We all own Tarquin an apology.

[shadowpriest]

Hi everyone.

Back in Strip 727 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0727.html), we learn that Tarquin's ninth wife, Penelope, died of "Mysterious circumstances". Then, we find out that Tarquin is a villain (although not a main one).

Admit it. We all thought "Sh'yeah, right! He must have killed her somehow!". Those who didn't, raise your hands.

But I, for once, admit I was wrong. It wasn't Tarquin - it was Vaarsuvius!

So, yeah. Sorry Tarquin. You're a cold-blooded killer and all, but AT LEAST you weren't responsible for this particular death.

[Ionathus]

Actually, I didn't even interpret that as Tarquin being guilty. Something about the way he said it...maybe because he didn't have even a hint of the "wringing hands and grinning maniacally" demeanor.

[Nimrod's Son]

This isn't really news, V flat-out stated he was responsible back in strip #843 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html).

[shadowpriest]

Yeah, my "apology" is a little late :smallredface:

[masamune1]

I think it was obvious he was innocent much earlier than that. He accused Nale of killing her at one point.

[Evandar]

...

Yeah, you got me. I totally thought it was the General in the Dining Room with the Enchanted Axe.

[orrion]

Hi everyone.

Back in Strip 727 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0727.html), we learn that Tarquin's ninth wife, Penelope, died of "Mysterious circumstances". Then, we find out that Tarquin is a villain (although not a main one).

Admit it. We all thought "Sh'yeah, right! He must have killed her somehow!". Those who didn't, raise your hands.

But I, for once, admit I was wrong. It wasn't Tarquin - it was Vaarsuvius!

So, yeah. Sorry Tarquin. You're a cold-blooded killer and all, but AT LEAST you weren't responsible for this particular death.

Sorry, I'm not going to apologize for the guy who struck a pose and said in quotes "mysterious circumstances."

In other words, it wasn't the fact that he's a villain that made me think he was guilty. It was the way he responded to the question of her death, and that response is entirely his own fault.

[Evandar]

It was mainly the fact he was 9 wives in that did it for me. STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY.

[Kish]

With or without an apology, I do not, repeat not, own Tarquin.

While I have never even considered giving a pet to the pound, if I discovered I owned a Tarquin, I would make an exception.

[Copperdragon]

No, we don't.

He is a horrible person that deserves all blame we might shovel in his direction until he finds his deserved demise. That he did not commit this specific atrocity does not matter at all.

I do not think I "owe" a mass murderer, dictator, rapist, blackmailer, liar, torturer (etc etc etc) who threatenes peoples families to force his will an apology because he did not commit one specific crime where we suspected (suspected!) he might have done something.

[Poppy Appletree]

With or without an apology, I do not, repeat not, own Tarquin.

While I have never even considered giving a pet to the pound, if I discovered I owned a Tarquin, I would make an exception.

:smallbiggrin:

Also, to the topic: Yeah, no.

[Ionathus]

Sorry, I'm not going to apologize for the guy who struck a pose and said in quotes "mysterious circumstances."

I'll admit it's open to interpretation, but his "pose" seemed to me to be a combination of actual grief and his near-legal obligation to follow certain dramatic elements to provide the readers with a joke. Hence the slightly overdramatic pose and the quotes. I think he's required to do it that way.

[Dragosani]

I thought it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the study?!

[BaronOfHell]

[Tarquin] is a horrible person that deserves all blame we might shovel in his [..] That he did not commit this specific atrocity does not matter at all.

This reminds me of those cops tv shows where the protagonist is certain he/she has got the criminal no matter what the evidence is saying, he/she keeps focusing on finding out the accused is guilty more than trying to solve the case.

Then he/she finds something and persuaded the accused to plead guilty and the episode ends, and despite the accused being a horrible person who's guilty of other stuff, we never finds out if the actual person behind the crime in question isn't still wandering around somewhere out there while this other person is being semi coerced to take the blame.

[137beth]

Objection overruled: Never said "killed" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html)...
Tarquin Caused the Death of Penelope. Varsuvius went insane because of his/her perceived lack of power. And one of the principle reasons for that was his/her inability to overcome Spell Resistance. And who gave V the most trouble with SR? Why, Z (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html)! But Z was only fighting V because of Nale. And Nale is only the way he is because of how Tarquin raised him. Thus, Tarquin caused Nale to Cause Z to Cause V to Cause the IFFC to Cause V to Cause the death of Penelope.

[BaronOfHell]

Yeah, but V was even more upset about hir powers failure at uniting the party.

The party was split as a consequence of the battle at Azure City.

The order would have teleported to Girard's gate before learning of the forthcoming battle had their Wizard not got eaten.

Their Wizard only got eaten because he got drunk at their side quest.

What side quest was that? Oh right, stopping Nale!

And why did they've to stop Nale? Because of Tarquin.

[Ionathus]

I really like how a thread entitled "We all [owe] Tarquin an apology" somehow veers off to "Reasons Tarquin is Responsible for Every Event in OotS" within the first page.

Well, more of a flip than a veer, but still.

[RNGgod]

With or without an apology, I do not, repeat not, own Tarquin.

While I have never even considered giving a pet to the pound, if I discovered I owned a Tarquin, I would make an exception.

I woke up feeling pretty sick this morning, and the mental image of Tarquin looking really sad as someone hands him over to the pound and drives away has been the best part of my day by far.

[David Argall]

No, we don't.

He is a horrible person that deserves all blame we might shovel in his direction until he finds his deserved demise. That he did not commit this specific atrocity does not matter at all.

I do not think I "owe" a mass murderer, dictator, rapist, blackmailer, liar, torturer (etc etc etc) who threatenes peoples families to force his will an apology because he did not commit one specific crime where we suspected (suspected!) he might have done something.
Now we may well want to deliver the apology at his hanging, but yes, we do owe him an apology [not myself personally since I didn't look close enough to even consider he might be guilty-and yes, "we" is still proper English even when I am not one of the group directly involved-, and to the extend I might have considered it less consciously, I rejected the idea. Tarquin introduced the subject himself, without need if he was guilty of the crime. And while Tarquin does a lot of lying, that sort of lie does not suit his style.] We have wronged him, and even if he escapes blame for many crimes, that creates a duty to correct those we can, not say the two wrongs make a right.
By blaming T, we let V get away with his crime. Now we can argue she was not guilty of a crime, or at least not as guilty as he is making out, but we want to give everybody full credit or blame for everything, and so any true blame goes to her, not to some "innocent bystander", no matter what he may or may not be guilty of.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Taruin did not kill Penelope. I must apologize for assuming that he did.

I do not, however, apologize for judging him to be responsible for other things, such as: the deaths of 30 or so slaves (some of which may have been lizardfolk), starting an invasion of Reptilia, mistreating an Antrodemus Allosaurus, mistreating Ganji and Enor, failing to recognize that a Brontosaurus is not simply an Apatosaurus with the head of a different dinosaur, planning to betray the Empress of Blood, having an oligarchy of five mammals (and one traitor to all reptilians) oppressing thousands of reptilians, having a wealthy flying-carpet merchant fall to his death (he may have landed on a baby tuatara! Those are endangered, I think), and general hogging of pagetime away from better characters like Ambassador G.

[orrion]

Now we may well want to deliver the apology at his hanging, but yes, we do owe him an apology [not myself personally since I didn't look close enough to even consider he might be guilty-and yes, "we" is still proper English even when I am not one of the group directly involved-, and to the extend I might have considered it less consciously, I rejected the idea. Tarquin introduced the subject himself, without need if he was guilty of the crime. And while Tarquin does a lot of lying, that sort of lie does not suit his style.] We have wronged him, and even if he escapes blame for many crimes, that creates a duty to correct those we can, not say the two wrongs make a right.
By blaming T, we let V get away with his crime. Now we can argue she was not guilty of a crime, or at least not as guilty as he is making out, but we want to give everybody full credit or blame for everything, and so any true blame goes to her, not to some "innocent bystander", no matter what he may or may not be guilty of.

