it, the right response would have been “Grow out of it, you baby”.
The thing is, that real military strategy is never served by cruelty or mob mentality. It’s inefficient and ineffective, and tends to raise the enemy soldiers’ morale.
So excuse me for not condoning stupidity, least of all from those who should know better.
That was, for all intents and purposes, a spec ops strike behind enemy lines to cripple trade.
–Or a REALLY involved Mentos ad.
The World’s Rebellion is a coalition of several races (trolls, goblins, avians, gnolls, dwarves…) so I’d say they’re being plenty “diplomatic”. Gastonia is trying to assemble its alliance just now but unlike the Rebellion, which is united by a common cause (hatred/fear of Gastonia), the relations between humans, gnomes and sky elves are strained at best. Not that the Rebellion doesn’t have its share of inter-political shenanigans.
All in all I don’t see the “good guys” having much of an advantage diplomacy-wise, I’d even make a claim that the opposite is true.
Someone in the NHR Department (Non-Human Resources) forgot the Racebook invite for the Orcs. Perhaps they’re working on an HR office too… Assuming any are left.
I like the way you think.
Now let’s put on our conspiracy hats: The Horn led to the Hammertanks, yet they’re supposedly used by different sides in the conflict. How does this add up?
What if Gastonia is really in this, playing both sides, in order to screw over their “allies”, who being non-humans, obviously need to be brought to heel? Gastonia couldn’t touch the sky-elves without looking bad, but if they rile up the avians, maybe the avians will do their dirty work?
Gastonia couldn’t touch the wood-elves, but if they rile up the goblins, maybe the goblins will do their dirty work?
Repeat as necessary/ad nauseam.
And then when allies and enemies are worn down Gastonia will just wipe them all out. End the “non-human problem” once and for all.
The various refugee elves will of course be given housing.
In special camps.
With tall smokestacks.
As will gnomes and other disgusting abominations.
And they lived happily ever after.
What do you think?
Orly?
Yeah, ok, I disagree. Gastonia is also perfectly willing to start a war with the wood elves over the wood elves’ timber. Not really consistent with the “steadfast, but fair” image you’re painting of them.
At least the expression on his face when she guesses correctly is an indication of some doubt in his own moral/ethical standing.
It’s boring to have unanimously evil enemies!
+1. It’s a thin difference but it’s there.
I agree. I was really hoping Ardaic wouldn’t be lumped in with the rest of the corruption, and he doesn’t seem to be. He just wants what’s best for his country, no matter the cost.
“No matter the cost” – Something I’d consider horrific in and of itself.
Being naive and causing suffering to your own people by not being willing to do grey area things is just as bad, if not even worse.
Keep in mind that you were raised in a time where you have gotten luxery not even the nobility of that time could dream of. Right now it’s eat or be eaten, and while his ways may seem unjust right now, in practice and “reality” that is sadly often how things go.
The grass is always greener on the other side, remember that!
No matter the cost isn’t a phrase that implies dwelling exclusively in moral greys. If anything it explicitly states otherwise.
Nor does it specify only eating those who would eat you. Hardly a qualifier rooted in self-defense or self-preservation.
That kind of thinking is what created Al Qaeda.
It was Reagan’s willingness to do “grey area things” that led him to send Osama to Afghanistan.
Also, “grey area things” is a name for “evil stuff that doesn’t work anyway, but makes macho idiots feel like they’re being effective”.
That crap never works as intended. But macho idiots are too dumb to ever learn from mistakes, so they’ll just keep doing them.
He’s just upset his pawn is showing dangerous intelligence. He’d hate to have to dispose of her before her usefulness is expended.
You know? They gave “amnesty” to Syrnj and Gravedust… benevolently abstaining from killing them for their ethnicity?
It’s not hard to imagine what would happen if they win.
-nods- Indeed. Like The Believer from Serenity.
Gratuitous quoting ahead, so my apologies.
“So me and mine need to lay down and die so you can have your perfect world?”
” ‘I’m’ not going to live there. There’s no place for me there. What I do is evil, I have no illusions about that. I’m a monster Mal.”
as for the alt text, it would only be in poor taste if it was a pound cake
If not whipped cream, then what?
POWdered sugar?
I’d go with confessioner’s sugar.
No offence to Andreas and Asterai, but I would have to disagree with your stand points here.
You just look at a situation at first glance, take some popular liberal based opinions, and then make a judgement without thinking through the consequences.
This isn’t in the present time, and I hardly doubt that the savage races are any less racist in this regard. Things in those times were never “black or white”, it’s always grey, and creating such a simple opinion of the world without realizing how the other races would react if they had the power and competence of the gastonians isn’t fair.
