The rapid change in Tarquin

[Kish]

Considering those three panels included coming back from a flashback, that would not qualify as evidence that Haley planned to kill Crystal when she first met her.

Again, to hate someone is not necessarily to plan to kill them.

[halfeye]

Yes, this. "Breaking" a character does not mean brainwashing them into being someone else, it means knocking down all the walls that the character has put up to hide from themselves. It's breaking through to see the truth. It's removing all the easy paths so that they have to pick one of the hard ones, and then seeing which of the hard ones they pick.

The forums quote mechanism has dropped the quote that was about, and out of context, that just sounds mean.

I guess if one thought that everyone walks around being 100% the person they seem to be on the surface, then that wouldn't make sense, but it's been my experience that most humans construct elaborate series of lies, delusions, and justifications for their actions that they trot out to convince themselves and others that they are in the right. "Breaking" a character is about getting past those and finding out what really matters.

That's fine if you don't believe there is a subconscious that is independent of the conscious mind. If you do believe that the conscious mind is somewhat independent of the unconscious, it doesn't make any sense whatever IMHO.

If you take someone and, say, kill their family, and they express hatred for the murderers and the strong desire to have them be killed horribly, does that mean that they're people who want people to be killed horribly? No, they're broken people, acting against who they really are under such INCREDIBLE stress that they are overwhelmed by anger and emotion. That's not who they really are, that's who they are under the influence of such strong emotions. It's the reason why such people, when the emotion passes, feel strongly guilty for those feelings and those actions and words ... because those words, at the end of the day, AREN'T them.

And I am saying that I fundamentally disagree with this premise. It is them, and if they feel guilty that's because they don't want it to be who they are. And that's fine, that's normal and maybe people in that situation will do their best to change if they don't like what stress has revealed, or maybe they'll decide that they're fine with who they are. But deciding it's some sort of Other that takes possession of your body because stress happened is really weird. It strikes me as exactly the sort of self-justification I was talking about above, the kind that good writing breaks through. Tarquin would certainly say that he isn't really a violent control freak who is willing to sacrifice his family to feed his ego, it was just the stress making him that way. And I would say, "Bull****."

Okay, I had to work on the quote system to get the context for this one, but it was IMHO necessary.

The thing is the McNaughten rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules are kind of broken, but they're better than what went before them.

To me, "breaking" someone implies making them (at least temporarily) insane, and that means they are not responsible, and they are certainly not functioning on the level of their true values. The thing is, people are incredibly complex, too complex to work out. People are so complex, that breaking them is not just to simplify them, but actually to break them, so they no longer are what they were. In Freudian terms, there is the id, the ego, and the superego, which triplet is probably itself an oversimplification. The id is basically a jumble of all the desires that a being can have, the sort of thing that can want six contradictory things before breakfast, and *everything* before lunch, the ego's primary purpose is imposing some sort of order on that chaos. Finding out which things a person's id places more value in under stress, tells you nothing relevant about their conscious mind (which is more or less the ego, in normal people at least (where "normal" may turn out to be less than 2% of the population) ).

[pendell]

Would you, perhaps, like to provide evidence for this?

(I would, under the circumstances, accept Haley saying she wanted to kill Crystal a long time ago. But just Haley saying she hated Crystal for that long doesn't qualify. It is entirely possible to hate someone without planning to kill them. I would venture that most people do that, in fact.)

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. It's the strip where she and Crystal first met. "Nice shoes" "Nice hair"

Next panel: Angry faces.

Next panel: "DIE WHORE DIE!"
"I'LL KILL YOU FIRST!"

I don't think it a leap to say that what they are saying in the last panel is EXACTLY what they were thinking in the preceding panel, but were in no position to say in front of an adult.

Especially since, in the preceding posts, Haley remembered that event just as clearly as Crystal did, as if it were yesterday.

From this I conclude that from a trifling misunderstanding at their first meeting this was blown out of proportion into a mutual loathing that was bound to result in murder, provided skill and opportunity presented themselves, which it eventually did.

Perhaps Haley changed her mind over the intervening years. She was twenty four in book 2 of OOTS and in her teens when the related events occurred. People can change over time, especially if they're good.

