I really don’t see this being to the death. Penk and Harky like and respect each other too much for that, and it’s pretty clear from this panel alone that this is merely a disagreement between their leading philosophies.
Besides, Gravy didn’t show off his chiropractic skills. Unfortunately.
I’d like to think it may not be to the death either, though given how quickly trolls regenerate, unless one surrenders, I can’t see a situation where one cannot continue fighting unless they are dead.
I feel like the mechanics of troll regeneration haven’t been well established enough to tell. I seem to recall there being a case of a troll being traumatized into unconsciousness (either Harky or Penk waking up with lots of new scars), though.
Heck, if Harky had second thoughts, he could get out of it without losing face by declaring that the fight between Gravedust and Iver showed where Tectonicus stood on the issue. Since Iver can be said to represent the ‘kill all humans’ viewpoint while Gravedust represents the Peacemaker viewpoint.
I doubt that’s the Troll way though, so it would be difficult for them to accept it.
What IS possible, however, is for him to go down a little sooner than he otherwise would, or to intentionally make a mistake which allows his opponent to knock him out after he’s been wounded, or some other way to throw the fight in a way the overexcited crowd won’t notice or question.
Whatever happens, it will be a long and intense fight. The two are evenly matched now. A troll Warchief at (or slightly past) the peak of his power, and a younger one with the power of Tectonicus inside him.
I expect if Harky is gonna throw the fight, it’s gonna be in a way where they’re already both past their limits.
Now, that’s not true! I mean, a lot of the time, yes, but I can always point to Ghandi. Who got shot for being too non-bigoted. Which is…unfortunate in several ways, and bitterly ironic, given the alt text, but still, non-bigot to power at least once! XD
Wait, wait, Mandela wasn’t much of a bigot either! Two! XD
I can’t help but draw parallels between Gravedust and President Trump. I could easily see the latter having had the former’s reaction once the full weight of his victory sank in.
Also that he’s going to be looked at askance for things the other guy would’ve gotten away with “oh yeah he does that”.
And of course that he’s taken the place that would otherwise have ended up filled with another exponent of the established elite who’ve been not even trying to fix things, just making a good^Wgreat show of promising^Wpretending but not ever delivering. After having dumped all of the western world pretty deep down the crapper (see e.g. _Against All Enemies_ by Richard A. Clarke).
In that light, no I don’t like this guy for oh so many reasons but oh boy was it necessary somebody from outside the “bipartisan” uniparty got elected, and the continuing butt-hurt over it is getting mighty tiring. I’m saying that as someone on another continent bereft of a vote in that election but sure a recipient of the fall-out.
On a lighter note, Gravedust will find that Iver is still around and not at all powerless. “You keep what you kill” is a sight simpler.
Non-American here, I don’t get the feeling Trump is doing much outside the regular Republican shtick except embarassing himself and his administration at almost every turn.
As a non-USA…nian, I guess… Regardless – as not a citizen of that country, I can tell you that, from my neighbourhood point of view, Trump on the timestamp of this comment has done far, far fewer embarrassing things than any of three USA presidents before him. Granted, I’m a bit hazy on Reagan era, and couldn’t care less about Carter and random phuckers before him – but, to my remembrance, it was a shiteshow of magnificent proportions. Bush senior was ok, as far as prejudicate brain-dead bigot goes, but that’s it. Clinton was a maniacal avatar of corruption; Bush jr – living testament to the truth of creationism, for nothing that retarded can be a result of darwinian evolution; O’Bama – allow any inmate to run the asylum, and said inmate, without any doubt, would be far more decent administrator and politician. Under them, USA went from aggressor-state of cowardly slaves under despotic rule of fanatical terrorist regime, profiteering from constant suffering and strife of anyone they can reach, to stage IV cancerous tumour, that must be cut out before it kills humanity.
So, yeah – Trump may be not the chemo USA want, but the chemo the Earth need.
If you claim Clinton was “a maniacal avatar of corruption” you’re completely out of touch with reality.
Trump was and still is a maniacal avatar of corruption and has brought people just as bad as him with him.
And before you try to use the middle ground fallacy or claim both sides have a point, no they don’t. The Republican Party is now made up entirely of different kinds of gleeful ignorance.
For those not familiar with the U.S. political system, we basically have two parties: The Evil Party and the Stupid Party. Whenever possible, they like to work together on projects that are both evil and stupid in the name of “bipartisanship.”
Trump is the newcomer who’s not really a very good member of either party, which is a welcome change… The only problem is that, as far as I can tell at least, he’s a Chaotic Neutral… So there’s absolutely no telling what he’s going to do or what the long-term results will be other than that both sides of the standard political spectrum are going to vilify and hate him whether he deserves it or not.
+1
Also I’d vote for the other side being the Cowardly Party more than the Stupid Party. They *know* better, they just have nice cushy careers and protect those first n most.
Hard to judge precisely, could be close to CE, but I don’t know that he actively enjoys causing pain and suffering for its own sake so much as he’s just a selfish prick who doesn’t care about anything but his own, immediate interests. He does enjoy breaking whatever rules he thinks he can get away with though, so definitely chaotic something.
Only the GOP is both stupid and evil. The other party’s only real fault is that they should be as shouty, obstructionist and stubborn as their opposition. And so they’re failing to do their jobs.
Like seriously. You could unironically call Trump’s immigration ban a Muslim ban and be absolutely 100% correct. He wants to build a wall across the border on the logic that Mexicans are mostly bad drug pushers and rapists. He has the open and active endorsement of Neo-Nazis and has one as chief strategist.
These two parties are not the fucking same. Don’t waste our time pretending otherwise.