It’s like people talking about how bad the europeans were to the arabs during the crusades, and how the europeans were the “villains”, like in games such as Assassins creed and such.
What these people seem to forget is that those “poor suppressed arabians” first started by making the holy land unsafe with their fueled wars, as well as them at one time killing the christian population of Jerusalem at one point.
Not to mention that the Muslims at that time held spain tightly into their grip, which also fueled resentment amongst the europeans. With the situation at Jerusalem being the boiling point.
Yes, that’s right, the Muslims invaded europe FIRST. They weren’t poor suppressed people, nor were they monsters or anything. They were people like anyone. Funny thing is, only at the end of the 20th century did the arabs care again about the crusades. Before that time they couldn’t care less about that past, now all of a sudden they talk about how “evil the europeans truly are”. An old yet usefull propaganda tactic.
Funny thing is, amongst those Moors (the Muslim invaders who took control of spain, and only were pushed out the same year that the crusaders were pushed out of Jerusalem) were many Africans, so in a historical sence they also invaded europe, took europe’s riches, and took european slaves long before it became the way around. Only with the help of the Franks (the early French and Germans) and their Leader Martel, did they turn the tide. Funny how history works right? ;p
Perhaps that is also the case with these savage races? It might be a interesting feature :)
good call, historically speaking that is quite accurate.
We didn’t start the fire. It was always burning since the world’s been turning.
…literally in this case. This conflict has probably actually been going since the very creation of this universe. Regardless I doubt this war’ll boil down to a simple “These guys are the evil ones who fucked everything up” type situation.
Interesting point though, dwarven society has been forced to live in the mountains after their desert was taken on account of the Gastonians or so the story goes. The thing is, I get the impression that dwarven society is pretty well situated and settled in the mountains at this point. Not like it’s a group of refugees camping there or anything. They’ve probably been in those mountains for generations. To further the point I don’t think we’ve actually seen much of a Gastonian presence in that desert. Whatever it is they were doing there I think it’s probably done. Certainly they didn’t populate the area and live there or anything. Whenever we’re in Gastonia the land seems pretty lush and green. Not a full-blown jungle or anything, but certainly not any kind of desert.
Not like I know a lot of history so I can’t speak to that, but there does seem to be enough within the story to reinforce the parallel.
I’m afraid you have that the other way around, bud. The dwarves were in the mountains first, then ousted to the desert.
Srsly. :|
So apparently Arkerran history is also not my best subject.
It’s OK. We don’t make it easy.
Bad call, and historically quite inaccurate.
Check out these people : Alexander the Great and Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
So, you have that backwards. Europe started it.
But… what did that all have to do with supporting immoral warmongers… I seem to have missed a connection, there.
“I would argue that it’s somewhat disingenuous to lump Greek and Roman empires into Europe, as they were both very different societies that invaded both Europe AND the Middle East.”
This!
The europe that we know now and it’s most known cultures originated from the Franks who united everyone against the invaders.
Sorry, but while it may sound politically correct to blame everything on europe, it isn’t historically correct.
Also, you seem to go out of your way to call gastonia a country that “should be destroyed”, while the savage races are I think far from any less racist/innocent. It’s called the grey areas, and being super duber (self?)critical isn’t always fair)
Grasping for straws much?
This europe comes from Rome. Rome came from Greece.
Lumping together the franks with Nazi germany makes as much sense as lumping together romans and franks. Except, of course, that the Franks were acting as Protectors of Rome, and were closer to roman times than to modern times.
Anyway, you still don’t share how it relates to supporting warmongering, torture and lynchings.
I could say the same about you supporting “warmongering, torture and lynching” when supporting the savage races like this. Last time I checked they were they were the ones doing that the most :/
And this europe may have gotten influence from europe, but after it’s fall the Franks took over. Sorry, but I would have to agree to disagree with you here :)
I do not support the savage races.
I just refuse to support savagery in the civilized races.
That’s my problem; you seem to think that engaging in savage cruelty is somehow more excusable to the civilized than to the savages, where in fact it is the opposite.
A third-grader can be expected to make spelling mistakes, those mistakes are more excusable than the spelling mistakes of a person with a Ph.d.
Also.. Your saying that you connect Nazi germany with the Franks? I could as well then connect all countries in the middle east with Al’quaida, or all countries in Africa to those “black supremist” groups they have there…
Sorry, but the Franks may have first acted as “protectors”, they quickly turned against the Romans once things went in their favor. The romans have always tried to suppress the Franks and the Germanic tribes after all, and once Rome fell the Franks took control of europe, created France and Germany and all the other countries in europe, and as such they are the ones from whom europe originated.
In the same way that your reasoning, I could as well say that the middle east has a connection to rome as well. Rome left a lot of influence in the middle east too, even more then it had on europe (see Islamic golden age), and the europeans (though supported by roman influence) had to largely push themselves towards the age of enlightenment themselves.