But at that precise moment? At that very next-to-last panel? We're looking at two murderers.

Now, this is an allegation. It is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." There are a lot of different ways those angry expressions could be taken. For that matter, even Crystal couldn't be found guilty if that angry expression was the only thing we had to go on. It was only their later actions -- Crystal's attempted murder of Haley, and Haley's successful killing of Crystal -- that suggest what is truly in their hearts at that moment.

Again, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that this is a fan theory, not undisputed fact. It is ONE possible explanation, and I think a reasonable one. But it's not the only way to view those events.

To me, "breaking" someone implies making them (at least temporarily) insane, and that means they are not responsible, and they are certainly not functioning on the level of their true values. The thing is, people are incredibly complex, too complex to work out. People are so complex, that breaking them is not just to simplify them, but actually to break them, so they no longer are what they were. In Freudian terms, there is the id, the ego, and the superego, which triplet is probably itself an oversimplification. The id is basically a jumble of all the desires that a being can have, the sort of thing that can want six contradictory things before breakfast, and *everything* before lunch, the ego's primary purpose is imposing some sort of order on that chaos. Finding out which things a person's id places more value in under stress, tells you nothing relevant about their conscious mind (which is more or less the ego, in normal people at least (where "normal" may turn out to be less than 2% of the population) ).

Agreed.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Math_Mage]

She is not smiling when Bozzok orders her to kill Haley, which really made me wonder when I first read that comic.

She is smiling in the act of killing Haley, though, which kinda seems more important. That said act was interrupted doesn't particularly matter.

My point is not that Crystal is not killing Haley because she is so nice. My point is that she is actually trying not to do it, maybe for all the wrong reasons, maybe not, but still trying to not kill Haley.

The point from my previous post stands:

Look, if we're considering Haley's act with respect to Crystal's moral character, Crystal's hesitation is irrelevant because it doesn't reflect well on her moral characer. If we're considering Haley's act with respect to Crystal's practical threat, Crystal's hesitation is irrelevant because Bozzok will override her selfish desire to let Haley live. Either way, it doesn't have any impact on the morality of Haley's decision to kill Crystal.

Also, the most we can say is that Crystal wanted to delay killing Haley until she gained "at least one more Assassin level." That she would not be able to kill Haley afterwards probably never crossed her mind.

[AKA_Bait]

Maybe, in the intervening years, Haley had a change of heart and would have been willing to let it go if Crystal was as well. In that case, she'd no longer be murdering but acting in self-defense. But it doesn't change the fact that , years before either of them had the levels to make it count, they had both formed a mutual loathing and lethal intent towards each other, regardless of the current circumstances.

Let's not forget that both Haley and Crystal were teenagers at that point. They are, arguably, not as morally culpable at that age.

[Math_Mage]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. It's the strip where she and Crystal first met. "Nice shoes" "Nice hair"

Next panel: Angry faces.

Next panel: "DIE WHORE DIE!"
"I'LL KILL YOU FIRST!"

I don't think it a leap to say that what they are saying in the last panel is EXACTLY what they were thinking in the preceding panel, but were in no position to say in front of an adult.

Especially since, in the preceding posts, Haley remembered that event just as clearly as Crystal did, as if it were yesterday.

From this I conclude that from a trifling misunderstanding at their first meeting this was blown out of proportion into a mutual loathing that was bound to result in murder, provided skill and opportunity presented themselves, which it eventually did.

Perhaps Haley changed her mind over the intervening years. She was twenty four in book 2 of OOTS and in her teens when the related events occurred. People can change over time, especially if they're good.

But at that precise moment? At that very next-to-last panel? We're looking at two murderers.

No. Just...ugh.

Haley and Crystal are, in the present, already engaged in a life-or-death struggle. The most one can infer about the flashback is that it explains why they are so passionate about the struggle. It does not imply in any way that teen-Haley and teen-Crystal were already planning to murder each other.

[pendell]

A question for Kish.

What does "hatred" mean to you?

I'm thinking there may be a semantics difference here.

To me "hatred" is not mere dislike, not mere detestation. To me , "hatred" implies the fixed , irrevocable determination to eliminate a person or thing from the world forever.

