"I haven't been in the arena for months!" [Archive]

megabyter5

2010-11-17, 12:37 PM

Here's a thought. What if Tarquin agrees to free two prisoners of his son's choice, building towards a dramatic choice for Elan to choose either Haley's dad or one of his teammates to let die?

Tarquin: Here you are. Which two prisoners are we letting out?
Haley: *gasp* Dad?!
Elan: Uh... Can we make it three prisoners?
Tarquin: I agreed to TWO. You'll have to leave one behind. Mwa ha ha!
Belkar: HA! Tough break, old man.
Elan: Belkar stays.
Belkar: WHAT?!
Ian: HA! Tough break, shorty.

Then Belkar will have to fight in his AND Roy's matches, and for the hell of it his opponents get to gang up on him and he dies. And there was much rejoicing.

Kaytara

2010-11-17, 01:09 PM

If we're talking DRAHMA, Tarquin would get Elan to pick ONE prisoner of his choice.

...Soon followed by Tarquin screwing them somehow, and the following exchange:

Elan: :smalleek: Gasp! You lied to me! :smallfurious:

Tarquin: I promised to let them go. It was you who failed to specify when or where! :smallamused:

valce

2010-11-17, 01:17 PM

Burner28

2010-11-17, 01:23 PM

I like Tarquin more now. I am sad that he is probably going to be killed :(

I mean, 'iron fist' and 'ruthless dictatorship' aside, he and his gang are probably reducing the number of needless wars between the major powers... That makes him Good-ish, right? :D

Yes. If one allows for a very loose definition of Good-ish. Tarquin is most likely having a selfish motivation and is still LE as is most likely the other party members( I still kinda doubt they are not Evil aligned)

TheSummoner

2010-11-17, 01:35 PM

The problem with killing Tarquin is that hes got five other friends in high places who could be a real pain for the Order if they're the ones responsible for his death.

We don't know exactly how strong Tarquin's group is or how loyal the four in the other kingdoms are, but Malack seems pretty loyal and even if the Order could fight evenly against them theres still the matter of an enormous blimp of a dragon and three kingdoms worth of soldiers.

mucat

2010-11-17, 01:51 PM

I mean, 'iron fist' and 'ruthless dictatorship' aside, he and his gang are probably reducing the number of needless wars between the major powers... That makes him Good-ish, right? :D

Er...serial rapist, remember?

Murdim

2010-11-17, 02:04 PM

Is Ian Starshine doomed to meet a gruesome fate ? Let's find the answer with SCIENCE! Also, addictive websites.

Here's the Sorting Algorith of Mortality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WMG/SortingAlgorithmOfMortality). May its infinite wisdom guide us.

Row 1: Age: Older and wiser. Ouch. 5.
Row 2: Sexual orientation: Apparently straight. 3.
Row 3: Love interest: Not applicable.
Row 4: Role: I guess The Obi-Wan is the one that fits best. 5.
Row 5: Race: Caucasian. 1.
Row 6: Aesthetics: "Average", mostly by default. 3.
Row 7: Personality: He does have the Crazy Survivalist's paranoia. 5.
Row 8: Flaws: Probably greedy. 5
Row 9: Virtue: Knows way too much for his own good, and doesn't hesitate to put this knowledge into practical use, making him both curious and pragmatic. 5.
Row 10: Species: Human. 3
Row 11: Occupation: Haley's father and mentor. 5.

Total divided by rows: 40/10 = 4. He got a four! Will probably live long enough to be reunited with his daughter, but not much longer. With some luck, he might survive to meet his son-in-law.

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 02:47 PM

Er...serial rapist, remember?

Implied at most. Mind out of the gutter, please.

mucat

2010-11-17, 02:55 PM

Implied at most.

No, openly stated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html).

"Marry me or rot in the tower while I punish your homeland by proxy" qualifies. As does "marry me before your feet freeze off".

Tarquin is smart as hell, and a great character, but he is not remotely a good person.

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 03:04 PM

No, openly stated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html).

"Marry me or rot in the tower while I punish your homeland by proxy" qualifies. As does "marry me before your feet freeze off".

Tarquin is smart as hell, and a great character, but he is not remotely a good person.