No, that is absolutely not proper usage of "we." You have to include yourself in that grouping or it doesn't freaking work. If my friend accidentally drops something on another man's foot while I'm across the room, I don't go up to the man and say "We're sorry for dropping that on your foot." That's a proper English sentence, but it's still WRONG.

How did "we" let V get away with anything? First off, V didn't even know he had done that at the time, so how the heck was anyone else supposed to know? When you "let" someone get away with something it is presumed you know what they did and you're letting them off the hook for it. There was no hook until like 100 comics later. Secondly, Tarquin implicated himself with the "mysterious circumstances" thing.

[Gift Jeraff]

So do we each get a part of Tarquin? I call dibs on the 2 family trademark strands of hair.

[BaronOfHell]

How did "we" let V get away with anything?

Pretty sure he's referencing the post he's quoting.

[Bulldog Psion]

With or without an apology, I do not, repeat not, own Tarquin.

While I have never even considered giving a pet to the pound, if I discovered I owned a Tarquin, I would make an exception.

Kish, you are truly the crowned monarch of posters. I have to admit I always scan a freshly loaded page of comments first for your name before reading through, because your posts are hilarious. And usually spot on. :smallcool:

Anyway, Tarquin basically set himself up to look guilty, probably for dramatic effect, so it wasn't unreasonable to think he'd killed her before we got more information later.

[RNGgod]

I felt compelled to throw this together real quick.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7376/tdxv.png

[Muenster Man]

I felt compelled to throw this together real quick.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7376/tdxv.png

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

[Kish]

Kish, you are truly the crowned monarch of posters. I have to admit I always scan a freshly loaded page of comments first for your name before reading through, because your posts are hilarious. And usually spot on. :smallcool:
Thanks. :smallredface: I'm glad you like my posts.

[BaronOfHell]

Thanks. :smallredface: I'm glad you like my posts.

He's not the only one, btw.

Great post as usual.

[martianmister]

Shame and jokes on you, I never assumed he did it in the first place.

[David Argall]

No, that is absolutely not proper usage of "we." You have to include yourself in that grouping or it doesn't freaking work.
There are large numbers of ways to include yourself, or to be included despite not wanting to be. In the case at hand, I am a member of the group, posters to the forum, and so I become part of a we, even when I do not agree with the post in question. A more formal case would be where I would be an employee of Megacorp and it adopts some policy. Whether or not I approved or the policy, or fought it tooth and nail, I would be correct in saying "we [Megacorp] did this and now feel..."



If my friend accidentally drops something on another man's foot while I'm across the room, I don't go up to the man and say "We're sorry for dropping that on your foot." That's a proper English sentence, but it's still WRONG.
It's only wrong if your friend is not sorry, and the presumption is that he is. Even when he is not sorry, the proper term is still "we" since he should be.



How did "we" let V get away with anything?
By saying "T did this", we are also saying "V did not". Now true, we had little reason to suspect V, but as V tells us, the sexual habits of both humans and dragons are well known and our not suspecting V is our fault, even if not a very great one. We are absolving V of guilt.



Tarquin implicated himself with the "mysterious circumstances" thing.
Little, if any, more than he implicated everybody else who did not have an alibi. Imagine the same scene where Tarquin is not going to turn out to be Mr. Evil. The "mysterious circumstances" line fits in fine anyway. If we wanted to show Tarquin as the guilty party, the death of the queen would be mentioned by some bystander, not by Tarquin, who would "explain" why he had "nothing" to do with it. Now if we were writing a murder mystery, we might have T talk about "mysterious circumstances", but the strip style has been "Hi, stranger I have never seen before..." We would expect an evil monologue if T were guilty.

[Domino Quartz]

Little, if any, more than he implicated everybody else who did not have an alibi. Imagine the same scene where Tarquin is not going to turn out to be Mr. Evil. The "mysterious circumstances" line fits in fine anyway. If we wanted to show Tarquin as the guilty party, the death of the queen would be mentioned by some bystander, not by Tarquin, who would "explain" why he had "nothing" to do with it. Now if we were writing a murder mystery, we might have T talk about "mysterious circumstances", but the strip style has been "Hi, stranger I have never seen before..." We would expect an evil monologue if T were guilty.

No. "We" wouldn't. You would. Stop acting as if you speak for everyone.

[orrion]

There are large numbers of ways to include yourself, or to be included despite not wanting to be. In the case at hand, I am a member of the group, posters to the forum, and so I become part of a we, even when I do not agree with the post in question. A more formal case would be where I would be an employee of Megacorp and it adopts some policy. Whether or not I approved or the policy, or fought it tooth and nail, I would be correct in saying "we [Megacorp] did this and now feel..."

Except that in this case there are 2 distinct groups of posters - those who pegged Tarquin for the crime and those who did not. The first group is not part of the second group.

In your formal example there are not 2 distinct groups. There is only 1 group - employees of Megacorp. That is all the outside world sees formally. There is no such category on the forums.



It's only wrong if your friend is not sorry, and the presumption is that he is. Even when he is not sorry, the proper term is still "we" since he should be.

You're missing the point. It's not about whether he is sorry. It's about whether I participated. I did not, therefore "we" is incorrect. I can apologize for him, or he can apologize for himself. An apology that includes me is wrong because I had no part in the action in question.



By saying "T did this", we are also saying "V did not". Now true, we had little reason to suspect V, but as V tells us, the sexual habits of both humans and dragons are well known and our not suspecting V is our fault, even if not a very great one. We are absolving V of guilt.

You're using future knowledge incorrectly. At the time in question nobody was aware that the clan was related to dragons. There was no reason to suspect it and there were forum questions the Giant specifically avoided answering in order to not give the revelation away. Not realizing that revelation until it was revealed is not a fault of the readers; it was intentionally hidden.

The only scenario where your interpretation would be correct is if someone had kept blaming Tarquin for Penelope's death even after it was revealed that V was responsible for it.



Little, if any, more than he implicated everybody else who did not have an alibi. Imagine the same scene where Tarquin is not going to turn out to be Mr. Evil. The "mysterious circumstances" line fits in fine anyway. If we wanted to show Tarquin as the guilty party, the death of the queen would be mentioned by some bystander, not by Tarquin, who would "explain" why he had "nothing" to do with it. Now if we were writing a murder mystery, we might have T talk about "mysterious circumstances", but the strip style has been "Hi, stranger I have never seen before..." We would expect an evil monologue if T were guilty.

An evil monologue in front of the son he had basically just met? I don't think so. You're also again using future information erroneously. At that point there wasn't enough information available about Tarquin to expect that such a monologue was part of his character.

I'm of the opinion the Giant intentionally cast Tarquin as appearing guilty so that the revelation had more impact.

[Rogar Demonblud]

While I have never even considered giving a pet to the pound, if I discovered I owned a Tarquin, I would make an exception.

What did the pound ever do to deserve that?

[martianmister]

No. "We" wouldn't. You would. Stop acting as if you speak for everyone.

We agreed.

[Batoideus]

Actually, more than just the one wife. I don't know about you guys, but I was under the assumption he killed all his previous wives save Elan and Nale's mother, but now we know Julio's rescued some of them. Tarquin is still a deplorable man, but he's had slightly less crimes than we previous thought.

[Kish]

Actually, more than just the one wife. I don't know about you guys, but I was under the assumption he killed all his previous wives save Elan and Nale's mother, but now we know Julio's rescued some of them.
Actually, Rich spelled out that Julio exclusively rescued Tarquin's brides at the altar--he never rescued anyone Tarquin managed to get all the way through the ceremony. His nine wives were people Julio did not rescue. The first one apparently loved him for a while or at least thought she did, Penelope married him for his money and power (likely so that she could track down her daughter), and other than that...

Well. I would be surprised to learn anywhere near 50% of Tarquin's wives married him willingly, and not at all surprised to learn that only those two did.