Relevant Video

You might not choose to watch all seven minutes. The fundamental crux of it is: A swordsman is attempting to possess a powerful magical weapon. The sword telepathically asks him a simple question: "What do you hate?"

"If you're grabbing the most powerful sword in the world, it must because you hate something enough to kill it, to cast it out of the world for all time. What is it? "

As a rule, there is no killing without hatred, and no hatred without killing. If you hate something, then why AREN'T you trying to destroy it?

Tolerating evil and things we hate is something ordinary people do. Both heroes and villains are motivated by hatred, to some extent. The difference is that Roy hates injustice, bullying, and undead monstrosities who murder innocents for fun. Xykon has a casual hatred for pretty much everything alive, though not so much that he'd burn the world. And Redcloak hates -- absolutely, positively hates -- humans.

Ordinary people suffer in silence. Villains and heroes act out their hatreds and their loves on a grand scale.

What makes them heroes or villains are the objects of their hate -- and their love. Which is often the flip side of the one. Roy loves his team and innocents and therefore hates those who would murder either. Tarquin loves himself and hates anyone who disputes his total control in even the smallest way. And that's why Roy is a hero and Tarquin is a villain.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

A question for Kish.

What does "hatred" mean to you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate?s=t

I'm thinking there may be a semantics difference here.

To me "hatred" is not mere dislike, not mere detestation. To me , "hatred" implies the fixed , irrevocable determination to eliminate a person or thing from the world forever.

Yes, if you parse "hate" as "plan to kill," that would explain why you treated "Haley hates Crystal" as equivalent to "Haley plans to kill Crystal."

I have never seen a dictionary that will support that meaning. Even in your example, the sword's phrasing doesn't support what you're claiming it does, "You must hate something enough to kill it," the sword said redundantly...or the sword said, logically, indicating that the swordsman must hate something significantly more than the minimum amount to use the word "hate." This is "Glory means a nice knock-down argument" level.

Tolerating evil and things we hate is something ordinary people do.

Going out of our way to destroy everything and everyone we hate is something psychopaths, and only psychopaths, do. I hate coffee, onions, and cockroaches, but I'm not trying to make them all extinct. I hate some people, but I'm not a murderer, and it's not because I'm too weak or too cowardly to murder someone--it's because I'm not psychotic enough, or at least the wrong kind of psychotic.

And this contradicts your previous claims. By your stated definition of "hate," no one "tolerates" things they hate (I don't know how "evil and" got in there).

[AKA_Bait]

I know the question wasn't for me, and that Kish has already given a pretty solid answer to it, but

As a rule, there is no killing without hatred, and no hatred without killing. If you hate something, then why AREN'T you trying to destroy it?

kinda bothered me on two levels.

First, just because I hate something, doesn't mean that I think it deserves to be eliminated from the world (killed in the case of a person). Some of my hatreds are irrational or unfair, and I recognize that fact (e.g., my hatred of hazelnuts). Some are perfectly rational, but I recognize that they are debatable in theory, so because place a greater value on an open society I won't go around attempting to destroy them (e.g., my hatred of certain belief systems).

Second, there can be killing without hatred. Anyone who has ever had to put down a pet knows this.

[Math_Mage]

A question for Kish.

What does "hatred" mean to you?

I'm thinking there may be a semantics difference here.

To me "hatred" is not mere dislike, not mere detestation. To me , "hatred" implies the fixed , irrevocable determination to eliminate a person or thing from the world forever.

Well, considering Kish said hatred doesn't make a murderer, he probably doesn't mean what you mean, and would say Haley and Crystal didn't actually hate each other in that way upon their first meeting.

Because, y'know, it's kinda silly to suggest that both of them are willing to commit murder over one fashion insult each.

[pendell]

Answering Kish and AKA Bait at once.

Second, there can be killing without hatred. Anyone who has ever had to put down a pet knows this.

Yes. That's why I said "as a rule." People who have to say goodbye to a loved one in hospital, executioners in a prison -- there are a number of exceptions to that rule.

I know the question wasn't for me, and that Kish has already given a pretty solid answer to it, but



kinda bothered me on two levels.