If you were to put some effort into researching the things going on behind the public facade of the Democrat Party, I think you’d be shocked at what you find… Not because it’s any worse than what the Republicans do, but because it really isn’t any better. The only real difference between the two is whether they launder taxpayer money into their own pockets via military contractors or labor unions. The rest of it is all talking points designed to make you *think* there’s a difference based on what problems they claim they’re going to solve and how. But keep in mind, politicians don’t get re-elected for actually solving problems, only for working hard on them. So they have no incentive to actually fix anything, and every incentive to create more problems large enough that “only the government can solve them,” all the while making sure they get to control as much of your life as possible either by direct threat of violence, or by indirect threat of financial ruin. Reagan put it pretty well when he said that everyone focuses on “left or right” when the real question is “liberty or tyranny,” and both major parties are big fans of tyranny. Not that Reagan was any better himself, but at least he could describe the problem.
well, I for one would rather have Gravedust than Trump.
@underappreciatednecromancer In terms of personality, I’d say a mixture of the Navy guy and Iwanaga (or whatevs his name is) from Gastonia. One is blatant and blustering at any accusations made to him (trump is slightly less comical but still reacts strongly to accusations), the other is constantly plotting.
I’m not underestimating Trump. He cannot possibly be as big of a buffoon as he’s looking. Even with millions of support, he would not have been able to maintain a huge company, scam or not.
Technically, dual-wielding daggers, or any light weapon, actually increases your hit chance. Statistically, rolling two d20s, and keeping the better is equivalent to a roughly +3 bonus on a single d20 roll. Wielding a light weapon in your offhand (assuming you have the feat, which… why wouldn’t you?), decreases each roll by -2. Meaning you essentially have a net +1 on hitting *at all*
So, I think that Penk and Harky may have something up their sleeves. After all, wouldn’t Penk’s message for change and peace be undermined by killing Harky just because the old laws say so?
The battle will be to determine who leads the trolls. It doesn’t have to be to the death, just until one side quits. If death is what it takes then so be it, but if they decide to surrender instead then all the better.
“So, I think that Penk and Harky may have something up their sleeves.”
Shows what you know! Neither Harky nor Penk are wearing shirts! They have no sleeves!
(They COULD be hiding something inside their bracers/gauntlet”.)
But on a more serious note, I too wonder. It did sound like a fight to the death, but I doubt they’d be acting quite this chummy if it was. Neither one of them would be at all happy if he had to kill the other. They’d be looking noticeably more grim even at this moment of levity, I’d think.
It may be we’ve simply misread the situation, and death was never the expectation. It may just be a competition of strength and dominance much like Gravedust and Dustlicker-I mean Iver. Or maybe the tradition is a battle to the death and they’re planning to subvert that. So far, all we’ve been told is that “after tonight we not” have two chiefs. What exactly that means is not clear. Maybe it just means the loser must formally step down absolutely. We’ll see.
I do hope that, despite the potshot at hypocritical human wordiness, that this won’t just be a brutal brawl, but that they’ll be exchanging ideas verbally along the way. It would be much more meaningful for me, to be sure, if we can see the battle of ideas being waged within the almost metaphorical battle of brawn.
If one appreciates the harshness of this often brutal, unjust world – the real one even let alone the fictional one(s) in this comic – genocide really can be a “practical” approach.
When faced with an aggressor who is out to commit genocide on you, and your every attempt at peace or at containing the situation has led to vast deaths of your innocents with the threat of being destroyed absolutely by them ever on the horizon, then completely wiping out that aggressor (i.e. genocide) to keep your people safe once and for all starts sounding like the ONLY reasonable policy.
Theoretically, a culture can reach such absolute saturation with attitudes of aggression, hatred and bloody revenge that leaving even one combat-capable human being alive is too costly to allow yourself. Fortunately, in the real world, no culture has ever quite reached that theoretical point. Even the worst, most monstrously aggressive and genocidal killers have softened their tone after getting beaten down hard enough, and they reform. Or, if they’re not beaten and they keep up their evil, after enough years or generations they either tone things down organically or else are overthrown. The machine of hate and death is unsustainable long term*.
But theoretically? Harky has a legitimate point. Penk needs to prove to Harky, and to the whole World’s Rebellion movement, that “the humans” can be redeemed short of having to wipe them all out.
(Almost side point – didn’t Penk say he still wanted to kill all the “humans” even as he was willing to work alongside the “Peacemakers” while doing so? Isn’t that why his team abandoned the Peacemakers at the north pole to begin with? Is Penk actually anti-genocide now, as people are assuming? I don’t think cooperating with a few human exceptions in order to slaughter the rest counts as being moderate. Harky is opposed to even merely working with the Peacemakers. Is that all that divides them? Or have I forgotten something? Magda is a true moderate, sure, but is Penk?)
*It can be a very long long-term by the standards of one human lifetime, but that eventuality does come at some point. No conquering empire has stood the test of time on this Earth, but they have managed to stick around for a few blood-soaked centuries at a time.
His initial expectation was that they would be coming together to kill all the humans–that is, he planned to go back to Harky and say, “The wood elves are joining the World’s Rebellion. Now let’s end this war!” which Harky would have been more than fine with. When Syr’nj insisted the World’s Rebellion also needed to change its perspective to treat Gastonia/Gastonia’s leadership as the enemy rather than all humans, it wasn’t nearly so simple, but Penk still agreed to it in the end, and came here to tell Harky as much (and fight him when he inevitably didn’t agree).
Gravedust becoming the leader of the Savasi actually makes a big difference here in a practical sense, though. Consider the attitudes of the Rebellion leaders as of yesterday:
– Madame Arfa: The gnolls are the last of the Fuzzy Peoples, because they wiped out the rest of the Fuzzy Peoples, and today they openly admit this was a horrible mistake and their race’s greatest sin. I think both Arfa and Auraugu would prefer to avoid genocide.
– HAMMERHEAD: eat all the things
– Don Gobligno: Textbook mob boss, yet probably the most nuanced. Does what’s good for business. Gastonia has been bad for business, but that’s definitely a matter of government and not populace. The populace is a renewable, exploitable resource. Far from the only one, though, and continued good relations with the Rebellion are more valuable. He’ll vote with the majority of leaders who aren’t HAMMERHEAD (because landsharks are also bad for business).