Word? I read that comic a few times. It was implied a few times, like I said. It was never openly stated.

mucat

2010-11-17, 03:22 PM

Word? I read that comic a few times. It was implied a few times, like I said. It was never openly stated.

I'm not exactly sure what we're disagreeing about here. I'm not spinning a theory bassed on inferences, just looking at what's stated in the comic. (Not everyhing the reader sees was stated out loud for Elan to hear, if that's what you mean...so he still doesn't quite realize what his Dad is like.)

But from the reader's point of view, we know of at least two unambiguous cases where Tarquin threatened (EDIT: or tried to threaten) a woman into sleeping with him. He had his frost mage ally torture one of his earlier wives into agreeing to marry him. And now he's locking the ambassador in the Tower until she agrees. Both those acts constitute rape, and both of them are clearly established, not just "implied".

That he's done the same thing to other women besides these two is implied -- he did mention "some of" his old wives needing to be convinced, not just one -- but in these two cases, he's clearly guilty.

theinsulabot

2010-11-17, 03:37 PM

Implied at most. Mind out of the gutter, please.

your....joking...right...?

Kaytara

2010-11-17, 03:38 PM

theinsulabot

2010-11-17, 03:45 PM

or he has a moment to talk with haley and finds his peace, and admits he is looking forward to the chaotic nuetral afterlife.

(Im actually not all that familiar with the DnD afterlife system so disregard if whatever Ian is bound for is not something enjoyable)

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 03:49 PM

your....joking...right...?

Not at all, actually. It was, in fact, implied, and never stated. This is, after all, a comic that tries to be at least passingly appropriate for a wide variety of age groups. Hence, some of the more adult actions are implied. Hence, I can ignore them, should I feel that it increases my own enjoyment of the more plot relevant character traits.

Red XIV

2010-11-17, 04:33 PM

I like Tarquin more now. I am sad that he is probably going to be killed :(

I mean, 'iron fist' and 'ruthless dictatorship' aside, he and his gang are probably reducing the number of needless wars between the major powers... That makes him Good-ish, right? :D
A competent Lawful Evil ruler can cause incidental good results in the pursuit of his goals without shifting his alignment.

After all, reduced deaths among his own troops is obviously beneficial, it increases the power he has at his disposal.

137beth

2010-11-17, 04:53 PM

If Ian dies, it will have to happen in some way that will render him beyond resurrection for Durkon. Unless V starts going free with Disintegrates again, I have trouble imagining that scenario, so why kill him at all?

Whether or not he is disintegrated shouldn't matter too much. Resurrection can function if the subject was disintegrated. Raise dead, on the other hand, is unlikely to work because it requires Durkon to have the body, which Tarquin would probably stop him from getting.

Lord Thurlvin

2010-11-17, 07:01 PM

Whether or not he is disintegrated shouldn't matter too much. Resurrection can function if the subject was disintegrated. Raise dead, on the other hand, is unlikely to work because it requires Durkon to have the body, which Tarquin would probably stop him from getting.

If someone's body is completely destroyed, as is the case with disintegrate, only True Resurrection can bring him/her back. True Resurrection requires a 17th level cleric, if I'm not mistaken.

BridgeCity

2010-11-17, 07:12 PM

Implied at most. Mind out of the gutter, please.

Not at all, actually. It was, in fact, implied, and never stated. This is, after all, a comic that tries to be at least passingly appropriate for a wide variety of age groups. Hence, some of the more adult actions are implied. Hence, I can ignore them, should I feel that it increases my own enjoyment of the more plot relevant character traits.

Yes, you can choose to ignore them if you wish. Just don't tell other people that they have to abide by your personal code, because the simple fact that you believe you have the right to choose to ignore the implications means that other people have the right not to ignore them.

Klose_the_Sith

2010-11-17, 08:05 PM

But from the reader's point of view, we know of at least two unambiguous cases where Tarquin threatened (EDIT: or tried to threaten) a woman into sleeping with him. He had his frost mage ally torture one of his earlier wives into agreeing to marry him. And now he's locking the ambassador in the Tower until she agrees. Both those acts constitute rape, and both of them are clearly established, not just "implied".