First, just because I hate something, doesn't mean that I think it deserves to be eliminated from the world (killed in the case of a person). Some of my hatreds are irrational or unfair, and I recognize that fact (e.g., my hatred of hazelnuts). Some are perfectly rational, but I recognize that they are debatable in theory, so because place a greater value on an open society I won't go around attempting to destroy them (e.g., my hatred of certain belief systems).

Here's the way I see it.

"Hate" is the opposite of "love". It is in fact, it's flip side.

What is "love"?

It isn't necessarily good feelings or romance or eroticism. "Love", to me, is the fixed intent to bring about the best for someone else.

Sometimes that involves giving them things. Sometimes it involves giving them a stern talking to or even sending them to a rehab clinic or to a prison so they are not a danger to themselves or to others.

But to love someone is to wish the best for them.

If that is love, then hatred, must, logically, be to want the worst for someone. Rather than seeking their good, to seek their ill. Rather than to improve them, the desire must be to take them down, to lower them, to bring them to nothing.

And in this world, that means killing.

So for me, "hatred" is not a matter of casual conversation or of normal talk. I understand that you don't mean what *I* mean, so it's a semantic difference. But if I felt that way about cockroaches, say, I would say that I disliked or detested them. "Hatred" is a word I reserve for very, very few things.

My definitions of these words do not come from modern dictionaries but from books originally written in Greek, and they are far older than the definitions in normal language. Out of forum scope, naturally.

Well, considering Kish said hatred doesn't make a murderer, he probably doesn't mean what you mean, and would say Haley and Crystal didn't actually hate each other in that way upon their first meeting.

Well, Crystal up-and-up tells us in-strip that she's been waiting to kill Haley since That Day, so I think it's perfectly reasonable that Crystal has been wanting to kill Haley since that moment, since Crystal out-and-out says that. Haley's response is a bit more ambiguous. It is plausible that Haley does not intend to murder Crystal in that panel , but it cannot be ruled out , either.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Math_Mage]

Well, Crystal up-and-up tells us in-strip that she's been waiting to kill Haley since That Day, so I think it's perfectly reasonable that Crystal has been wanting to kill Haley since that moment, since Crystal out-and-out says that. Haley's response is a bit more ambiguous. It is plausible that Haley does not intend to murder Crystal in that panel , but it cannot be ruled out , either.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Ah, sorry. I didn't mean to say anything that gave a morally positive (or less negative) impression of Crystal.

I think Haley's response is a little ambiguous...but in the other direction, in that she almost certainly did not react the way you think she did.

[Mightymosy]

She is smiling in the act of killing Haley, though, which kinda seems more important. That said act was interrupted doesn't particularly matter.


The point from my previous post stands:

Also, the most we can say is that Crystal wanted to delay killing Haley until she gained "at least one more Assassin level." That she would not be able to kill Haley afterwards probably never crossed her mind.

Which is at least after the current struggle, since Haley can hardly level up while unconcious, right?

From Crystal's words, it is probably somewhat longer, since she suggests letting her get away with a stern warning and level up "some more". She wants at least one more level of assassin. As a math mage I'm sure you are familiar with the expression >=

Actually, coming back to that expression, I would edit your post to:
"Also, the least we can say is that Crystal wanted to delay killing Haley until she gained "at least one more Assassin level.""

She sure smiles when she points her knife down at Haley, and might have enjoyed killing her with all her hatred.

But you can hardly argue that, given she got what she wanted despite of Bozzok's command, Haley would not have been killed at that point. Later, maybe, but the timeframe given for that was vague.
This does not change the fact that she (Crystal) should be charged for an attempt of gang murder.

[ChristianSt]

To be fair, Malack said he learned grappling from Tarquin and he also implied that Tarquin was a general of high caliber. Also, he did prove to be really really effective in battle so far. I don't remember he punted somewhere, tactically in combat.

I personally appreciate how he was kinda glorified evil in the beginning and now more and more of his facade drops off and you see the crappy person behind.
I'm just saying him being some sort of powerful evil tactician and battlefield master did certainly not come only from his own words.

While you are correct that Malack said some positive things about Tarquin's abilities, we don't know how competent is Malack with judging them.