– Iver wasn’t really anti-human, I don’t think; just pro-scapegoat. He
– Harky: believes humans are cancerous by nature, and eliminating Gastonia will only make way for the next group of assholes. Genuinely trusts Penk’s observations and values his opinions, and is inwardly open to the possibility that he’s wrong, but also has a rebellion to lead, with multiple factions to keep peace between. True faith in Tectonicus means he will decide whether or not he’s wrong based on omens and traditions, because he’s cognitively on the fence otherwise. But for now: kill all humans.
– …who actually leads the avians? Is it Gondolessa? If so, he’ll defer to Harky. Otherwise this might be a wildcard.
So the genocide tally was:
– Yes from landsharks
– Yes from savasi
– Yes from trolls
– Assume yes from avians, following trolls
– No from gnolls
– Yes from goblins, because majority
Five to one. But look what just happened, and how it cascades:
Gravedust moves Savasi to a strong no. Excluding landsharks and goblins, this moves the tally to 2 and 2, putting goblins on the fence. Harky sees this, and knows that avians are a follower vote, effectively neutral too. That reduces it to 2 for, 2 against, 2 neutral — and the 2 for are himself and the landsharks. And remember that he’s already so torn on this decision that he was looking to resolve it by combat: internally, the trolls are actually divided too, and his primary goal in remaining steadfast was unity among the rebelion. If you move trolls to neutral as well… that’s landsharks for genocide, gnolls and savasi against, and everyone else content to follow wherever he leads.
Gravedust’s victory has made it so that the genocide doctrine outright upsets more factions than are emphatically in favor of it. I’m sure Harky sees this. There may or may not still need to be a fight for show, but Tectonicus has already spoken.
Not sure I agree with you there though. Iver is pro-scapegoat, but I think he’s also a man who holds a grudge. The Dwarf interpretation (and probably an accurate one) is that for purposes of materialism humans took the ancestral home of the dwarves and violated the attempts to resolve it without violence. The man is a prick, but he came by his grudge against humans the same way the rest of the dwarves did: honestly.
So Gravedust is back in charge again. But the whole reason he (kinda) gave up power was because the Savasi people were bloodthirsty warmongers who were soon going to ignore Gravedust and his amazing friends. Except now Gravedust is no longer a Mystic, has no Mystic buddies and they are in a big war.
I am indeed quite interested to see where Gravedust is planned to lead his people. I was expecting a powerful speech first. We got some great words from Gravedust on page 14 of this chapter, but I saw that as a kind of preamble, and was bracing to see the full speech which laid out his vision for the future, as an alternative, and a better way, than Iver’s path of unending war and death. Sadly, that big speech never came, and so we are left struggling to grasp what Gravedust plans to do. One thing that IS clear, however, is that he intends to continue opposing Gastonia and all the corruption and injustice is stands for. To what degree open war continues to play in his vision for that remains to be seen.
I don’t think it’s going to be nearly as simple as, “I was right about everything, stop making war on Gastonia and go back to begging them for reparations.”
In fact, I do think it’s going to be, pretty much, “So, we’re at war with Gastonia. I was wrong to think that was avoidable. But we’re fighting to remove the corrupt aristocracy–not this stuff Iver had about massacring humans down to the smallest child–and we need a plan for the World’s Rebellion to move forward peacefully while remaining allied after the war’s over, not this stuff Iver had about the Savasi fighting and stabbing backs until no one is left to challenge him.”
Technically “warlord” is a leadership position and a general doesn’t need to be a great warrior necessarily though it helps to be one, especially in a medieval or tribal society. I wouldn’t expect Napoleon or George Washington to come out on top in a bar fight or mosh pit but that’s not where their value lies in the first place.
“Smart”. Not so much arguing against that term or what you said, mind you, it’s just that being so overconfident here when he’s actually either a wimp or outclassed by Gravedust doesn’t seem so smart to me.
I guess Iver underestimated Gravedust for being a mystic and/or (likely and) because he’d already murdered Gracedust before, but it should be noted that he’d killed him before via poison and not by combat.
A bigger point is if Iver knew Gravedust’s background prior to his mysticism. Those scars didn’t come from nowhere. And a life dedicated to spirituality isn’t necessarily one that makes one physically weaker where it means avoiding indulgence, maintaining discipline, and accepting hardship.
I don’t know. Napoleon was small, probably a scrapper. And he was probably pretty vicious in a fight.
Washington, however, I could totally see thrashing folks in a fight. He was a 6 foot tall career military man, in a time when most people topped out at, what, 5’4″?
Napoleon was of normal height, though (mostly) british propaganda did a bang-up job of lessening his height in the history books.
Not entirely sure about what Napoleon was excelling at other than statemanship and strategy/tactics though. Fencing and cannon target-practice against mobs…maybe?
Gravedust the Mystic devolved to Gravedust the Savasi!
Gravedust the Savasi defeated Iver the Chief!
Gravedust the Savasi evolved to Gravedust the Chief!
I would just like to add here an appreciation of Harky’s excellent diplomacy skills. In the first panel, he chooses to say, “Perhaps, even, [Iver needed to be deposed] for the good of us all”, but his wide smile with those words and the context make it clear he’s really thinking, “I am so, so glad that back-stabbing *hole was finally put down. Sure took the Savasi long enough. Ah, what a relief not having to look at his stupid, smug face and listen to his stupid, slimy comments every time us war chiefs have a meeting.”
At least according to classic D&D lore, you have to be REALLY concerned when the Gnoll leader is a more reasonable and enjoyable member around the war council than the dwarf is.
And the second part of Harky’s statement, as well, which is gracious and diplomatic on the surface, but which also clearly carries the subtext of “I hope you know what you’re getting into, Gravy-boy, ‘cuz one way or another shit’s about to go dooooown.“
Don’t be silly, a fight to the death is the best way to determine who will lead the war effort. It just so happens that one potential leader of the war effort is determined that genocide is the option they will be pursuing, while the other is less clear on the issue.
Seriously though a good leader does not seek conflict but is prepared should one become necessary. I think between everything Gravedust has come to understand that and is wise enough to properly guide his people now.
Which part is more fantasy? That the hateful douchebag who lied his way into power loses it? Or that once he exposes himself as unfit to rule, the people then recognize it and rally against him?