Marriage =/= Intercourse

A shotgun wedding does not rape constitute, even if it is (somewhat) implied.

It's also likely that he'd find the idea abhorrent, through dramatic conventions and so forth - he can pretty obviously get women to sleep with him through consensual, if seedy, means and there's no reason to determine that he does anything with his wives beyond public humiliation/apology and then off with her head.

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 08:14 PM

Yes, you can choose to ignore them if you wish. Just don't tell other people that they have to abide by your personal code, because the simple fact that you believe you have the right to choose to ignore the implications means that other people have the right not to ignore them.

Now see, it's funny, because my choosing to believe that Tarquin does NOT take part in aforementioned acts is met with people claiming that I am blind, nay, moronic for disagreeing with what seems to be the general consensus of the community. Your claim that I am the one forcing my views upon other's is hardly an accurate one.

Katana_Geldar

2010-11-17, 08:17 PM

You know, if Ian goes into the arena, then it's rather likely Haley will recognise him by the way he moves.

Amarsir

2010-11-17, 08:23 PM

Heavily implied, but I have to agree it's an implication. He might hold captives until they get Stockholm syndrome and swoon.

I can't however endorse the "good-ish" description of Tarquin.

mucat

2010-11-17, 08:31 PM

Now see, it's funny, because my choosing to believe that Tarquin does NOT take part in aforementioned acts is met with people claiming that I am blind, nay, moronic for disagreeing with what seems to be the general consensus of the community. Your claim that I am the one forcing my views upon other's is hardly an accurate one.

You do reaiize, right, that if he tells someone "marry me or I'll (continue to) hurt you and/or punish your city", and she then goes on to "consensually" marry him and sleep with him, with no further sign of overt violence...then he is guilty of rape? (I suppose you could say that technically, the lady with the ice block on her feet might not have eventually married Tarquin, but that's hard to reconcile with his dialogue. And in any case, it would still make him an attempted rapist, which is enough to disqualify him from "goodish" alignment.)

No one is making any assumptions about what went on off-panel; we're just saying that what happened on-panel is enough to convict him.

Querzis

2010-11-17, 08:45 PM

You do reaiize, right, that if he tells someone "marry me or I'll (continue to) hurt you and/or punish your city", and she then goes on to "consensually" marry him and sleep with him, with no further sign of overt violence...then he is guilty of rape? (I suppose you could say that technically, the lady with the ice block on her feet might not have eventually married Tarquin, but that's hard to reconcile with his dialogue. And in any case, it would still make him an attempted rapist, which is enough to disqualify him from "goodish" alignment.)

No one is making any assumptions about what went on off-panel; we're just saying that what happened on-panel is enough to convict him.

Indeed. The only way Tarquin could not be guilty of rape is if he never had sex with his wives which is just ridiculous. And either way he would still be guilty of torture and mind rape so I really dont see how it makes it better. I mean seriously:
Not at all, actually. It was, in fact, implied, and never stated. This is, after all, a comic that tries to be at least passingly appropriate for a wide variety of age groups. Hence, some of the more adult actions are implied.

I have absolutely no idea why you apparently think that torturing womans to force them to marry you is supposed to be more «appropriate for a wide variety of age groups» then rape. When the hell did torture and mind rape became more appropriate then rape?

Heavily implied, but I have to agree it's an implication. He might hold captives until they get Stockholm syndrome and swoon.

Which would still be rape. Doesnt matter if hes forcing them physically or by making them insane, its still rape.

Anyway, back to the topic, yeah Ian is screwed. Maybe not Geoff but I just dont see how Ian could get out of this, genre convention say hes gonna die. But who knows, maybe the Giant will surprise us.

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 09:03 PM

I have absolutely no idea why you apparently think that torturing womans to force them to marry you is supposed to be any better then rape. When the hell did torture and mind rape became more appropriate then rape?

Um, because one will get you a PG rating, and one will get you an R rating? Because they involve nothing that could be conceived as intercourse? Because an 8 year old doesn't need to ask his parent's for "The Talk" to understand what's going on?

No one is making any assumptions about what went on off-panel; we're just saying that what happened on-panel is enough to convict him.