If he has zero clue about this stuff, even someone with a few ranks might impress him. So it might certainly be that Tarquin is a much worse battlefield master than he wanted us to believe. And especially the attack of the Order with his army wasn't really a smart move imo.

[Snails]

Well, Crystal up-and-up tells us in-strip that she's been waiting to kill Haley since That Day, so I think it's perfectly reasonable that Crystal has been wanting to kill Haley since that moment, since Crystal out-and-out says that. Haley's response is a bit more ambiguous. It is plausible that Haley does not intend to murder Crystal in that panel , but it cannot be ruled out , either.

I would humbly suggest that when a character known to have Assassin levels states an intent to kill, the statement should be weighed somewhat differently than other kinds of statements of strong personal dislike from other mouths.

[Math_Mage]

Which is at least after the current struggle, since Haley can hardly level up while unconcious, right?

From Crystal's words, it is probably somewhat longer, since she suggests letting her get away with a stern warning and level up "some more". She wants at least one more level of assassin. As a math mage I'm sure you are familiar with the expression >=

With the buried assumption that Crystal would get to kill her later. That's basically the only point needed to demolish this argument.

Actually, coming back to that expression, I would edit your post to:
"Also, the least we can say is that Crystal wanted to delay killing Haley until she gained "at least one more Assassin level.""

"Most" refers to "the most we have evidence for." Your use of "least" refers to "the least we can speculate about." But I'm not interested in speculation beyond what can be evidenced from the comic.

She sure smiles when she points her knife down at Haley, and might have enjoyed killing her with all her hatred.

But you can hardly argue that, given she got what she wanted despite of Bozzok's command, Haley would not have been killed at that point. Later, maybe, but the timeframe given for that was vague.
This does not change the fact that she (Crystal) should be charged for an attempt of gang murder.

I don't need to argue that, because it's not in any way relevant to any discussion anyone was having.

[Mightymosy]

While you are correct that Malack said some positive things about Tarquin's abilities, we don't know how competent is Malack with judging them.

If he has zero clue about this stuff, even someone with a few ranks might impress him. So it might certainly be that Tarquin is a much worse battlefield master than he wanted us to believe. And especially the attack of the Order with his army wasn't really a smart move imo.

Ok, I don't know much about strategy, so maybe Tarquin is a bad strategist when it comes to commanding armies.

But when it comes to fighting by himself, he seems to be very competent. In fact, I can't remember any character in the whole story except now maybe Julio who has been shown to fight so flawlessly. He rarely takes a scratch and the tactical moves he does seem to be well thought out (excpet for the last few pages maybe since he has been "breaking") and he seems very level-headed (he even retreats with Nale and the drow wizard when the situation demands it, which very few characters have shown to be capable of so far).
And I'll make a stance here and say Tarquin was written in a way to appear as a super-competent fighter. The way he elegantly and easily evades any attacks was drawn this way on purpose. I strongly believe we are supposed to think this guy is a bad ass fighter.

[Porthos]

But you can hardly argue that, given she got what she wanted despite of Bozzok's command, Haley would not have been killed at that point. Later, maybe, but the timeframe given for that was vague.

The point I and others are making is that we feel you are putting far too much weight at that moment and not enough weight on all the times Crystal actually attempted to kill Haley. From an actual assassin.

Remember this all got started over how much Haley felt 'at risk' from Crystal (purposefully staying away from the dreaded "J" word) while only using online strips as examples.

The one moment of hesitation, which, BTW, Haley didn't witness due to being unconscious, doesn't outweigh all the actual for real attempts that were earlier made.

Did Crystal hesitate to kill Haley in cold(-ish) blood when given the opportunity? Sure. Does that really matter given all of the previous scenes already seen? Not as much as you seem to be saying. IMO, at least. Does the compilation book give even more fuel to the flame when it comes to the Haley/Crystal dynamic? Oh yes. Oh very much yes.

Spoiler

Show

Including finding out that Crystal didn't wait very long at all after 'hesitating' to kill her before she attempted to kill her in cold blood. Several times.

See, no one is denying that Crystal hesitated there. Many people are simply saying it doesn't matter as much.

Also it is fairly obvious that Haley feels conflicted about what she did afterward. So much so, she sought out the person she trusted most to ask him what he thought about it all. And this person, after some due consideration (and some additional details about headbutting an elderly woman into a coma) gave it a conditional seal of approval.