[Metahuman1]

I'll apologize after I take his Nads off and break his arms and lower spine, but before I list all the stuff he's done/doing/will do that warrant the violence I've offered him so far to disable him and the follow up finishing stroke when I take his head off, which will happen immediately next.

Fair enough?

[The_Weirdo]

I'm of the opinion the Giant intentionally cast Tarquin as appearing guilty so that the revelation had more impact.

I refer you to the last sentence uttered by the man himself in this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0818.html

[Ionathus]

We agreed.

I've only been on the forums for a few months but this pattern is becoming clear:

1. Mr. Argall joins the discussion.
2. Discussion inevitably turns to pronoun usage.
3. Hilarity ensues.

With that said, I'm with David on the gist of his original point here: people who say "we won't apologize for assuming he murdered his wife because he's already a horrible person" are both A) setting up a system in which the Benefit of the Doubt does not exist and, therefore, neither can redemption, and B) damaging the credibility of their own arguments.

I mean, think about it: when you start convicting people of crimes in your head, even if those crimes are real and terrible, and then continue by not treating their subsequent actions with full fairness because "he/she has already committed all of these other crimes and doesn't deserve to be judged fairly", all you really wind up doing is jumping to conclusions...and we all know how well that can go :miko:.

Edit -- Metahuman1: Agreed. Fair enough.

[Kish]

"we won't apologize for assuming he murdered his wife because he's already a horrible person"
I think it's more a matter of, "That he murdered his wife was the logical assumption, and he is in fact just as terrible a person as he would have been had he murdered that particular one of his wives, even though he didn't murder her."

Or to put it another way, I think some people would prefer not to look back and think, Did I just apologize to you, for you not murdering your wife? (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=260)

[Ionathus]

I think it's more a matter of, "That he murdered his wife was the logical assumption, and he is in fact just as terrible a person as he would have been had he murdered that particular one of his wives, even though he didn't murder her."

Or to put it another way, I think some people would prefer not to look back and think, Did I just apologize to you, for you not murdering your wife? (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=260)

You're right, if we're looking at this from a personal point of view. Somehow, I always from the start viewed this discussion as some sort of court proceedings, one in which justice is required to be objective and totally fair on every point, even when judging mass murdering tyrant fearmongering manipulative filicidal narratively-hamstrung dictators with overtones of Darth Vader wannabe.

Is he guilty of this specific crime? No? Right, then we won't add that to the other seven thousand crimes for which he is standing trial.

But let the record reflect that the court nonetheless finds Tarquin to be "a total jerk," in which the word "jerk" is a stand in for any number of other delightful forum-unfriendly words.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

You're right, if we're looking at this from a personal point of view. Somehow, I always from the start viewed this discussion as some sort of court proceedings, one in which justice is required to be objective and totally fair on every point, even when judging mass murdering tyrant fearmongering manipulative filicidal narratively-hamstrung dictators with overtones of Darth Vader wannabe.

Is he guilty of this specific crime? No? Right, then we won't add that to the other seven thousand crimes for which he is standing trial.

But let the record reflect that the court nonetheless finds Tarquin to be "a total jerk," in which the word "jerk" is a stand in for any number of other delightful forum-unfriendly words.

You know what's funny? The forum won't let you call somebody a ****, a ****, a ******* **** in ****, a *******, a **** wrapper of a **** sandwhich with **** on top on a plate made of ****, a ****, a total ****, a Norwegian ****; but it lets you say the worst insult ever.

It lets you call someone a soap.

Among two out of the three domains of life, "soap" is the most vile insult the world has.

[Ionathus]

You know what's funny? The forum won't let you call somebody a ****, a ****, a ******* **** in ****, a *******, a **** wrapper of a **** sandwhich with **** on top on a plate made of ****, a ****, a total ****, a Norwegian ****; but it lets you say the worst insult ever.

It lets you call someone a soap.

Among two out of the three domains of life, "soap" is the most vile insult the world has.

I'm guessing that final "****" was supposed to be "Blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Parrot_sketch)"?

[RNGgod]

If we were seeking to put Tarquin on trial for his crimes, then yes, we were incorrect. I am perfectly happy to admit that I was wrong in this case.
The question of whether or not we owe Tarquin an apology is quite different.


If a confirmed murderer and serial rapist appeared to have murdered again, it would absolutely be unfair and unjust to presume that person guilty based on past actions. That is why the legal system prohibits using prior wrongs to prove action in comfority therewith.

But if I told a friend that I believed said murderer had committed the new murder, and turned out to be wrong, and that had no bearing on any criminal trial that may or may not have occurred (as it of course did here, this being a fictional universe). I'm under no obligation to apologize. I suppose it might be a kind gesture, but I'm not particularly inclined to be kind to Tarquin, and I hope no one else is, either.


In short: there is no reason to believe that anyone who feels strongly about the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system would also feel the need to apologize to evil people for wrongly attributing one act to them.

[The_Weirdo]

You know what's funny? The forum won't let you call somebody a ****, a ****, a ******* **** in ****, a *******, a **** wrapper of a **** sandwhich with **** on top on a plate made of ****, a ****, a total ****, a Norwegian ****; but it lets you say the worst insult ever.

It lets you call someone a soap.

Among two out of the three domains of life, "soap" is the most vile insult the world has.

I agree. It is indeed a pity that you can't call someone a tune, a sign, a seeming bend in oars, a surgeon, a blue wrapper of a flan sandwich with figs on top on a plate made of wood, a slip, a total bloc, a Norwegian toon; but it lets you say ****.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

No. "We" wouldn't. You would. Stop acting as if you speak for everyone.

As Konungr of my imaginary Kingdom of Rozburg, I am a monarch.

I have ennobled David Argall, made him royalty, in fact.

That is why he insists on using "we" to refer to himself.

[Kish]

But he's not a lizard.

(Is he?)

(Lest this be perceived or actual incitement to flaming rather than the intended humor, let me add that I do not wish a response on Argall's species from anyone but Argall.)

[David Argall]

Except that in this case there are 2 distinct groups of posters - those who pegged Tarquin for the crime and those who did not. The first group is not part of the second group.

In your formal example there are not 2 distinct groups. There is only 1 group - employees of Megacorp. That is all the outside world sees formally. There is no such category on the forums.
There is one group on the forum, those who post.



You're missing the point. It's not about whether he is sorry. It's about whether I participated. I did not,
But as already noted with Megacorp, you can participate in a lot of ways, which include ways where you are dragged kicking and screaming into the group. Here you are a friend of the felon, and thus in some degree at fault.



therefore "we" is incorrect. I can apologize for him,
Not without acknowledging the "we". You are acknowledging guilt by apologizing. So by apologizing for someone, you have to be part of his group, and a "we".



An apology that includes me is wrong because I had no part in the action in question.
You are a friend of his. So of course, the two[+] of you form a "we" and he can apologize for you, whether or not you did something of blame.



You're using future knowledge incorrectly. At the time in question nobody was aware that the clan was related to dragons. There was no reason to suspect it
As V tells us, there very much was reason to suspect it. Humans breed with just about any other race. Dragons breed with just about any other race. Human-dragon crossbreeds should have been obvious. V may have been overstating the risk, but he could have wiped out the human and several other races.



and there were forum questions the Giant specifically avoided answering in order to not give the revelation away.
Which again says that there was reason to suspect.



The only scenario where your interpretation would be correct is if someone had kept blaming Tarquin for Penelope's death even after it was revealed that V was responsible for it.
No such limit. You are at fault when you accuse anybody of anything they did not do. The fact their innocence has not been established only affects the degree of guilt.



An evil monologue in front of the son he had basically just met? I don't think so.
Given Tarquin made them almost constantly when he was with Elan, you had best think so.



You're also again using future information erroneously. At that point there wasn't enough information available about Tarquin to expect that such a monologue was part of his character.
The evil monologue was to explain facts to the reader, not to establish Tarquin's character, tho it can do that too.