I don’t think it’s even that. It’s more that, based on his own experience with humans, he’s going, “That’s lovely. Your idealism is charming, Penk, but your new humans friends will stab you in the back as soon as you don’t agree to them getting all the good land, you know.”
I don’t get why Iver would accept a challenge from Gravedust to begin with. It’s not like they’re of equal stature, otherwise Iver would have to accept challenges from every warrior out to make a name for himself. It makes sense that Penk could challenge Harky because he’s an avatar and a champion.
If Iver did not accept, he would have lost his position by default on the virtue of him being disqualified as a coward & hypocrite. His only way of keeping his position was to accept Gravedust’s challenge and win.
Also it’s possible that as mismatched as he was against he was still a somewhat capable warrior who was more adept at winning through deceit than physical prowless and he knew when to make enemies disappear before challenges became public knowledge.
Hypocrite how? He was calling Harky out for being “unnatural” not for being cowardly. An ex-Mystic that recently converted hardly has any grounds for claiming that he’s super devout to Tectonicus or whatever.
Also, the whole point I’m disputing is that everybody was challenging Iver to a duel. That makes no sense, because there’s no way to dissuade every hotheaded bravo from wasting your and everybody else’s time with meaningless judicial battles.
Wonder how Gravedust’s new status will go down if Harky wins. Granted, he isn’t a human, but his views are more in line with Penk’s, and I definitely can’t see him tolerating his friends being killed.
I can’t see how anything would work with Penk losing though, either narratively or theologically; he’s the one who’s been a focal character for the last months, he’s the underdog, he’s not-friends with the PCs, he’s the one who sees an alternative to complete genocide, and Tectonicus did just make grabby hands out from a mountain to save them all, as opposed to just grabbing his people and letting the rest fall or some such.
Seems to me like if Harky wins the story’s going to do something so weird that Gravedust leading the Savasi will be the least of it. (I’m sure it’d be good, I just have no idea what it would *be*)
Mm. Neither am I the Internet tough guy. I’m just a grumpy old man who wonders why people keep expecting me to be “fair and balanced” on a comic that’s been radically liberal since the word go.
I’d ask “old liberal or new ‘liberal'”, but I don’t really know the policy on quotation marks within quotation marks. I guess I don’t really need to say that to indicate that there is nothing particularly liberal about the modern so-called left… but… well, that takes all the fun out of it.
Besides, I have my suspicions. Just sometimes I hope I might be able to convince those edging towards the modern left that maybe classic liberal might be a better position. One a bit more focused on liberty and a bit less on ganking people for the sake of hurt feelings.
Woah am I really first? Okay don’t mess this up, don’t mess this up…
DAMNIT I CAN’T THINK OF A PUN.
Seeing your avatar, I’d think you’d have a lot of puns ‘stached away
Boo! Hiss!
You suck!
What a joke!
Get him outta here!
Pathetic!
Whatta bum!
You ruined it…
I feel your pain. I once entered 10 puns into a competition hoping for a win.
But no pun in ten did.
That was your one in ten shun.
I must admit, I never expected to see this community get so in tens.
I really don’t see this being to the death. Penk and Harky like and respect each other too much for that, and it’s pretty clear from this panel alone that this is merely a disagreement between their leading philosophies.
Besides, Gravy didn’t show off his chiropractic skills. Unfortunately.
I’d like to think it may not be to the death either, though given how quickly trolls regenerate, unless one surrenders, I can’t see a situation where one cannot continue fighting unless they are dead.
I feel like the mechanics of troll regeneration haven’t been well established enough to tell. I seem to recall there being a case of a troll being traumatized into unconsciousness (either Harky or Penk waking up with lots of new scars), though.
Harky has been KOed before in the battle with the wood elves. And Harky has several metal prosthetics.
All in all, I’d say that while their regenerative abilities are significant, they have limits and can be taxed.
And would that tax be progressive, regressive, or flat?
(sorry, April is coming…)
They respect each other too much to not kill each other.
As strange as it seems to our sensibilities, I think you’re probably right.
Heck, if Harky had second thoughts, he could get out of it without losing face by declaring that the fight between Gravedust and Iver showed where Tectonicus stood on the issue. Since Iver can be said to represent the ‘kill all humans’ viewpoint while Gravedust represents the Peacemaker viewpoint.
I doubt that’s the Troll way though, so it would be difficult for them to accept it.
What IS possible, however, is for him to go down a little sooner than he otherwise would, or to intentionally make a mistake which allows his opponent to knock him out after he’s been wounded, or some other way to throw the fight in a way the overexcited crowd won’t notice or question.
Whatever happens, it will be a long and intense fight. The two are evenly matched now. A troll Warchief at (or slightly past) the peak of his power, and a younger one with the power of Tectonicus inside him.
I expect if Harky is gonna throw the fight, it’s gonna be in a way where they’re already both past their limits.
-looks at the alt text-
Oh balls, here we go.
-suits up in flame resistant gear-
In this comic, then, Ivertrump got overthrown by Berndust Desertsanders?
Seeing the white slicked hair and multiple impregged women, I would have pegged him as Iverclinton
Re: Alt-Txt
It indeed burns fiercely. And I bask in those flames.
IRL, such people are instead too often installed into power.
IRL, such people are ALWAYS installed into power. They just use different buzzwords.
Now, that’s not true! I mean, a lot of the time, yes, but I can always point to Ghandi. Who got shot for being too non-bigoted. Which is…unfortunate in several ways, and bitterly ironic, given the alt text, but still, non-bigot to power at least once! XD
Wait, wait, Mandela wasn’t much of a bigot either! Two! XD
I can’t help but draw parallels between Gravedust and President Trump. I could easily see the latter having had the former’s reaction once the full weight of his victory sank in.
“Oh, shit, I’m in charge!”
Also that he’s going to be looked at askance for things the other guy would’ve gotten away with “oh yeah he does that”.
And of course that he’s taken the place that would otherwise have ended up filled with another exponent of the established elite who’ve been not even trying to fix things, just making a good^Wgreat show of promising^Wpretending but not ever delivering. After having dumped all of the western world pretty deep down the crapper (see e.g. _Against All Enemies_ by Richard A. Clarke).