In case you didn't notice, this comic is generally rated PG at most. Hence, Rich is never going to elaborate upon any of the more dastardly acts of his villains. Hence, the so called scenes that "prove Tarquin Guilty" of any type of sexual assault do nothing more than imply that those actions may have taken place.

mucat

2010-11-17, 09:14 PM

In case you didn't notice, this comic is generally rated PG at most. Hence, Rich is never going to elaborate upon any of the more dastardly acts of his villains. Hence, the so called scenes that "prove Tarquin Guilty" of any type of sexual assault do nothing more than imply that those actions may have taken place.

Tarquin is shown making threats against two women in order to get them to marry and/or sleep with him. Such a threat, all by itself, constitutes sexual assault, even if he then walked away and never saw her again.

If you do not understand this, then you have no standing to tell someone else to "get their mind out of the gutter".

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 09:23 PM

Tarquin is shown making threats against two women in order to get them to marry and/or sleep with him. Such a threat, all by itself, constitutes sexual assault, even if he then walked away and never saw her again.

If you do not understand this, then you have no standing to tell someone else to "get their mind out of the gutter".

Well... no.

See, if he walked away right then and there, he could get slammed with harassment charges. And I'm sure that he would not enjoy the time he has to put a side for office sensitivity training courses, but he certainly wouldn't be convicted of rape, attempted or otherwise. Further more, he is only shown threatening one woman, the current bride to be being more informed of the upcoming ceremony than actually threatened.

In any case, I stand by the fact that while it certainly seems that he has forced women to marry him in the past, there is in fact no evidence that any intercourse, consensual or not has taken place. In fact, he even states that he's been "Going out of his way to prevent having any more children." It could just as easily be implied that he follows a policy of abstinence, as opposed to the rather more violent and distasteful route that you seem fixed upon.

Lord Thurlvin

2010-11-17, 09:33 PM

At this point, I'm hoping for Rich himself to show up and tell us whether we're supposed to infer Tarquin is a rapist or not.

mucat

2010-11-17, 09:40 PM

This has gotten seriously off-topic...but because it is a serious issue I have to answer your points; then I'm dropping the discussion (unless you would like to continue via pm.)

See, if he walked away right then and there, he could get slammed with harassment charges. And I'm sure that he would not enjoy the time he has to put a side for office sensitivity training courses, but he certainly wouldn't be convicted of rape, attempted or otherwise.
I am beginning to understand the assumptions behind some of the things you've said up until now...however, you're mistaken in your definitions. The line between "harassment" and "assault" is the first threat, not the first physical contact. Had he made annoying or degrading comments, he would be guilty of harassment; when he said "marry me or bad things happen to you or your city," it became sexual assault, even if he never follows through. (Not to mention the fact that he had the blue lady tied to a chair and tortured. Had he merely threatened to do these things, it would already be assault. Actually doing them just escalates his crimes.)

Further more, he is only shown threatening one woman, the current bride to be being more informed of the upcoming ceremony than actually threatened.

Threatening to imprison her if she won't marry him counts. So does the implied threat that he will treat her city more harshly if she refuses, though in that specific case, I grant your point that it is only implied.

In any case, I stand by the fact that while it certainly seems that he has forced women to marry him in the past, there is in fact no evidence that any intercourse, consensual or not has taken place.

No one said it did. He was guilty as soon as he made the threat.

It could just as easily be implied that he follows a policy of abstinence, as opposed to the rather more violent and distasteful route that you seem fixed upon.

You are the only one who is discussing any form of physical violence beyond what already appeared on-screen; others are simply stating that he made coercive threats. Frankly, you should apologize for that "fixed upon" statement as well as the earlier "gutter" one. They are both unwarranted insults.

BridgeCity

2010-11-17, 09:40 PM

Now see, it's funny, because my choosing to believe that Tarquin does NOT take part in aforementioned acts is met with people claiming that I am blind, nay, moronic for disagreeing with what seems to be the general consensus of the community. Your claim that I am the one forcing my views upon other's is hardly an accurate one.

Since you clearly missed it in my first post, I'll quote your relevant posting again . . .

Implied at most. Mind out of the gutter, please.

Telling people that they should bring their mind out of the gutter so as to stop believing that Tarquin is a rapist is telling people what they should or should not believe.