[orrion]

As V tells us, there very much was reason to suspect it. Humans breed with just about any other race. Dragons breed with just about any other race. Human-dragon crossbreeds should have been obvious. V may have been overstating the risk, but he could have wiped out the human and several other races.


V is speaking in general.

What V is saying is this:

"I should have realized that I would be killing humans when I decided to cast a spell that would kill 25% of the dragons on the planet, given that they mate with each other."

There was no reason to suppose Penelope was such a human any more than there was reason to supposed Roy, Elan or Haley were.



No such limit. You are at fault when you accuse anybody of anything they did not do. The fact their innocence has not been established only affects the degree of guilt.

Ok, but you said you didn't accuse Tarquin. So you're not at fault.

Look, if you want to start taking responsibility for things based on some silly concept of grouping everyone together on common ground - someone hit my dad's car last month. You drive a car, so it's now your fault and I want you to pay for it.

[RNGgod]

Here you are a friend of the felon, and thus in some degree at fault.





.....

What?

[Kevka Palazzo]

.....

What?

I've long since stopped trying to understand David, and if I could figure out how to ignore somebody I would have added him to my list long ago.

[orrion]

I've long since stopped trying to understand David, and if I could figure out how to ignore somebody I would have added him to my list long ago.

Profile - Miscellaneous header - Buddy /Ignore Lists - Ignore List - Add New User to List - Save List.

[Copperdragon]

This reminds me of those cops tv shows where the protagonist is certain he/she has got the criminal no matter what the evidence is saying, he/she keeps focusing on finding out the accused is guilty more than trying to solve the case.

Then he/she finds something and persuaded the accused to plead guilty and the episode ends, and despite the accused being a horrible person who's guilty of other stuff, we never finds out if the actual person behind the crime in question isn't still wandering around somewhere out there while this other person is being semi coerced to take the blame.

What does this have to do with it? We know for certain Tarquin is horrible and evil and in contrast to your quote we are in a narrative, in a ficitious fantasy setting where dictators "do deserve death". This isn't even the morally cleaner Lord of the Rings, this is basically standard fantasy where it's ok to condemn an evil dictator. That he did not commit this specific atrocity is irrelevant.

Apart from that, we're not trying to "find this criminal, no matter what the evidence says". We accept the evidence says he's no done this specific crime but consider him condemn-worthy of all the other proven stuff.

D&D and more archaic settings can do something that RL justice (including some cop shows I do not know) cannot: Condem someone for their "general style of life and all those crimes he committed there" and not a specific crime. Narration, stories, games - we do it all the time there and it's fine.

[SowZ]

No, we don't.

He is a horrible person that deserves all blame we might shovel in his direction until he finds his deserved demise. That he did not commit this specific atrocity does not matter at all.

I do not think I "owe" a mass murderer, dictator, rapist, blackmailer, liar, torturer (etc etc etc) who threatens peoples families to force his will an apology because he did not commit one specific crime where we suspected (suspected!) he might have done something.

To be fair, we don't actually know that he forces his unwilling wives to consummate. They may be totally celibate marriages. From what we've seen, his engagements might be more for political influence and securing his claim over a region. It might be pure politics and power-plays. If she's attractive, that she might sleep with him is probably a plus, sure. If she refuses? Well, he still needs the alliance but I doubt Tarquin feels honor-bound to respect the vows of a marriage that was a sham, anyway. He has plenty of willing options, I am sure.

[Domino Quartz]

To be fair, we don't actually know that he forces his unwilling wives to consummate.

I'm pretty sure The Giant has actually said that he is, in fact, a rapist.

[Copperdragon]

I'm pretty sure The Giant has actually said that he is, in fact, a rapist.

Yes, he did.

And even if Tarquin did not do that, his empire is full of crimes he comitted. During the run of the comic alone we have seen over a dozen horrible things he seems to do on an occasional basis.
Nailing people on posts an setting them on fire alive to make a nice show for his son and a sign of terror for everyone else?

I am for defending people against too quick accusations. But dictators as Tarquin? Put an axe in their head and be done with it.

[SowZ]

Yes, he did.

And even if Tarquin did not do that, his empire is full of crimes he comitted. During the run of the comic alone we have seen over a dozen horrible things he seems to do on an occasional basis.
Nailing people on posts an setting them on fire alive to make a nice show for his son and a sign of terror for everyone else?

I am for defending people against too quick accusations. But dictators as Tarquin? Put an axe in their head and be done with it.

Hmm, I thought he might be the kind of villain who wouldn't rape. Not because he's above it morally, certainly not. But just because he has delusions of refinement. I suppose not.

[AKA_Bait]

"we" is still proper English even when I am not one of the group directly involved

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/we


There is one group on the forum, those who post.

What about those who lurk?


You are a friend of his. So of course, the two[+] of you form a "we" and he can apologize for you, whether or not you did something of blame.

In the same way that I can take any two singular personal pronouns and create a "you"?


No such limit. You are at fault when you accuse anybody of anything they did not do. The fact their innocence has not been established only affects the degree of guilt.

Honestly, I just disagree with you here. If I accuse someone of something based on evidence and in good faith, I have not actually done anything wrong even if it turns out based on later discovered evidence that I was incorrect.

[SowZ]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/we



What about those who lurk?



In the same way that I can take any two singular personal pronouns and create a "you"?



Honestly, I just disagree with you here. If I accuse someone of something based on evidence and in good faith, I have not actually done anything wrong even if it turns out based on later discovered evidence that I was incorrect.

Agreed. If it's wrong to accuse someone of a crime without proof, then no trial should ever occur since the whole point of a trial is to establish that guilt. The accused is presumed innocent before the verdict.

[Ionathus]

But if I told a friend that I believed said murderer had committed the new murder, and turned out to be wrong, and that had no bearing on any criminal trial that may or may not have occurred (as it of course did here, this being a fictional universe). I'm under no obligation to apologize. I suppose it might be a kind gesture, but I'm not particularly inclined to be kind to Tarquin, and I hope no one else is, either.


Ah, my friend, but you miss the most important point; for we have long since learned that the forums do, in fact, only serve one purpose, and that is to pass judgment on every character, action, plot device, and trope which Rich has called into being.

Justice is a cruel mistress here in the Court of the Forum of the Stick, employing multiple lawyers on each side of the argument and a hastily-thrown-together jury comprised of folks who keep switching sides if somebody rubs them the wrong way. The judges are doing their best but the laws of physics work against them, as they have too much on their plates and not enough time, and if they do manage to fix their attention on one case long enough to overrule the forty people screaming "OBJECTION!" then it's more than we can hope for. :smallbiggrin:

[AKA_Bait]

Agreed. If it's wrong to accuse someone of a crime without proof, then no trial should ever occur since the whole point of a trial is to establish that guilt. The accused is presumed innocent before the verdict.

Actually, I don't think it even needs to be that extreme. Based on Argall's statement, the police should never even seriously investigate or advise in favor of prosecution. It's not like the forum here brought Tarquin up on charges, we (?) just speculated as to whether he was the one who did her in based on the available evidence at the time.

[The Pilgrim]

Actually, Rich spelled out that Julio exclusively rescued Tarquin's brides at the altar--he never rescued anyone Tarquin managed to get all the way through the ceremony. His nine wives were people Julio did not rescue. The first one apparently loved him for a while or at least thought she did, Penelope married him for his money and power (likely so that she could track down her daughter), and other than that...

Well. I would be surprised to learn anywhere near 50% of Tarquin's wives married him willingly, and not at all surprised to learn that only those two did.

After that thread were I asked about the wives and the Giant spilled some beans, I've begun to speculate that Tarquin only did manage to marry those women that were willing to marry him, with Julio rescuing (and bedding) all others.

[AKA_Bait]

After that thread were I asked about the wives and the Giant spilled some beans, I've begun to speculate that Tarquin only did manage to marry those women that were willing to marry him, with Julio recuing (and bedding) all others.

How does that square with Tarquin's remark here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html)?