In that light, no I don’t like this guy for oh so many reasons but oh boy was it necessary somebody from outside the “bipartisan” uniparty got elected, and the continuing butt-hurt over it is getting mighty tiring. I’m saying that as someone on another continent bereft of a vote in that election but sure a recipient of the fall-out.
On a lighter note, Gravedust will find that Iver is still around and not at all powerless. “You keep what you kill” is a sight simpler.
Non-American here, I don’t get the feeling Trump is doing much outside the regular Republican shtick except embarassing himself and his administration at almost every turn.
So, pretty much every modern politician then?
As a non-USA…nian, I guess… Regardless – as not a citizen of that country, I can tell you that, from my neighbourhood point of view, Trump on the timestamp of this comment has done far, far fewer embarrassing things than any of three USA presidents before him. Granted, I’m a bit hazy on Reagan era, and couldn’t care less about Carter and random phuckers before him – but, to my remembrance, it was a shiteshow of magnificent proportions. Bush senior was ok, as far as prejudicate brain-dead bigot goes, but that’s it. Clinton was a maniacal avatar of corruption; Bush jr – living testament to the truth of creationism, for nothing that retarded can be a result of darwinian evolution; O’Bama – allow any inmate to run the asylum, and said inmate, without any doubt, would be far more decent administrator and politician. Under them, USA went from aggressor-state of cowardly slaves under despotic rule of fanatical terrorist regime, profiteering from constant suffering and strife of anyone they can reach, to stage IV cancerous tumour, that must be cut out before it kills humanity.
So, yeah – Trump may be not the chemo USA want, but the chemo the Earth need.
Bush JR. wasn’t an idiot, he just didn’t deal with large crowds. I mean, for Christ’s sake the guy has an MBA from Harvard and was a fighter pilot.
If you claim Clinton was “a maniacal avatar of corruption” you’re completely out of touch with reality.
Trump was and still is a maniacal avatar of corruption and has brought people just as bad as him with him.
And before you try to use the middle ground fallacy or claim both sides have a point, no they don’t. The Republican Party is now made up entirely of different kinds of gleeful ignorance.
Don’t let the obvious Poutini distract you.
The fashionable false equivalencies is strong within this one.
You’d make South Park proud.
Trump wasn’t bi-partisan, he just appealed to ignorant people and bigots and too many people staid home.
For those not familiar with the U.S. political system, we basically have two parties: The Evil Party and the Stupid Party. Whenever possible, they like to work together on projects that are both evil and stupid in the name of “bipartisanship.”
Trump is the newcomer who’s not really a very good member of either party, which is a welcome change… The only problem is that, as far as I can tell at least, he’s a Chaotic Neutral… So there’s absolutely no telling what he’s going to do or what the long-term results will be other than that both sides of the standard political spectrum are going to vilify and hate him whether he deserves it or not.
Chaotic Evil if you actually look at what he’s said and done.
+1
Also I’d vote for the other side being the Cowardly Party more than the Stupid Party. They *know* better, they just have nice cushy careers and protect those first n most.
+1
Also I’d vote for the other side being the Cowardly Party more than the Stupid Party.
Hard to judge precisely, could be close to CE, but I don’t know that he actively enjoys causing pain and suffering for its own sake so much as he’s just a selfish prick who doesn’t care about anything but his own, immediate interests. He does enjoy breaking whatever rules he thinks he can get away with though, so definitely chaotic something.
Only the GOP is both stupid and evil. The other party’s only real fault is that they should be as shouty, obstructionist and stubborn as their opposition. And so they’re failing to do their jobs.
Like seriously. You could unironically call Trump’s immigration ban a Muslim ban and be absolutely 100% correct. He wants to build a wall across the border on the logic that Mexicans are mostly bad drug pushers and rapists. He has the open and active endorsement of Neo-Nazis and has one as chief strategist.
These two parties are not the fucking same. Don’t waste our time pretending otherwise.
If you were to put some effort into researching the things going on behind the public facade of the Democrat Party, I think you’d be shocked at what you find… Not because it’s any worse than what the Republicans do, but because it really isn’t any better. The only real difference between the two is whether they launder taxpayer money into their own pockets via military contractors or labor unions. The rest of it is all talking points designed to make you *think* there’s a difference based on what problems they claim they’re going to solve and how. But keep in mind, politicians don’t get re-elected for actually solving problems, only for working hard on them. So they have no incentive to actually fix anything, and every incentive to create more problems large enough that “only the government can solve them,” all the while making sure they get to control as much of your life as possible either by direct threat of violence, or by indirect threat of financial ruin. Reagan put it pretty well when he said that everyone focuses on “left or right” when the real question is “liberty or tyranny,” and both major parties are big fans of tyranny. Not that Reagan was any better himself, but at least he could describe the problem.
Actually Zach Wienersmith is a liberal who thinks the Democrats should just push harder.
Try doing actual research instead of using a comedy video
There aren’t any characters like Trump, since someone that monstrous would be unrealistic.
well, I for one would rather have Gravedust than Trump.
@underappreciatednecromancer In terms of personality, I’d say a mixture of the Navy guy and Iwanaga (or whatevs his name is) from Gastonia. One is blatant and blustering at any accusations made to him (trump is slightly less comical but still reacts strongly to accusations), the other is constantly plotting.
I’m not underestimating Trump. He cannot possibly be as big of a buffoon as he’s looking. Even with millions of support, he would not have been able to maintain a huge company, scam or not.
Iwatani* nemas problemas.
Re: alt text — I feel you.
On a lighter note… does Gravedust inherit Iver’s wives? Concubines? What would be the proper term here?
locals call em mudpies
Bakery switches ownership, and someone still has to fill the quota…
That’s two kinds of “buns in the oven.”
I’m going to miss Harky…
i miss WAV
I miss Bandit.
I miss the old Best.
I miss Rachel…
I miss Frigg… And Spartacus.