I never said you can't think what you want, in fact I said you could. I just said don't tell other people what to think. I stand by that point. I'll stand by that point against anyone telling another person what they should think, whether it is you or someone who disagrees with you.

You were the person to command others (Mucat, I believe) to change the way they think first, so your 'I'm the victim' stance is invalid.

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 09:52 PM

I am beginning to understand the assumptions behind some of the things you've said up until now...however, you're mistaken in your definitions. The line between "harassment" and "assault" is the first threat, not the first physical contact. Had he made annoying or degrading comments, he would be guilty of harassment; when he said "marry me or bad things happen to you or your city," it became sexual assault. (Not to mention the fact that he had the blue lady tied to a chair and tortured. Had he threatened to do these things, it would be assault. Actually doing them just escalates his crimes.)

Well, he never, at any point said "Marry me or bad thing's happen you your city." He said "Marry me". She said "Nah dude." He said "Oh, well if it's the whole marriage thing, that soldier guy is dead." At no point did he threaten further repercussions against the general populace.

Threatening to imprison her if she won't marry him counts. So does the implied threat that he will treat her city more harshly if she refuses, though in that specific case, I grant your point that it is only implied.

Similarly, he never threatened to imprison her for not marrying him. He DID have the guards have her taken away for coming at him with a sword. In fact, QUITE contrary to a threat, he actually said he would let her off for the crime that would ordinarily would get her killed.

You are the only one who is discussing physical violence; others are simply stating that he made the threats. Frankly, you should apologize for that "fixed upon" statement; it is a serious and unwarranted insult.

I stand by my statements. You (I actually was directing that as those of this ideal, not you individually) are sticking to the rape idea. Rape is considered a violent crime, hence, physical violence is also implied by anything that implies rape.

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 09:58 PM

Since you clearly missed it in my first post, I'll quote your relevant posting again . . .

Telling people that they should bring their mind out of the gutter so as to stop believing that Tarquin is a rapist is telling people what they should or should not believe.

I never said you can't think what you want, in fact I said you could. I just said don't tell other people what to think. I stand by that point. I'll stand by that point against anyone telling another person what they should think, whether it is you or someone who disagrees with you.

You were the person to command others (Mucat, I believe) to change the way they think first, so your 'I'm the victim' stance is invalid.

At no point did I claim to be a victim, I was pointing out the irony that I am considered to be "telling people what to think" by going against the prevalent idea, while no comment save for my own is raised when those in favor of the more common theory cry out indignantly against my posts.

BridgeCity

2010-11-17, 10:09 PM

At no point did I claim to be a victim, I was pointing out the irony that I am considered to be "telling people what to think" by going against the prevalent idea, while no comment save for my own is raised when those in favor of the more common theory cry out indignantly against my posts.

You claim it is funny because I told you not to tell people what to think, when people have actually been telling you waht to think. That sounds like a cry of 'I'm the victim here' to me.

In relation to your discussion with me, you have not been told what to think by me because you have gone against the prevalent idea. You have not been told what to think by me, period. You have instead been told not to impose your view on others.

I'm not involved with your current discussion with mucat.

Stop replying to my posts with points brought up by other people, they are not relevant to what I am talking to you about, and it is tiresome having to say the same things over and over.

Stmr5000

2010-11-17, 10:31 PM

You claim it is funny because I told you not to tell people what to think, when people have actually been telling you waht to think. That sounds like a cry of 'I'm the victim here' to me.

In relation to your discussion with me, you have not been told what to think by me because you have gone against the prevalent idea. You have not been told what to think by me, period. You have instead been told not to impose your view on others.

I'm not involved with your current discussion with mucat.

Stop replying to my posts with points brought up by other people, they are not relevant to what I am talking to you about, and it is tiresome having to say the same things over and over.

Very well, since you seem to have missed my point entirely, let me just say this. I don't tell you how to post. You don't tell me how to post. Frankly, if you wish to affect the way that I respond to your, or anyone else's comments, you had better get a mod on your side, because frankly, your standards carry no weight with me. So until that time, I bid you good day.