That Haley felt that she needed to examine what she did also speaks volumes about where she is coming from, IMO. I think I can safely say Tarquin certainly never did (bringing this back to how all of this got brought back up in the first place when a compare/contrast was made between Tarquin and Haley).

[Mightymosy]

With the buried assumption that Crystal would get to kill her later. That's basically the only point needed to demolish this argument.


"Most" refers to "the most we have evidence for." Your use of "least" refers to "the least we can speculate about." But I'm not interested in speculation beyond what can be evidenced from the comic.


I don't need to argue that, because it's not in any way relevant to any discussion anyone was having.

1) In your first sentence you are speculating, or what else is an assumption?

2) Not at all. My "At least" is put into the same place as your "most". As in, we actually have evidence "that Crystal wanted to delay killing Haley until she gained "at least one more Assassin level."

3) You don't need to argue anything, but then what is the intent of your last sentence?

[Snails]

While you are correct that Malack said some positive things about Tarquin's abilities, we don't know how competent is Malack with judging them.

If he has zero clue about this stuff, even someone with a few ranks might impress him. So it might certainly be that Tarquin is a much worse battlefield master than he wanted us to believe. And especially the attack of the Order with his army wasn't really a smart move imo.

I do not see any strong reason to either play up or play down Tarquin's skill. Being highly competent when measured against the typical upstart general with a career expected to last 12 months on this continent does not prove all that much.

If his shell game really works, then there is no logical requirement for Tarquin to be greatly skilled, mere consistent competence should be sufficient.

[Mightymosy]

The point I and others are making is that we feel you are putting far too much weight at that moment and not enough weight on all the times Crystal actually attempted to kill Haley. From an actual assassin.

Remember this all got started over how much Haley felt 'at risk' from Crystal (purposefully staying away from the dreaded "J" word) while only using online strips as examples.

The one moment of hesitation, which, BTW, Haley didn't witness due to being unconscious, doesn't outweigh all the actual for real attempts that were earlier made.

Did Crystal hesitate to kill Haley in cold(-ish) blood when given the opportunity? Sure. Does that really matter given all of the previous scenes already seen? Not as much as you seem to be saying. IMO, at least. Does the compilation book give even more fuel to the flame when it comes to the Haley/Crystal dynamic? Oh yes. Oh very much yes.

Spoiler

Show

Including finding out that Crystal didn't wait very long at all after 'hesitating' to kill her before she attempted to kill her in cold blood. Several times.

See, no one is denying that Crystal hesitated there. Many people are simply saying it doesn't matter as much.

Also it is fairly obvious that Haley feels conflicted about what she did afterward. So much so, she sought out the person she trusted most to ask him what he thought about it all. And this person, after some due consideration (and some additional details about headbutting an elderly woman into a coma) gave it a conditional seal of approval.

That Haley felt that she needed to examine what she did also speaks volumes about where she is coming from, IMO. I think I can safely say Tarquin certainly never did (bringing this back to how all of this got brought back up in the first place when a compare/contrast was made between Tarquin and Haley).

Ok, then I conclude that the online only strips then give a a false view of the situation then, at least for me.

I'll make one last attempt to make clear what I am feeling:
1) Talking about killing someone, fighting someone who is fighting back, and murdering someone who is unconcious, are three different things.
2) When someone is doing the first two, but very much hesitates to do the third and tries to talk someone else out of doing it....
that means something.
What that means is speculation! The only reason given in comic was that Crystal wanted more Assassin levels.
Maybe she wanted to kill Haley after the next level, maybe after the next two? Maybe she wanted to have her as an arch nemesis forever? We just don't know!

The online comic simply leaves us with Crystal not murdering Haley in the one and only situation when she actually has a clear shot to do so without any chance of it failing.

If I falsely got the impression this meant anything, sorry, but then I really blame it on offline content missing which sheds different light onto the situation.

[jere7my]

My definitions of these words do not come from modern dictionaries but from books originally written in Greek, and they are far older than the definitions in normal language.

I trust you see the difficulty in using a work not written in English to define an English word that does not appear in that work.

