Why is it your problem?
Maggie may not be a physical match for the battling preacher man but she is definitely capable of finding his soft spots. — Colours by Sammy Borras
Maggie may not be a physical match for the battling preacher man but she is definitely capable of finding his soft spots. — Colours by Sammy Borras
IIRC, the Boss’s book says that you should dash your enemies’ babies on rocks, so maybe not the best line of argument there.
I’m really fascinated by the upcoming page titles. Just imagining how we’re going to get from here to “sex stuff” to “A micro-light aircraft” by the end of the week.
Re: page titles, I suspect we will be rejoining Billie shortly, who has likely spent this break without adult supervision.
I think Billie is the adult supervision. Which is pretty frightening, actually.
But, yeah, it’s the micro-light aircraft that really has me baffled.
Quite the contrary, dashing of babies against rocks is always treated as a horrifying act (and fate) in said book, never something you should do. Closest it comes is the angry lament of Psalm 137, but that was in the context of wishing someone would treat Babylon the same way they’d treated Israel.
The seminal villains (Pharaoh, Herod) of both Exodus and the Gospels are infanticides, and to say nothing of the various Scriptures used to support Pro-Life positions.
The main problem with Billie’s argument is that none of this applies to animal (or monster) young.
The final plague of Egypt was fairly emphatic on the notion that killing kids for a cause is ok with the big man (since it was he who was doing it).
The traditional interpretation is that the psalm’s spiritual meaning is directed towards the demons, and as a rule the closest analogue there is to them physically is monsters. Thus breaking monster eggs IS quite according to the book.
Also, bear in mind that God does indeed slay all of the first-born of Egypt – so the quasi-Kantian idea that infanticide *itself* is odious is pretty much false. Also the idea that hatchling monsters count as human infants is also weird but it’s not the first time I’ve seen people making the mistake.
As a natural law, destroying enemies while they are still nascent, rather than allowing them to become fully grown is according to Wisdom. What people I often have had to dispute with (sadly!) is whether or not *monsters* are hostis humani generis — which if they are monsters, by definition they are.
I don’t know how many times I’ve had this argument with ostensibly religious people — but there it is. Religious education is important!
I see I was insufficiently clear by “horrifying”. (I realised this even after posting but alas, the edit button appeareth not.) It is treated as a horrible fate to befall a people or a parent, not necessarily as something especially more odious to God than other killing of man (at least in the OT, Jesus does condemn those who would harm his “little ones”.)
Modern society treats children much more precious than ancient cultures did, perhaps due to smaller family sizes and drastically reduced infant and child mortality.
Imagine a reformed satanist getting their religious nuances wrong. =)
“I don’t want to work on Maggie’s dock no more!”
…or something like that.
Yeah, I was going to say the ‘thing or two to say about infanticide’ is often very pro-.
Whoa, I just had a flashback to Dragon magazine like thirty years ago.
Well, we had Persephone killed Yocchi’s mum, which is kinda the opposite of infanticide…
It was more along the lines of, “YOU ENTER A 10’×10′ ROOM! AN ORC IS GUARDING A CHEST!” which is the strip that’s stuck in my head all these years.
Which now that I think about it is actually kind of relevant, though in this case it’s the cleric longing for simpler days when you could just roll initiative.
Well, “infanticide” is one thing and “egg-murder” is another. Despite what any number of people might tell you.
So, is it me or do those red things in panel 5 have eyes?
Bungs! Bungholes! That’s a fun word to say. “Bungholes”
Now as for that shiny gold star, don’t recall seeing that there earlier.
I think the blue spots are water splashing up . . . and the star RJ noticed is one of the “DONK” stars (there are a couple to the right of Mags and one just below the “DONK.”
Mayhaps. Though we can never discount possible shadowy eyes in this comic.
Awesome Maggie! She protects the eggs while telling to Penrose how angry she is to the town for not having for him the respect he deserves ♡. Panel four seems the beginning of a fight between feral animals. Or of some manthingh ritual…
“how angry she is to the town for not having for him the respect he deserves”
She doesn’t say he deserves it.
I really hope it’s implied..
Why *should* the town respect him? Based on my admittedly very much subjective observations, Penrose’s main problem is that he just plain SUCKS at being a vicar. 😐
A.. the city. I newer wanted to mean the city has to respect Penrose. I say that Maggie would like the city to have respect for him.
Panel 2 is one of the finer Maggie close-ups to date. I loved “thirsty Maggie” from the breastplate strip as much as anyone else here, but this is so much more on the nose when it comes to her true personality.
Yes, another of the many stellar Maggie facial expressions this run of Steeple.
A great comics illustrator once said if they couldn’t do flowy capes, doing hair was the next best thing.
I love Maggie’s facial expression journey from panel 2 to the last.
Love the peace sign earrings.
And the stray strand of hair in that panel.
Penrose punches the clock but not with an axe. Break is over.
Really? Break time is over, so just walk/row away? How long does it take to toss Maggie in the water and then cut open three shells?
Yeah, this make room for plot shenanigans (they hatch, or float away, or someone “rescues” them, …), but is a very poor tactical decision.
Herod of the Deeps, they called him…
Unlike Tom, Penrose at least pretends to care about other people. The thing is, Penrose shouldn’t have to pretend.
Like the Punisher, I imagine he isn’t pretending to care about people. Like him, he has a rational ranking of who gets care first, and as much as they hate him, the townspeople get care before sea monsters.
Just proving by the way that protecting people is indeed very often a thankless task and people will blame you for helping them if it suits them, and that caring what they think about your actions is a misleading qualification.
What matters is if it is beneficial to them, and not being killed by sea-monsters is always beneficial to humans. (I suspect some are fully convinced that the sea monsters will be benefactors; Penrose obviously isn’t.)
(?)
The Punisher doesn’t EVEN pretend to care about other people. The Punisher doesn’t kill criminals because he wants to protect others. The Punisher kills criminals because he hates criminals and wants them dead. Every last one of them.
I also don’t think Penrose doesn’t care about people. I think his work and struggles has more or less kind of numbed him emotionally.
(reading panel 3) Now…Kiss! Kiss! Kiss! Kiss! Kiss! (reading panel 4) Awww…
Few admit it, but this is the real reason why Penrose is “the ultimate Daddy”… ymmv
“AND THEN THEY BOTH FU-”
*crams Yelling Bird into garbage disposal*
In fiction, when kissing immediately follows a fight, the writer has failed to observe human behaviour as it occurs anywhere in the world and should be made to give back their typewriter.
Seriously. More like sulking off or retreating and coming back for more fighting and/or apologizing.
Ah, but what about fighting as a stand-in for f-kissing?
I wouldn’t have pegged Penrose as someone who cares about the clock when it comes to his true passion of hitting things with an ax.
Maybe Maggie did drop his axe in the ocean, and so he’s got to hurry back to shore to find another one.
OMG. Get a room already.
Panel 5:
“Are you as turned on as *I* am?!”
“MORE!”
Yes the bible has a lot to say about killing babies. Though it’s mostly “when you kill babies, make it the most violent, painful and psychopathic death possible.”