*And this europe may have gotten influence from rome*
This is why I shoudn’t post so late XD
You were the one linking the franks and modern Europe. Nazi Germany was a part of the modern age of Europe. I am the one saying that the Franks, under Charlemagne – and Emperor of the Romans, had more in common with Rome than with Modern Europe. Since, like, he was in effect the ruler of the direct continuation of the Roman Empire, right down to his title.
And, for the last time, criticizing the civilized nations for indulging in acts of cruelty against prisoners, and failing to take advantage of tactical and strategic possibilities thereof is NOT the same as supporting their opposition. I hold Gastonia to a higher standard, because Gastonia has the potential for civilization, but fails to use it – whereas the savage races have a much longer way to go.
If the civilized nations allow themselves to torture prisoners and abducted civilians by waterboarding them in unmarked prisons outside protection of law, then they’re definitely on the slippery slope to inhumanity. And, torture doesn’t work.
Wait a minute… did you just say that you hold the Gastonians to a higher standard because, they’re like, the White Guys? And therefore the Master Race? I think all of the “races” we have seen in GA are dominated by racisism, and a medieval brutality, with only a minority of individuals listening to their better angels.
Ah, finally a valid argument! Ouch!
I assume that Gastonians have schools, and that having a money-based economy, would have people that can think for a living. That’s how culture usually progresses.
Sort of like the Dwarves used to have, before the usurpation.
I would argue that it’s somewhat disingenuous to lump Greek and Roman empires into Europe, as they were both very different societies that invaded both Europe AND the Middle East.
I would argue that every modern state in Europe or North America owes its present form directly to Rome.
They didn’t invade Europe. Europe was what came into existence due to their invasions. They invaded a bunch of hugely dissimilar nations, and left behind one single European culture (with local variations).
So, yeah, I’m saying that we, descendants of the Roman Empire, are lumpable with Rome, more than we are Lumpable with anybody else.
The romans didn’t invade europe?…
Sorry, but I call bull! XD
The europe that we know now originated truly when the Franks took over, and while they were influenced by the romans, they were NOT like the romans. The real europe that we know and which was united was united by the FRANKS, who used christianity to unite all the smaller pagan religions. The romans may have laid the foundation in a sence, but they did the same for the middle east. Difference is is that the Franks apparently were more competent and as such build a stronger europe.
The romans oppressed the middle east as much as they did europe itself, don’t get things twisted up here.
They did not. It was the Roman expansion that birthed Europe as a coherent area.
You two overlook the fact that the French and Spanish speak West Roman languages, and that these languages were not indigenous to those areas!
The west roman languages came into being due to the brilliant Roman tactics of seeding the provinces with well served legionnaires. The west roman protolanguage was most likely the “lingua legiones”, the form of Latin spoken by the non-romans legionnaires. The depth of influence required to supplant the indigenous languages CANNOT be underestimated. Rome was absorbed into Europe before it even wobbled. When it fell, it was already everywhere.
A vast majority of what made Rome ‘Rome’ was washed away with it’s fall. The buildings were torn down and even the paving stones torn up to build houses. The local governments collapsed and forms of administrative organization were entirely abandoned. The very term ‘Dark ages’ refers to the complete breakdown of the Roman political system and the reformation of those European states as their own respectable local authorities.
About all that was left was the conceptual importance of infrastructure, after seeing the effectiveness of roads and taxation. Roads hardly make one Roman.
Also, this whole argument is irrelevant, because the Persians started it. Darius the First was here: Alexander is small time.
Also this!
Happy to see some others at least understand their history :)
Understanding history and agreeing with you are not necessarily the same.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Persians are an Indoeuropean people, nothing to do with Arabs.
Still not european :/ And they were still living in the middle east, so regardles of their race they were not from europe. No offence, but why are you going to such great lengths to portrait the europeans badly here? Is it because it’s politically correct?
I don’t care who started it to be honest, people are people, and there is no such thing as one race being more evil or guilty then the other one during that period. It was eat or be eaten back then.
Aaaaugh! You were the one who started harping about how the arabs started it!!! You! Not I.
This is your dead horse we’re beating, except you’ve yet to even hit it yet.
I don’t know why you’re so keen on justifying bad things with other bad things, it’s ridiculous. It’s the kind of thing people spout who want to justify tacitly supporting neo-nazies. Leave it already.
Also, it is Nielspeter’s argument which seems irrelevant, I have yet to hear how these historical misconceptions have to do with suggesting that Ardaic is in the right here.
I’m sorry, but that’s patently false. Charlemagne was ruler of the west roman empire, after rebuilding it, he just didn’t rule it from Rome.