What you mean is, you are using a concept for which a word exists in ancient Greek ("miso-"?), and for which the closest English word is "hatred". That does not mean that that is what "hatred" means in English, any more than silphium means "fennel." I might suggest "abominate" or "abhor," though even they don't necessarily connote a need to destroy.

[Math_Mage]

1) In your first sentence you are speculating, or what else is an assumption?

The assumption is buried in Crystal's words, not mine.

2) Not at all. My "At least" is put into the same place as your "most". As in, we actually have evidence "that Crystal wanted to delay killing Haley until she gained "at least one more Assassin level."

Right. That is the most we have evidence for. Your "at least" would imply that we have evidence for more than that, which is both meaningless and wrong. Or, it would imply that you are willing to speculate beyond that.

3) You don't need to argue anything, but then what is the intent of your last sentence?

That your apparent contention is unrelated to the substance of the discussion.

[Kish]

"Does anybody here speak English or even Ancient Greek?"
I would prefer to have conversations on this forum in English. And not in Ancient Greek. Call it a personal preference. And correspondingly--

I might suggest "abominate" or "abhor," though even they don't necessarily connote a need to destroy.

--I would suggest "need to destroy," to indicate a need to destroy.

[Porthos]

Ok, then I conclude that the online only strips then give a a false view of the situation then, at least for me.

I'll make one last attempt to make clear what I am feeling:
1) Talking about killing someone, fighting someone who is fighting back, and murdering someone who is unconcious, are three different things.
2) When someone is doing the first two, but very much hesitates to do the third and tries to talk someone else out of doing it....
that means something.
What that means is speculation! The only reason given in comic was that Crystal wanted more Assassin levels.

And what many of us are saying is that we aren't really given any reason in-comic to doubt that statement. That is, the meaning is more or less clear: Crystal wants more stuff for little to no work.

Sometimes there really are simple answers to simple questions. After all a person can try to look for too much meaning and look for hidden depths where there wasn't much in the first place.

The online comic simply leaves us with Crystal not murdering Haley in the one and only situation when she actually has a clear shot to do so without any chance of it failing.

If I falsely got the impression this meant anything, sorry, but then I really blame it on offline content missing which sheds different light onto the situation.

Well if it is any help, Haley killing Crystal led to a huge uproar in fandom at the time. Not really because of anything that Crystal did, mind, but more for the fact that Haley was.... proactive about the situation.

But as I pointed out, even in-comic online this was addressed afterward.

[halfeye]

especially the attack of the Order with his army wasn't really a smart move imo.

Speculation and slight SoD spoiler:

Spoiler

Show

It depends what level he thought they were on. It turned out to be a waste of soldiers, because the Order were too high level to be easily killed by mooks. If Xyklon The Consequential is still around (he's an evil outsider, he'll live for millenia), and as low level as he seemed to be in SoD (and given his activity levels, that wouldn't be surprising), then an OotS for which he was an appropriate challenge, would have been in trouble against that army.

[Ridureyu]

Nice little Tarquin moment that was oddly prescient:

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

"Elan, please. We'll have time to discuss our civic obligations later, once Nale has been dealt with."


AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

[BlackDragonKing]

Nice little Tarquin moment that was oddly prescient:

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

"Elan, please. We'll have time to discuss our civic obligations later, once Nale has been dealt with."


AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

I'll be honest, part of me did want Tarquin to be sort of a The Mayor from Buffy type villain that acted like that even when **** got real and it was time to get down to brass tacks. There's something so amusing about a bad guy who's so far past the boundaries of sane, moral behavior that he doesn't NEED to be unpleasant or show a "true face" to be atrociously evil.

I don't mind what was done with Tarquin instead, but I still think it works when you have someone so utterly detached from the horrible crap they do all the time that it takes an act of god for them to treat any of the death and destruction with a modicum of the gravity it deserves.

[ti'esar]

Even The Mayor cracked at least once, though, didn't he?

And besides, he was affable. Tarquin was smug. Keeping that attitude until the moment he died would have been a lot more annoying.

[Ridureyu]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html

Just in case anybody still disbelieves, here's an example of one of Tarquin's teammates treating him like he's a fool. Also... creamed spinach.