I miss the cultists…
I miss the digital chaos beast. He just wanted to be loved.
I miss targets, like all the time.
Are you a stormtrooper Jean-Luc?
I miss Brix the Berserker.
Try one knife. Dual-wielding decreases your hit chance.
You’ll never miss anyone with Magic Missile. :)
Technically, dual-wielding daggers, or any light weapon, actually increases your hit chance. Statistically, rolling two d20s, and keeping the better is equivalent to a roughly +3 bonus on a single d20 roll. Wielding a light weapon in your offhand (assuming you have the feat, which… why wouldn’t you?), decreases each roll by -2. Meaning you essentially have a net +1 on hitting *at all*
No, I miss Spartacus! And so does my wife!
*stands up*
No, I miss Spartacus!
I used to miss Spartacus…
But my aim is getting better.
I once missed Spartacus – he stormed the town the day after I left. Not entirely sorry it happened that way.
So, I think that Penk and Harky may have something up their sleeves. After all, wouldn’t Penk’s message for change and peace be undermined by killing Harky just because the old laws say so?
The battle will be to determine who leads the trolls. It doesn’t have to be to the death, just until one side quits. If death is what it takes then so be it, but if they decide to surrender instead then all the better.
Indeed . . . It has just been demonstrated to us that his fight does NOT have to always be to the death.
“So, I think that Penk and Harky may have something up their sleeves.”
Shows what you know! Neither Harky nor Penk are wearing shirts! They have no sleeves!
(They COULD be hiding something inside their bracers/gauntlet”.)
But on a more serious note, I too wonder. It did sound like a fight to the death, but I doubt they’d be acting quite this chummy if it was. Neither one of them would be at all happy if he had to kill the other. They’d be looking noticeably more grim even at this moment of levity, I’d think.
It may be we’ve simply misread the situation, and death was never the expectation. It may just be a competition of strength and dominance much like Gravedust and Dustlicker-I mean Iver. Or maybe the tradition is a battle to the death and they’re planning to subvert that. So far, all we’ve been told is that “after tonight we not” have two chiefs. What exactly that means is not clear. Maybe it just means the loser must formally step down absolutely. We’ll see.
I do hope that, despite the potshot at hypocritical human wordiness, that this won’t just be a brutal brawl, but that they’ll be exchanging ideas verbally along the way. It would be much more meaningful for me, to be sure, if we can see the battle of ideas being waged within the almost metaphorical battle of brawn.
Oh look at Iver, how sand.
a little sanding will smooth his rough edges
I don’t share in your sympathetic sediments.
Let Magda design your next golf course. She’s great at sand traps!
*applause*
Good pun.
I concur
Witty? Yes.
A pun? Not so much.
A textbook example of literary irony, in fact.
Next panel: Harky straight up just clocks Penk in his naive young face.
I think it’s a tad silly to call Penk for believing that genocide is an impractical/unsustainable and socially corrupting policy.
Call Penk naive, that is.
If one appreciates the harshness of this often brutal, unjust world – the real one even let alone the fictional one(s) in this comic – genocide really can be a “practical” approach.
When faced with an aggressor who is out to commit genocide on you, and your every attempt at peace or at containing the situation has led to vast deaths of your innocents with the threat of being destroyed absolutely by them ever on the horizon, then completely wiping out that aggressor (i.e. genocide) to keep your people safe once and for all starts sounding like the ONLY reasonable policy.
Theoretically, a culture can reach such absolute saturation with attitudes of aggression, hatred and bloody revenge that leaving even one combat-capable human being alive is too costly to allow yourself. Fortunately, in the real world, no culture has ever quite reached that theoretical point. Even the worst, most monstrously aggressive and genocidal killers have softened their tone after getting beaten down hard enough, and they reform. Or, if they’re not beaten and they keep up their evil, after enough years or generations they either tone things down organically or else are overthrown. The machine of hate and death is unsustainable long term*.
But theoretically? Harky has a legitimate point. Penk needs to prove to Harky, and to the whole World’s Rebellion movement, that “the humans” can be redeemed short of having to wipe them all out.
(Almost side point – didn’t Penk say he still wanted to kill all the “humans” even as he was willing to work alongside the “Peacemakers” while doing so? Isn’t that why his team abandoned the Peacemakers at the north pole to begin with? Is Penk actually anti-genocide now, as people are assuming? I don’t think cooperating with a few human exceptions in order to slaughter the rest counts as being moderate. Harky is opposed to even merely working with the Peacemakers. Is that all that divides them? Or have I forgotten something? Magda is a true moderate, sure, but is Penk?)
*It can be a very long long-term by the standards of one human lifetime, but that eventuality does come at some point. No conquering empire has stood the test of time on this Earth, but they have managed to stick around for a few blood-soaked centuries at a time.
His initial expectation was that they would be coming together to kill all the humans–that is, he planned to go back to Harky and say, “The wood elves are joining the World’s Rebellion. Now let’s end this war!” which Harky would have been more than fine with. When Syr’nj insisted the World’s Rebellion also needed to change its perspective to treat Gastonia/Gastonia’s leadership as the enemy rather than all humans, it wasn’t nearly so simple, but Penk still agreed to it in the end, and came here to tell Harky as much (and fight him when he inevitably didn’t agree).
Gravedust becoming the leader of the Savasi actually makes a big difference here in a practical sense, though. Consider the attitudes of the Rebellion leaders as of yesterday:
– Madame Arfa: The gnolls are the last of the Fuzzy Peoples, because they wiped out the rest of the Fuzzy Peoples, and today they openly admit this was a horrible mistake and their race’s greatest sin. I think both Arfa and Auraugu would prefer to avoid genocide.
– HAMMERHEAD: eat all the things
– Don Gobligno: Textbook mob boss, yet probably the most nuanced. Does what’s good for business. Gastonia has been bad for business, but that’s definitely a matter of government and not populace. The populace is a renewable, exploitable resource. Far from the only one, though, and continued good relations with the Rebellion are more valuable. He’ll vote with the majority of leaders who aren’t HAMMERHEAD (because landsharks are also bad for business).