[Megsie]

After that thread were I asked about the wives and the Giant spilled some beans, I've begun to speculate that Tarquin only did manage to marry those women that were willing to marry him, with Julio recuing (and bedding) all others.

Actually, the Giant has explicitly stated otherwise. He referred to Tarquin as a rapist and, when asked if that meant Tarquin had managed to consumate his "marriages", said it didn't matter because someone who attempts rape over and over is a rapist even if they're bad at it.

[Kish]

If Julio rescued a dozen women at the altar, with Tarquin planning to rape each of them that night had she gotten through the ceremony, that would fit what Rich said. And of course Tarquin's ego prevented him from admitting any of his "fiancees" had gotten away; Julio's still the only one who's mentioned it. The implication of the torture scene is that the women being tortured did indeed become Tarquin's wife (and if she did, then he raped her), but Tarquin's implications are not reliable.

I don't think The Pilgrim's optimistic interpretation is terribly likely--as I said, my bet would be much closer to, "One willing for naivete and something close to love, one willing to marry the most powerful man she could find in order to track down her kidnapped daughter, seven unwilling"--but it's not disproven by Word of the Author.

[SowZ]

If Julio rescued a dozen women at the altar, with Tarquin planning to rape each of them that night had she gotten through the ceremony, that would fit what Rich said. And of course Tarquin's ego prevented him from admitting any of his "fiancees" had gotten away; Julio's still the only one who's mentioned it. The implication of the torture scene is that the women being tortured did indeed become Tarquin's wife (and if she did, then he raped her), but Tarquin's implications are not reliable.

I don't think The Pilgrim's optimistic interpretation is terribly likely--as I said, my bet would be much closer to, "One willing for naivete and something close to love, one willing to marry the most powerful man she could find in order to track down her kidnapped daughter, seven unwilling"--but it's not disproven by Word of the Author.

Not necessarily. While it seems you are right in Tarquin's case, it could happen where a forced marriage is purely political and is celibate.

[Megsie]

If Julio rescued a dozen women at the altar, with Tarquin planning to rape each of them that night had she gotten through the ceremony, that would fit what Rich said.

I don't see how unless somehow I'm missing some clarification. Posts 34-40 on this page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318550&page=2) seem to spell it out pretty plainly. I guess technically the "it" in "It's attempted rape" on post #40 could refer to Tarquin's almost-weddings but there's absolutely no reason to believe that from context.

[Kish]

While it seems you are right in Tarquin's case,
I have not said anything about any other case in the post you're responding to so I'm not sure what you think you're contradicting.

If you just wanted to say that it's possible for a marriage (forced or otherwise) not to involve sex, that strikes me as pretty much a non-sequitur--like responding to a post in which someone speculated about the enhancement bonus of Tarquin's greataxe with, "Some axes are used to chop down trees rather than as weapons."

[SowZ]

I have not said anything about any other case in the post you're responding to so I'm not sure what you think you're contradicting.

If you just wanted to say that it's possible for a marriage (forced or otherwise) not to involve sex, that strikes me as pretty much a non-sequitur--like responding to a post in which someone speculated about the enhancement bonus of Tarquin's greataxe with, "Some axes are used to chop down trees rather than as weapons."

It is relevant in that you made a logical leap which while probably true, isn't necessarily true. This statement:

The implication of the torture scene is that the women being tortured did indeed become Tarquin's wife (and if she did, then he raped her), but Tarquin's implications are not reliable.


isn't that big of a jump, certainly, but the if this then this statement isn't a fact. It is just a usually.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I did think that. I'm sorry, General Tarquin.

[Kish]

So you are contesting the specific case of Tarquin? You consider it a possibility that a nonzero number of Tarquin's forced marriages were "purely political" and "celibate"?

Just to be absolutely clear on my position, I consider the possibility that Tarquin successfully forced a woman to marry him, not being prevented from doing that by Julio, her, or any other force, but was then prevented from raping her by anything including his own nonexistent conscience, close enough to zero to treat it as zero.

I don't see how unless somehow I'm missing some clarification. Posts 34-40 on this page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318550&page=2) seem to spell it out pretty plainly. I guess technically the "it" in "It's attempted rape" on post #40 could refer to Tarquin's almost-weddings but there's absolutely no reason to believe that from context.
I don't think The Pilgrim's proposed scenario is at all likely either, just not absolutely ruled out. I was kind of surprised that Rich didn't just say, "Yes, of course he is."

[SowZ]

So you are contesting the specific case of Tarquin? You consider it a possibility that a nonzero number of Tarquin's forced marriages were "purely political" and "celibate"?

No, I'm just saying that saying, "If he tortured his wives into marrying him, then he must have raped them." isn't a fair statement.

But in the context of Death of the Author, within the story itself only, yes it is possible Tarquin never raped anybody. That he forced them to marry him is not an 'If X Then Y' scenario. Looking at the overall canon and incorporating Word of the Author, yeah, he raped them. But that is looking at author intent, not just the story itself. Which is fine, because the author shouldn't blatantly spell out everything he intended within the text of the story itself.

[Kish]

No, I'm just saying that saying, "If he tortured his wives into marrying him, then he must have raped them." isn't a fair statement.
So he did it but it's not a fair statement that he did it?

You apparently want to respond to a general, axiomatic statement. I didn't make one. I am not talking about anyone but Tarquin, I am not interested in talking about any non-OotS character who hypothetically or actually tortured anyone into marrying him, and I wish you'd respond to what I say and not try to make my statements stand in for the ones you want to respond to.

[SowZ]

So he did it but it's not a fair statement that he did it?

No, you're conclusion was fine, just your stated reasons for believing it weren't. If I said, "Captain Kirk is Captain of the Enterprise because his eyes are Hazel," I would be right on Captain Kirk's job but wrong on my reasoning. You're statement that if the women being tortured finally became Tarquin's wives then that means he raped her was wrong.

He may have raped her, but the fact that the women consented to the marriage doesn't mean he must have raped her. Especially in a situation where the marriages likely have political motives By using the logic, "If he forced her to marry him, that means he raped her," as a basis for determining if Tarquin is a rapist, you are implying that every time a person is forced into a marriage they must have been raped.

[Copperdragon]

What the ****, please excuse the profanity here but I feel a strong expression is appropiate in this case, are we discussing about?

If it's not rape if you force someone by torture to marry you and you break her to the point where she does not resist the actual act lateron? Are we actually talking about that?

If yes - I'm out of here as I do not want to touch that discussion with a ten-foot-pole. It's a total no brainer that such a setup might not be actual rape in the sense of the word but it is something so close to it it makes no difference at all. In a way, it's even worse, even if there is no actual violence in the actual act of having sex.
If no - please explain again what this is about.

[Vladier]

If it's not rape if you force someone by torture to marry you and you break her to the point where she does not resist the actual act lateron? Are we actually talking about that?


I don't think it's that controversial.
As far as I understand, SowZ's words mean that, though Tarquin did force women to marry him, he did not necessarily have sex with them because the marriage in question was purely political and Tarquin forced to marry not only a woman but also himself, just without physical torture.
Also, doesn't act of forced marriage and then having sex count as a sex outside marriage? Isn't forced marriage not marriage at all because both parties concerned must be willing?

[Paseo H]

What the ****, please excuse the profanity here but I feel a strong expression is appropiate in this case, are we discussing about?

If it's not rape if you force someone by torture to marry you and you break her to the point where she does not resist the actual act lateron? Are we actually talking about that?

If yes - I'm out of here as I do not want to touch that discussion with a ten-foot-pole. It's a total no brainer that such a setup might not be actual rape in the sense of the word but it is something so close to it it makes no difference at all. In a way, it's even worse, even if there is no actual violence in the actual act of having sex.
If no - please explain again what this is about.

The controversy, in summary:

1. Since his introduction, he's been strongly implied to force marriage upon women, who may or may not have been forced to 'consummate' afterwards, thus being *censored*.

2. The controversy took a turn lately, with Julio's revelation that he rescued a lot of Tarquin's would-be unwilling brides at the altar, with Giant clarifying that the ones Tarquin successfully married not being the ones rescued.