The fact that the specific institutions of the Roman Empire were dismantled in the short period of disorder after the collapse of the authority of the city of Rome doesn’t mean that the culture – the thing that made the Roman empire an Empire, rather than a colonial military dictatorship – collapsed as well. It did not. It continued to exist, and the Church succeeded in absorbing a lot of the institutions, as well.
Sorry, but I don’t agree with you here saying that because the Romans ruled them for all those years, they were suddenly romans themselves. Yes, the romans did influence the Germanic tribes, but they also influenced the arabs, does that mean that the middle east is european as well? Or how about the 18th century colonies? The europeans spread a lot of their influence to said colonies, does that mean those are now “european” as ell? I don’t really think that the chinese will consider themselves european now because of your arguments to be honest.
And no, Charlemaine did learn a lot from the romans and took this over, but that doesn’t mean that the French were suddenly “roman” themselves.
What your doing here is a) accusing me of being historically incorrect, yet b) desperately trying to hold on to your statement that the europeans “started first” because of the Romans, while ignoring everyone else their arguments in that Rome fell, and while the rest of europe was influenced by them, they still had their OWN culture. Christmas for instance was based on a old pagan festival, as well as many other things.
And to get back to your question: My point is is that you see the bad sides of the Gastonians here, and suddenly say that “they deserve to be destroyed”. But I counter that argument saying that 1) there are definately a lot of good Gastonians and 2) the savage races appear to be worse.
Sorry to say this, but I think your basing this opinion on a comparison of the savage races being like “africans” and the Gastonians on “europeans”. And with the general unfair and outdated viewpoint of “europe was mean to everyone else in the past, but never the way around, because europeans and white people are evil”. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is pretty much what this boils down to.. It’s the worlds oldest cliche, and it’s getting old! The only difference between the europeans and the rest of the world was that they were more competent, and if I may be so bold, perhaps more kinder (like you could say the same for the gastonians), because for all their short comings, their racism and ignorance and all, they still fought for the freedom of the black man, they still created laws to protect people with a different ethic later on, they still send a lot of wellfare money to other nations once they were not that much in danger themselves anymore after they have gotten their wellfare. For all the flaws you keep seeing, you keep forgetting that things are never black nor white, and that the grass is always greener on the other side.
That’s all there is to it.
Charlemagne ruled nearly a thousand years after the Persian invasions of Greece. The Persian Empire included a huge chunk of inarguably Arabic lands. By your own logic, Arabs invaded Europe first.
You’re trying to argue that a NAME half century after the fact somehow suddenly alters nationality and descent, but it doesn’t. The name ‘Holy Roman’ is religious in origin and bears no actual authority beyond that which the church conveyed. What’s more, the Holy Roman Empire didn’t even come into its power until well after Charlemagne’s death, and by that point was a loose union of countries under individual princes. Even then, Charlegmagn was only crowned ‘Emperor’ by the pope because he’d CONQUERED Italy, not because he set out to establish a Roman Empire.
Again, suggesting that European powers are analogous with the Roman Empire is absurdism at its finest. Also, stop making me argue history while I’m drunk.
And what we learn from this is: A debate is when two open-minded people argue with the ability to accept the other may be right, and know when to quit.
It aint a debate when no-one is able to step back and admit they were wrong. Or even admit the possibility. Instead you defend the indefensible…. to the death. Which is a bit silly really.
Gotta say though, personally, im with Niel on this one- The idea that the flaws of an entire continent of nations can be traced back to one individual culture is… pretty insane. What your ultimately arguing here is human nature. And guess what… people are dicks.
Agreed. Anyway, these two still haven’t told me how that all relates to the Guilded Age…
Let’s just say that history is a work in progress and leave it at that.
Oh, and by the way, suck on this : http://guildedage.net/webcomic/chapter-5/chapter-5-page-9/
Damn skippy.
Well, I would say “kill them all and let Arthas raise them to the Scourge” but we killed Arthas.
Well there is the Lich queen ofcourse, though I think she’s going to be a raid boss in Mists of Pandaria along with Garrosh after seeing what kind of stunts she’s pulling in Cataclysm ^^;
Personally I feel like out of the two sides each has very corrupt officials at their top, but also those who are following their moral compass.
Ex: Ardiac for whatever racism he feels doesnt fight for fighting or money, he fights for his country.
One the other side Tharky and his Avian Aide seem to be doing what they feel is best for their people and see the slaughter of Gastonia’s people as good due to its history.
I see the only real corruption being in the Goblin leader, Iver (but only after the war started, not to say he wasn’t bad before, just that he felt that he was doing what was best), the two gnome professors, and pretty much all of the Gastonia’s Head Houses (and their kids judging from that one brat.)