– Iver wasn’t really anti-human, I don’t think; just pro-scapegoat. He
– Harky: believes humans are cancerous by nature, and eliminating Gastonia will only make way for the next group of assholes. Genuinely trusts Penk’s observations and values his opinions, and is inwardly open to the possibility that he’s wrong, but also has a rebellion to lead, with multiple factions to keep peace between. True faith in Tectonicus means he will decide whether or not he’s wrong based on omens and traditions, because he’s cognitively on the fence otherwise. But for now: kill all humans.
– …who actually leads the avians? Is it Gondolessa? If so, he’ll defer to Harky. Otherwise this might be a wildcard.
So the genocide tally was:
– Yes from landsharks
– Yes from savasi
– Yes from trolls
– Assume yes from avians, following trolls
– No from gnolls
– Yes from goblins, because majority
Five to one. But look what just happened, and how it cascades:
Gravedust moves Savasi to a strong no. Excluding landsharks and goblins, this moves the tally to 2 and 2, putting goblins on the fence. Harky sees this, and knows that avians are a follower vote, effectively neutral too. That reduces it to 2 for, 2 against, 2 neutral — and the 2 for are himself and the landsharks. And remember that he’s already so torn on this decision that he was looking to resolve it by combat: internally, the trolls are actually divided too, and his primary goal in remaining steadfast was unity among the rebelion. If you move trolls to neutral as well… that’s landsharks for genocide, gnolls and savasi against, and everyone else content to follow wherever he leads.
Gravedust’s victory has made it so that the genocide doctrine outright upsets more factions than are emphatically in favor of it. I’m sure Harky sees this. There may or may not still need to be a fight for show, but Tectonicus has already spoken.
…hmm, appears I forgot to finish a paragraph re: Iver. It wouldn’t have said anything non-obvious, tho. Dude’s a prick.
Not sure I agree with you there though. Iver is pro-scapegoat, but I think he’s also a man who holds a grudge. The Dwarf interpretation (and probably an accurate one) is that for purposes of materialism humans took the ancestral home of the dwarves and violated the attempts to resolve it without violence. The man is a prick, but he came by his grudge against humans the same way the rest of the dwarves did: honestly.
So am I the only one who looked at that last panel and went “Oh, kiss already”?
No. No, you’re not.
So Gravedust is back in charge again. But the whole reason he (kinda) gave up power was because the Savasi people were bloodthirsty warmongers who were soon going to ignore Gravedust and his amazing friends. Except now Gravedust is no longer a Mystic, has no Mystic buddies and they are in a big war.
I am indeed quite interested to see where Gravedust is planned to lead his people. I was expecting a powerful speech first. We got some great words from Gravedust on page 14 of this chapter, but I saw that as a kind of preamble, and was bracing to see the full speech which laid out his vision for the future, as an alternative, and a better way, than Iver’s path of unending war and death. Sadly, that big speech never came, and so we are left struggling to grasp what Gravedust plans to do. One thing that IS clear, however, is that he intends to continue opposing Gastonia and all the corruption and injustice is stands for. To what degree open war continues to play in his vision for that remains to be seen.
I don’t think it’s going to be nearly as simple as, “I was right about everything, stop making war on Gastonia and go back to begging them for reparations.”
In fact, I do think it’s going to be, pretty much, “So, we’re at war with Gastonia. I was wrong to think that was avoidable. But we’re fighting to remove the corrupt aristocracy–not this stuff Iver had about massacring humans down to the smallest child–and we need a plan for the World’s Rebellion to move forward peacefully while remaining allied after the war’s over, not this stuff Iver had about the Savasi fighting and stabbing backs until no one is left to challenge him.”
I still can’t get over how ripped Gravedust is.
More important point: for a weakling, how did Iver get to be head honcho of a warlike race?
Psh, I know. Iver, a warlord?? Unrealistic. That would be like a reality show star becoming pres-
Oh God.
Ah. I see. Politics.
UGH. (Facepalm at reality.)
Technically “warlord” is a leadership position and a general doesn’t need to be a great warrior necessarily though it helps to be one, especially in a medieval or tribal society. I wouldn’t expect Napoleon or George Washington to come out on top in a bar fight or mosh pit but that’s not where their value lies in the first place.
Agreed-o. Iver has guile and smarts and charisma, he doesn’t *need* muscle.
“Smart”. Not so much arguing against that term or what you said, mind you, it’s just that being so overconfident here when he’s actually either a wimp or outclassed by Gravedust doesn’t seem so smart to me.
I guess Iver underestimated Gravedust for being a mystic and/or (likely and) because he’d already murdered Gracedust before, but it should be noted that he’d killed him before via poison and not by combat.
A bigger point is if Iver knew Gravedust’s background prior to his mysticism. Those scars didn’t come from nowhere. And a life dedicated to spirituality isn’t necessarily one that makes one physically weaker where it means avoiding indulgence, maintaining discipline, and accepting hardship.
So some kind of Intelligence or Wisdom roll fail?
I don’t know. Napoleon was small, probably a scrapper. And he was probably pretty vicious in a fight.
Washington, however, I could totally see thrashing folks in a fight. He was a 6 foot tall career military man, in a time when most people topped out at, what, 5’4″?
Napoleon was of normal height, though (mostly) british propaganda did a bang-up job of lessening his height in the history books.
Not entirely sure about what Napoleon was excelling at other than statemanship and strategy/tactics though. Fencing and cannon target-practice against mobs…maybe?
Gravedust the Mystic devolved to Gravedust the Savasi!
Gravedust the Savasi defeated Iver the Chief!
Gravedust the Savasi evolved to Gravedust the Chief!
I feel just awful for the ladies That Joke knocked up.
Yeah, imagine what their children will be like!
As someone who is all too tired of being an abomination or acceptable casualty for certain people . . . I hear you, alt-text. I hear you.
You will always be welcome here.
+1 from another acceptable casualty
“You have my recognition on one condition: Never put on a shirt.”