3. So there's been lots of chatter about whether Tarquin has actually *censored* any of his unwilling brides. Recently, Giant has come out as saying that he was not going to explore the issue further, that even if Tarquin never successfully did it, he certainly tried to and thus counts as one regardless.

4. Personally, I'd have taken that as the gospel truth, yet here we are.

[Copperdragon]

I find it ver yunlikely that a man possessed with sex like Tarquin would force a woman to marry him - and then not do the obvious. Tarquin is a ruthless, brutal man.
And we do not have to talk about it anyway as Rich confirmed he considers Tarquin to be a rapist, no matter what did happen how or not. Tarquin did have sex with someone who did not want to or attempted strongly enough so it counts. He's murdering people's husbands to free them to marry him (after torture).
I think we can put that discussion to rest, it's decided by probability based on what we saw from the character so far and - a much stronger case - the word of the author.

The other thing you mention, about what is ok in a forced marriage or not and as what it counts is a) a question of local law and b) morals. We can do neither a) nor b) here. I say it is not ok. If your opinion on that might differ, I do not want to know.

But even if there is no sex at all: For the sake of this thread I find it already bad enough to force someone with torture to marry you, even if you then do nothing sex-like at all before, during or afterwards. That is so condemnable already we do not really have to cut the remaining cake for deciding if Tarquin should be condemned...

I think all this nitpicking about this or that only distracts from the fact that Tarquin tortures and murders people to get his way, sometimes he's even doing it for fun and he certainly enjoys the power it gives him. And that he is considered a rapist by the author. What else is there to talk about? You'll not manage to make him look nicer in my eyes just because someone claims it's not as bad to make someone what you want (in any way) because you threaten to have their family shipped to the arena...

[Paseo H]

I find it ver yunlikely that a man possessed with sex like Tarquin would force a woman to marry him - and then not do the obvious. Tarquin is a ruthless, brutal man.
And we do not have to talk about it anyway as Rich confirmed he considers Tarquin to be a rapist, no matter what did happen how or not. Tarquin did have sex with someone who did not want to or attempted strongly enough so it counts. He's murdering people's husbands to free them to marry him (after torture).
I think we can put that discussion to rest, it's decided by probability based on what we saw from the character so far and - a much stronger case - the word of the author.

The other thing you mention, about what is ok in a forced marriage or not and as what it counts is a) a question of local law and b) morals. We can do neither a) nor b) here. I say it is not ok. If your opinion on that might differ, I do not want to know.

But even if there is no sex at all: For the sake of this thread I find it already bad enough to force someone with torture to marry you, even if you then do nothing sex-like at all before, during or afterwards. That is so condemnable already we do not really have to cut the remaining cake for deciding if Tarquin should be condemned...

I think all this nitpicking about this or that only distracts from the fact that Tarquin tortures and murders people to get his way, sometimes he's even doing it for fun and he certainly enjoys the power it gives him. And that he is considered a rapist by the author. What else is there to talk about? You'll not manage to make him look nicer in my eyes just because someone claims it's not as bad to make someone what you want (in any way) because you threaten to have their family shipped to the arena...

Yes, I agree completely. As hinted in my point 4 above, but you state it directly.

[David Argall]

Also, doesn't act of forced marriage and then having sex count as a sex outside marriage? Isn't forced marriage not marriage at all because both parties concerned must be willing?
In our culture, yes, and we are mostly assuming our legal system applies to OOTS. But there have been lots of other cultures with very different opinions. It was quite common to speak of "wifely duties" where raping the wife was impossible and a lack of sex with the wife was grounds for negating the marriage. If we are talking of a marriage for political advantage, this makes sex mandatory for Targuin as well as his reluctant bride. A great many details here are unclear, but the idea of political marriage is unlike to have saved many of Tarquin's brides from a very unpleasant evening.

[Copperdragon]

Yes, I agree completely. As hinted in my point 4 above, but you state it directly.

Your post was not there when I wrote and the line this discussion took is clear. I am just not sure about some positions that people had in it as I did not think it could be what I thought they were. So I made clear what mine is and why I think any sort of apologetic one for Tarquin's behaviour (we need to excuse him, it's not that bad, etc) wasn't one I could follow.

[SowZ]

In our culture, yes, and we are mostly assuming our legal system applies to OOTS. But there have been lots of other cultures with very different opinions. It was quite common to speak of "wifely duties" where raping the wife was impossible and a lack of sex with the wife was grounds for negating the marriage. If we are talking of a marriage for political advantage, this makes sex mandatory for Targuin as well as his reluctant bride. A great many details here are unclear, but the idea of political marriage is unlike to have saved many of Tarquin's brides from a very unpleasant evening.

Some cultures, though, frequent sex was considered the woman's marriage right, not the mans. And if the amount of sex was too unsatisfying, the man has failed his obligation as a husband.


...

I'm not defending Tarquin morally at all here, though. As said earlier, Tarquin just always struck me as a villain with delusions of refinement. Even absent rape, he's still just as damned. But I'm surprised to find that he tried to be a rapist.

As for what actually occurred, I still hold it is possible he never went through with the act. Which makes no difference on Tarquin's soul, attempted murder and murder require the same evil intent, after all. But it makes it less squicky for me. Not to say stories should never contain rape. I have a couple myself that have some off-screen, and this is certainly an instance of rape that you don't even have to think about if you don't want to.

[veti]

I don't see how unless somehow I'm missing some clarification. Posts 34-40 on this page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318550&page=2) seem to spell it out pretty plainly. I guess technically the "it" in "It's attempted rape" on post #40 could refer to Tarquin's almost-weddings but there's absolutely no reason to believe that from context.

I think you are missing something.


Tarquin coerces women into accepting his unwanted proposals of marriage.
If any of these marriages goes through, Tarquin fully intends to have sex with his new spouses. (Why, exactly? - is an interesting question, we know he has no problem with sex outside marriage - but it's beyond our scope for now).
Per Word of Giant, points 1. and 2. together make him a rapist, even if he never gets as far as the wedding night with any of these women.


So altogether, we have no concrete evidence that he's ever actually raped anyone. Just that he has no moral qualms about it, and that he's attempted it in at least a couple of cases.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most, or even all, of his wives were perfectly happy to marry him. He's attractive, charming, rich and powerful, it shouldn't be too hard for him to find willing partners. Unless of course the reluctance itself is part of what turns him on, but we have no evidence on that and I for one don't really want to go there anyway.

[Domino Quartz]

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most, or even all, of his wives were perfectly happy to marry him. He's attractive, charming, rich and powerful, it shouldn't be too hard for him to find willing partners. Unless of course the reluctance itself is part of what turns him on, but we have no evidence on that and I for one don't really want to go there anyway.

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) That's a situation where he's obviously torturing a woman into marrying him (or trying to).

[Paseo H]

Your post was not there when I wrote and the line this discussion took is clear. I am just not sure about some positions that people had in it as I did not think it could be what I thought they were. So I made clear what mine is and why I think any sort of apologetic one for Tarquin's behaviour (we need to excuse him, it's not that bad, etc) wasn't one I could follow.

I posted in order to agree with your agreement. We cool.

[veti]

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) That's a situation where he's obviously torturing a woman into marrying him (or trying to).

Yes, that's why I said, as my point 1: "Tarquin coerces women into accepting his unwanted proposals of marriage." That's non-controversial.

What we don't know is how many, if any, of those coercions actually resulted in a consummated marriage.

[Sylthia]

To paraphrase Garek from DS9. Tarquin may not be guilty of that, but he's certainly guilty of something.

[SowZ]

I think you are missing something.


Tarquin coerces women into accepting his unwanted proposals of marriage.
If any of these marriages goes through, Tarquin fully intends to have sex with his new spouses. (Why, exactly? - is an interesting question, we know he has no problem with sex outside marriage - but it's beyond our scope for now).
Per Word of Giant, points 1. and 2. together make him a rapist, even if he never gets as far as the wedding night with any of these women.