Ron Miel

2010-11-18, 12:07 AM

A couple of points. Tarquin has not attempted rape on Captain Zora. He attempted to seduce her, and failed. He wants to have sex with her, and is trying to persuade her to do it by consent. He has not attempted to force her. He is not threatening her city to force her to sleep with him. He is threatening her city for power. Nor has he locked her up to force her to sleep with him. He locked her up because she tried to kill him. It's not even clear that her husband was deliberately murdered, maybe he was just a random casualty of war.

As for cold feet woman, who says that was about sex. Maybe it was just a political marriage, to form a union between two countries, without sex involved. And, quite likely, she too is an agent of a dictatorship, so

Although Tarquin is certainly an evil character, I don't see that rape is among his crimes. We don't have the full stories here, so let's not jump to conclusions.

HalfTangible

2010-11-18, 12:19 AM

I don't think forcing someone to marry you counts as rape. It's almost as bad, i'll grant you, but until sex is actually involved, it ain't rape.

@Ron Miel: To make absolutely sure the husband was dead without actually being there to see it, Tarquin would have had to leave orders for ALL of those pikemen to be killed.

Every. Single. One.

headmonkeyboy

2010-11-18, 12:22 AM

Its funny watching you people argue. :)

On another note...

Yeah. I think Elan gets to pick two people out of the arena.
1. Haley`s Dad
2. Roy

Belkar gets left to fight, but i dont think he dies....yet. Most people are expecting Belkar to die in the arena, and The Giant usually isnt the one who would put something into the story that we are all mostly expecting. But who knows? Maybe it could be a double bluff.

Ron Miel

2010-11-18, 01:10 AM

@Ron Miel: To make absolutely sure the husband was dead without actually being there to see it, Tarquin would have had to leave orders for ALL of those pikemen to be killed.

Every. Single. One.

You miss a point. Tarquin just implies that her husband is dead. He doesn't say that he deliberately "made absolutely sure" of it.

People died in the battle. It might be that her husband was just a random casualty, and not deliberately targeted.

turkishproverb

2010-11-18, 01:15 AM

Yes. If one allows for a very loose definition of Good-ish. Tarquin is most likely having a selfish motivation and is still LE as is most likely the other party members( I still kinda doubt they are not Evil aligned)

I imagine you might have a neutral or two in there.

BridgeCity

2010-11-18, 01:56 AM

Very well, since you seem to have missed my point entirely, let me just say this. I don't tell you how to post. You don't tell me how to post. Frankly, if you wish to affect the way that I respond to your, or anyone else's comments, you had better get a mod on your side, because frankly, your standards carry no weight with me. So until that time, I bid you good day.

Once more, because you seem to have managed to completely ignore it again . . .

Implied at most. Mind out of the gutter, please.

That right there, that IS you telling other people how to post. I'm at a loss as to how you can think otherwise.

As I said, repeating the same thing over and over is tiresome. Don't bother to reply, I'm not coming back to this thread. There is no point.

Kaytara

2010-11-18, 08:17 AM

Whoa. Law and/or morality debates. They spring up everywhere, don't they?

For my part, I consider it quite likely that Tarquin did not actually force or coerce his wives into sex against their consent, because, as mentioned already, it seems the sort of thing that would be beneath him, the extraordinary ladies' man.

Official marriage is primarily a political tool. The tricky part is getting the bride to behave herself at the necessarily public wedding ceremony, thus fooling everyone into believing that Tarquin's current Empire and the Empire of Insert Bodily Fluid Here now share diplomatic relations. It seems perfectly possible that, as long as the bride and wife cooperated in upholding this facade, Tarquin would leave her alone in all other matters, until she started making enough trouble and/or another alliance through marriage became necessary, at which point he would order her death.

Marriage only implies sex if it's supposed to produce heirs. Tarquin doesn't seem to consider that to be an objective, especially after how Nale turned out, so there's nothing to indicate that his forced marriages involve sex. There's no evidence against it, either. It's simply an unknown. Maybe we could drop the topic now?

You miss a point. Tarquin just implies that her husband is dead. He doesn't say that he deliberately "made absolutely sure" of it.

People died in the battle. It might be that her husband was just a random casualty, and not deliberately targeted.

If Tarquin had nothing to do with it, then he would have no way to be certain about the husband being a casualty.