*searches for the like button* WHERE IS SMALL HEART
I would just like to add here an appreciation of Harky’s excellent diplomacy skills. In the first panel, he chooses to say, “Perhaps, even, [Iver needed to be deposed] for the good of us all”, but his wide smile with those words and the context make it clear he’s really thinking, “I am so, so glad that back-stabbing *hole was finally put down. Sure took the Savasi long enough. Ah, what a relief not having to look at his stupid, smug face and listen to his stupid, slimy comments every time us war chiefs have a meeting.”
At least according to classic D&D lore, you have to be REALLY concerned when the Gnoll leader is a more reasonable and enjoyable member around the war council than the dwarf is.
And the second part of Harky’s statement, as well, which is gracious and diplomatic on the surface, but which also clearly carries the subtext of “I hope you know what you’re getting into, Gravy-boy, ‘cuz one way or another shit’s about to go dooooown.“
I really can’t get over how awesomely ripped Gravy is. He’s even scarred up like a goddamn berserk character
Well when your armor for the last few hundred levels has been a robe… you tend to show off a bit more.
Dwarves are pretty tough.
What no Oompa Loompa song on the way out?
Oompa, Loompa, Doopity Doo,
Iver, you’re a loser.
What do you do when your fascist regime fails?
Grind your teeth into grist and let your tears fill up pails!
Dwarfy warfy doompity doo
Iver is in a huge pile of poo
Don’t let this happen to you
Because fascism is nothing new
I like how in panel 3 Iver instinctively grabs onto the phallic objects appearing in front of him. Is that a repressed homosexuality talking?
In him, or in me?
I think you might be stretching on that one.
It’s a bit of a reach, for sure.
So, is a fight to the death the best way to decide if genocide is the right policy?
Don’t be silly, a fight to the death is the best way to determine who will lead the war effort. It just so happens that one potential leader of the war effort is determined that genocide is the option they will be pursuing, while the other is less clear on the issue.
Iver was more a Pence than a Trump.
Trump would never have gotten to where Iver was.
Does that imply a previous warlord who got the job with Iver as his second-in-command, and got poisoned when he ceased being necessary?
IIRC the previous leaders were the mystics and they did die due to Iver’s machinations.
Heh, nice alt text. Ain’t it the truth though?
So, now we’re back to the Troll fight?
I love how Gravy didn’t even consider the fact he would be the leader of the Savasi if he beat Iver. It was only about removing a bad leader for him.
Seriously though a good leader does not seek conflict but is prepared should one become necessary. I think between everything Gravedust has come to understand that and is wise enough to properly guide his people now.
In my humble opinion, this is the best set of comments on the page. Thank you. :)
Which part is more fantasy? That the hateful douchebag who lied his way into power loses it? Or that once he exposes himself as unfit to rule, the people then recognize it and rally against him?
Definitely the latter.
I seems to me Hark is so much a bad guy as set in his ways whether or not they always serve him well.
…are you missing a “not”? Cause I can’t parse
maybe it’s just bedtime
I don’t think it’s even that. It’s more that, based on his own experience with humans, he’s going, “That’s lovely. Your idealism is charming, Penk, but your new humans friends will stab you in the back as soon as you don’t agree to them getting all the good land, you know.”
I don’t get why Iver would accept a challenge from Gravedust to begin with. It’s not like they’re of equal stature, otherwise Iver would have to accept challenges from every warrior out to make a name for himself. It makes sense that Penk could challenge Harky because he’s an avatar and a champion.
If Iver did not accept, he would have lost his position by default on the virtue of him being disqualified as a coward & hypocrite. His only way of keeping his position was to accept Gravedust’s challenge and win.
Also it’s possible that as mismatched as he was against he was still a somewhat capable warrior who was more adept at winning through deceit than physical prowless and he knew when to make enemies disappear before challenges became public knowledge.
Hypocrite how? He was calling Harky out for being “unnatural” not for being cowardly. An ex-Mystic that recently converted hardly has any grounds for claiming that he’s super devout to Tectonicus or whatever.
Also, the whole point I’m disputing is that everybody was challenging Iver to a duel. That makes no sense, because there’s no way to dissuade every hotheaded bravo from wasting your and everybody else’s time with meaningless judicial battles.
Panel 2: “Crap in a bucket, I didn’t plan for this!”
“I didn’t plan for being the leader of the Savasi, either!”
Wonder how Gravedust’s new status will go down if Harky wins. Granted, he isn’t a human, but his views are more in line with Penk’s, and I definitely can’t see him tolerating his friends being killed.
I can’t see how anything would work with Penk losing though, either narratively or theologically; he’s the one who’s been a focal character for the last months, he’s the underdog, he’s not-friends with the PCs, he’s the one who sees an alternative to complete genocide, and Tectonicus did just make grabby hands out from a mountain to save them all, as opposed to just grabbing his people and letting the rest fall or some such.
Seems to me like if Harky wins the story’s going to do something so weird that Gravedust leading the Savasi will be the least of it. (I’m sure it’d be good, I just have no idea what it would *be*)
that alt text ;o;
Grr…wrong again. Why don’t you stick to the cliche rulebook!
Bah, webcomic artists nowadays :-)
At least they had a last laugh together.
@Phil
You misunderstood, I did not mean to “threaten to beat you up”. I meant you should calm down before you incur a health problem.
After all, I am not the internet tough guy here.
Mm. Neither am I the Internet tough guy. I’m just a grumpy old man who wonders why people keep expecting me to be “fair and balanced” on a comic that’s been radically liberal since the word go.
Eviscerate the proletariat.
That’s my problem, doctor… I *am* the proletariat.
I’d ask “old liberal or new ‘liberal'”, but I don’t really know the policy on quotation marks within quotation marks. I guess I don’t really need to say that to indicate that there is nothing particularly liberal about the modern so-called left… but… well, that takes all the fun out of it.
Besides, I have my suspicions. Just sometimes I hope I might be able to convince those edging towards the modern left that maybe classic liberal might be a better position. One a bit more focused on liberty and a bit less on ganking people for the sake of hurt feelings.
That moment when Gravedust realizes what winning the challenge actually means.
“I recognize you as warchief.”
” O_O “