So altogether, we have no concrete evidence that he's ever actually raped anyone. Just that he has no moral qualms about it, and that he's attempted it in at least a couple of cases.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most, or even all, of his wives were perfectly happy to marry him. He's attractive, charming, rich and powerful, it shouldn't be too hard for him to find willing partners. Unless of course the reluctance itself is part of what turns him on, but we have no evidence on that and I for one don't really want to go there anyway.

If he forces women into marriage and sex, of course he is a rapist. But the only reason we accept 2. is because of Word of Giant. I see nothing in the comic itself for it, which is fine, but yeah.

[Kish]

I see nothing in the comic itself for it,
Really? He "complimented" his son's girlfriend on her perky breasts as soon as he met her, and you see nothing in the comic that leads to him planning to rape the women he forces to marry him, rather than just forcing them to marry him for some kind of strange ego trip and then leaving them alone?

You can have "it's not proven by the comic." You can't have "it was ever not the obvious way to bet."

[Keltest]

Something to consider, isn't Tarquin Lawful, or as much as one is capable of being in his circumstances? Scoundrel uses a chaos weapon against him here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html), which suggests he is lawful.

I doubt that a lawful individual would intentionally and knowingly violate someone. Whether or not he considers marriage consent in and of itself is a different story entirely.

[Domino Quartz]

Something to consider, isn't Tarquin Lawful, or as much as one is capable of being in his circumstances? Scoundrel uses a chaos weapon against him here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html), which suggests he is lawful.

I doubt that a lawful individual would intentionally and knowingly violate someone. Whether or not he considers marriage consent in and of itself is a different story entirely.

I would argue that that's not a matter of Law vs Chaos - it's a matter of Good vs Evil. And yes, he probably does consider marriage (even if under duress) good enough.

[Ionathus]

Something to consider, isn't Tarquin Lawful, or as much as one is capable of being in his circumstances? Scoundrel uses a chaos weapon against him here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html), which suggests he is lawful.

I doubt that a lawful individual would intentionally and knowingly violate someone. Whether or not he considers marriage consent in and of itself is a different story entirely.

To my understanding, "Lawful" doesn't mean "I will respect your choices about your body because the law requires it." "Lawful" means "I follow a set of clearly defined rules." Those rules can be any sort of morality and can allow for any sort of basic violations...especially when you're the one making them.

[SowZ]

Really? He "complimented" his son's girlfriend on her perky breasts as soon as he met her, and you see nothing in the comic that leads to him planning to rape the women he forces to marry him, rather than just forcing them to marry him for some kind of strange ego trip and then leaving them alone?

You can have "it's not proven by the comic." You can't have "it was ever not the obvious way to bet."

I took the marriage as a way to help solidify a claim over the new city by marrying a prominent citizen of it. I didn't figure her sleep with her unless she changed her mind, which of course she wouldn't. Being a pig is not the same as being a rapist. Tarquinius wouldn't be above rape, he's done equally bad things, I just thought it might be too base a crime for him.

[Domino Quartz]

Tarquinius wouldn't be above rape, he's done equally bad things, I just thought it might be too base a crime for him.

Uh...what? If he's not above rape, how could it be too base a crime for him?

[SowZ]

Uh...what? If he's not above rape, how could it be too base a crime for him?

Delusions of refinement. Also, Tarquinius? Autocorrect, really?

[Kish]

If he wanted to marry a prominent citizen of the Free City of Doom to solidify the...Empire of Tears' claim to it, I think he could have aimed a little higher than ambassador.

Also, the Free City of Doom has been conquered by the Empire of Tears, not the Empire of Blood.

And his first indication that he had any interest in Amun-Zora consisted of him repeating something Elan had said that Tarquin had misunderstood to be a metaphor for sex, and making a crude reference to his penis.

So yeah.

[Porthos]

I doubt that a lawful individual would intentionally and knowingly violate someone. Whether or not he considers marriage consent in and of itself is a different story entirely.

But it's your second sentence here which makes all the difference in the world to a Lawful Evil type. Well, at least some. 'Pressuring' someone into signing a contract (or agreeing to do something) is just another means of doing business. They might even say that going through 'proper procedures' is what elevates them from common scum. They'd be wrong, but it's a common refrain.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is a really creepy argument fyi.

[Paseo H]

This is a really creepy argument fyi.

Agreed. :smallannoyed:

[SowZ]

If he wanted to marry a prominent citizen of the Free City of Doom to solidify the...Empire of Tears' claim to it, I think he could have aimed a little higher than ambassador.

Also, the Free City of Doom has been conquered by the Empire of Tears, not the Empire of Blood.

And his first indication that he had any interest in Amun-Zora consisted of him repeating something Elan had said that Tarquin had misunderstood to be a metaphor for sex, and making a crude reference to his penis.

So yeah.

He wanted to sleep with her, sure.

As for it being conquered by the Empire of Tears, yeah, I just didn't think of that when I read it. So there are very few reasons, and those reasons are very unlikely, why he would marry her save for sex.

[Math_Mage]

I always thought Tarquin's dealings with Amun-Zora were an homage to the The Man in the Iron Mask movie, with Amun-Zora taking on the combined roles of Christine Belleforte and Athos. In that case, the interest was definitely sexual in nature, so that informed how I viewed the scene.

[Forikroder]

Sorry, I'm not going to apologize for the guy who struck a pose and said in quotes "mysterious circumstances."

In other words, it wasn't the fact that he's a villain that made me think he was guilty. It was the way he responded to the question of her death, and that response is entirely his own fault.

if he had killed her then hed have a cover story, a detailed explanation fo what she was doing at the time of the accident, eye witness's to the accident, an air tight alibi and eye witness's proving his alibi

[orrion]

if he had killed her then hed have a cover story, a detailed explanation fo what she was doing at the time of the accident, eye witness's to the accident, an air tight alibi and eye witness's proving his alibi

Why would he care?

He has no problems admitting or alluding to killing - he murdered hundreds to give Elan 200 foot tall fiery letters, remember?

[David Argall]

Why would he care?

He has no problems admitting or alluding to killing - he murdered hundreds to give Elan 200 foot tall fiery letters, remember?
V's estimate was 23, and Tarquin just made use of executions that were to happen anyway [tho that was because of Tarquin].
However, this is just another way in which murdering the late queen just didn't fit Tarquin's style. He is "honest". He might have just stabbed her as he did Nale, or framed somebody else for the crime as he did with the Reptilia Ambassador, but leaving it hang loose is just not his way.

[orrion]

V's estimate was 23, and Tarquin just made use of executions that were to happen anyway [tho that was because of Tarquin].
However, this is just another way in which murdering the late queen just didn't fit Tarquin's style. He is "honest". He might have just stabbed her as he did Nale, or framed somebody else for the crime as he did with the Reptilia Ambassador, but leaving it hang loose is just not his way.

Considering she was his ninth wife, murdering them definitely fits Tarquin's style.

[Keltest]

Considering she was his ninth wife, murdering them definitely fits Tarquin's style.

Does it though? Hes a killer certainly, but I don't think theres any evidence of him arbitrarily murdering someone for no particular reason. Even the slaves he burned in his ELAN display had escaped and rebelled.

Moreover, Elan's mother is obviously alive. Tarquin made it quite clear that by the time the divorce was over with, he was quite tired of the whole thing, and obviously he didn't have any particular reason to NOT want to just kill her to keep the kids (whom he indicated he did want).

If he was responsible for the death of any of his 7 unaccounted for wives, it seems to me that its a lot more likely that they were a more or less direct threat (big or small) to Tarquin.

[malloyd]

If he was responsible for the death of any of his 7 unaccounted for wives, it seems to me that its a lot more likely that they were a more or less direct threat (big or small) to Tarquin.

Or refused to do something he thought was necessary to the story.

But yeah, there's no particular evidence any of them are even dead. Sure it wouldn't be totally out of character for Tarquin to kill pretty much anybody, but there's no evidence either way. Even if we assume he did something evil to them, there's no particular reason to assume it was kill them, instead of say declaring a divorce and immediately selling them to the nearest brothel.

[Keltest]

Or refused to do something he thought was necessary to the story.

But yeah, there's no particular evidence any of them are even dead. Sure it wouldn't be totally out of character for Tarquin to kill pretty much anybody, but there's no evidence either way. Even if we assume he did something evil to them, there's no particular reason to assume it was kill them, instead of say declaring a divorce and immediately selling them to the nearest brothel.

Or that, although Tarquin seems to take threats to the story rather personally...

[Nightcanon]

.....a system in which the Benefit of the Doubt does not exist and, therefore, neither can redemption....

Apologies if I've misunderstood you, but surely these are two separate concepts: benefit of the doubt and the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' have nothing to do with redemption. We* know that V is responsible for the vengeful murder of the black dragon's relatives, including the Draketooth clan. His/Her ability to redeem him/herself is not reliant on proving him/herself not guilty, or even instilling some benefit of the doubt into the minds of his/her judges, be they the Court of the Forum of the Playground or Corellon Larethian and his cohorts. Redemption implies some form of setting right of accounts- either by making good on debts, or having them waived (and in fact many Earth-bound moral philosophers would argue that acknowledging guilt is requisite for true redemption).

*Apologies for the corporate 'we', but in the context I think it is justifiable.

[orrion]

Does it though? Hes a killer certainly, but I don't think theres any evidence of him arbitrarily murdering someone for no particular reason. Even the slaves he burned in his ELAN display had escaped and rebelled.

Moreover, Elan's mother is obviously alive. Tarquin made it quite clear that by the time the divorce was over with, he was quite tired of the whole thing, and obviously he didn't have any particular reason to NOT want to just kill her to keep the kids (whom he indicated he did want).

If he was responsible for the death of any of his 7 unaccounted for wives, it seems to me that its a lot more likely that they were a more or less direct threat (big or small) to Tarquin.

Upon further review, Tarquin is no doubt the OOTS version of Henry VIII when it comes to marriages.

On a serious note.. with his comments on divorce, isn't it likely that he bypasses divorces now?

[BaronOfHell]

It's my impression that the latest couple of strips have been Tarquin unlike his usual self, hence I don't think him attacking a somebody (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html) is something he's done before.

However maybe becoming a wife of Tarquin does not mean she's a somebody forever (was Nale still a "somebody" the moment he refused Tarquin?), or maybe there's different degrees of "somebodyness".

I imagine the whole "two twins who doesn't know about each other"-thing is something Tarquin could find a good story, hence his story based drive may have prevented him from seeking any kind of revenge against his first wife (as it wouldn't be proper).

[JSSheridan]

No, OP, I did not assume that.

But in any case, T is an irredeemably evil jerk who shouldn't find any rest in death.

[SowZ]

Upon further review, Tarquin is no doubt the OOTS version of Henry VIII when it comes to marriages.

On a serious note.. with his comments on divorce, isn't it likely that he bypasses divorces now?

Henry only killed two of his wives, though. Also, it was largely from fits of incredible emotion and passion. He was known as an incredibly irrational man.

[enderlord99]

With or without an apology, I do not, repeat not, own Tarquin.

While I have never even considered giving a pet to the pound, if I discovered I owned a Tarquin, I would make an exception.

I'd euthanize him.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Euthanize??!!




http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7376/tdxv.png

[SowZ]

Euthanize??!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVbkz_3lO3c

[EvilJames]

No. "We" wouldn't. You would. Stop acting as if you speak for everyone.

"We" is correct here. He's not claiming to speak for the group. He's making a generalization about the group. It's how the English language works. English is complicated and nonsensical, that's just how it is.

However I'm one of the group that did not assume he killed his latest wife. I did assume however that he killed most if not all previous wives. Thank you Julio for making me wrong.

[Kish]

"We" is correct here. He's not claiming to speak for the group. He's making a generalization about the group. It's how the English language works. English is complicated and nonsensical, that's just how it is.

The English language does not work such that the personal beliefs and opinions of David Argall belong to anyone but David Argall. "We" would be correct if he had any legitimate reason to believe that a majority of readers agreed with him; he manifestly doesn't.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

The English language does not work such that the personal beliefs and opinions of David Argall belong to anyone but David Argall. "We" would be correct if he had any legitimate reason to believe that a majority of readers agreed with him; he manifestly doesn't.

I, as Konungr of the imaginary land of Rozburg, ennobled David Argall. He can use the royal "we" if he wants, and, in fact, he insists on doing so.

[orrion]

"We" is correct here. He's not claiming to speak for the group. He's making a generalization about the group. It's how the English language works. English is complicated and nonsensical, that's just how it is.

However I'm one of the group that did not assume he killed his latest wife. I did assume however that he killed most if not all previous wives. Thank you Julio for making me wrong.

Speaking for the group is EXACTLY what his language implies and why that posting method annoys so many people.

You might have a point if it were impossible to avoid doing that, but luckily for everyone there is this thing in the English language called a "first person personal pronoun." It is usually referred to as I.

Judicious use of that personal pronoun would alleviate much of the hassle Argall gets for his posts.

[Math_Mage]

"We" is correct here. He's not claiming to speak for the group. He's making a generalization about the group. It's how the English language works. English is complicated and nonsensical, that's just how it is.

However I'm one of the group that did not assume he killed his latest wife. I did assume however that he killed most if not all previous wives. Thank you Julio for making me wrong.
The circumstances are such that he is speculating about either what the Giant would do with Tarquin in a given situation, or what he would do with Tarquin in a given situation. There is no generalization to the group because there is no group involved in these speculations. This isn't a "We can see Tarquin hanging over the railing" situation where, yes, everyone can objectively see Tarquin hanging over the railing. It's David Argall forming David Argall's opinion about what David Argall would do.

[EvilJames]

Except that the whole point of the OP was that we, as in the audience, owe Tarquin an apology for assuming something about him. Now it's likely that that generalization is very wrong, but it's still fine.

Nevermind. I completely misread the post in question. Yes, "I" would be more apprpriate than "We".

[orrion]

Except that the whole point of the OP was that we, as in the audience, owe Tarquin an apology for assuming something about him. Now it's likely that that generalization is very wrong, but it's still fine.

Nevermind. I completely misread the post in question. Yes, "I" would be more apprpriate than "We".

The OP is also wrong because he's assuming everyone thought of Tarquin in that manner. I believe that's for psychological effect - "I was wrong, but so was everyone else which means I don't feel as bad about it" - though I could be mistaken.

In any case the point is that the assumption is incorrect.

[EvilJames]

I believe "We" is fine in the case of a generalization where the majority do fit. Even though I think the majority do not fit, the OP's use of "we" works based on his assumption that the majority does fit.

[shadowpriest]

I believe "We" is fine in the case of a generalization where the majority do fit. Even though I think the majority do not fit, the OP's use of "we" works based on his assumption that the majority does fit.

Indeed, that was my assumption. Wrong as it may be :smalltongue:

[martianmister]

Upon further review, Tarquin is no doubt the OOTS version of Henry VIII when it comes to marriages.

So, 4 is alive, 3 is killed and 2 died from natural causes?

[orrion]

So, 4 is alive, 3 is killed and 2 died from natural causes?

Sure, and Tarquin's interpretation of how he doesn't fit the traditional definitions of Evil is akin to Henry splitting off and forming the Anglican church!

[sims796]

Kish, you are truly the crowned monarch of posters. I have to admit I always scan a freshly loaded page of comments first for your name before reading through, because your posts are hilarious. And usually spot on. :smallcool:

Anyway, Tarquin basically set himself up to look guilty, probably for dramatic effect, so it wasn't unreasonable to think he'd killed her before we got more information later.

Yeah, he can be a bit rude at times, but you can count on a quality post from this guy. Or gal, whatever.