Magick Chicks 28-12-11 A superhero

[Thor]

i'd hazard a guess that most prey animals don't get any benefit out of being eaten. feeding specifically on humans/humanoids just makes them predators with a very narrow niche.

But prey species do get something out of predators, collectively instead of individually. Predators winnow out the weak and sick and elderly members of the species, which makes the species more healthy as a whole, and cuts down competition for scarce resources. Predators also tend to reduce competition from other species competing for the same resources.

But humans, being sentient and able to value the sick, weak, and elderly, unlike other natural species, do not appreciate the "benefits" of being preyed upon.

Unlike most predator/prey relationships, humans and vampires can do something no other pairing can do . . . negotiate.

now that's an interesting concept, an inter-species peace treaty. the problems is that in order to make it work there'd have to be some pretty punitive restrictions on the vampire population, and that the vampires can't really offer humanity anything to make coexistence worth the trouble. since one side gets nothing out of the bargain, and the other is better off as things are, what is the incentive for peace?

The usual incentive for peace is to not be at war. A peace accord, even one which funds a daily blood allotment for every vampire, is likely to be cheaper than on-going conflict at any scale, both financially and socially. Vampires also can live for centuries, which makes them valuable as repositories of historical knowledge. And assuming that vampires can continue to learn and improve over the centuries, they should be highly skilled in a wide range of subjects, and therefore valuable members of a community. Also, due to the magic of compound interest, vampires of a certain age should all be rolling in cash, and should be able to be influential movers and shakers. And don't forget the superhuman abilities, which could be valuable in a variety of specialized circumstances.

In exchange for a small increase in blood donations, humanity could get a great deal of value from vampiredom if there was peace.

Quote fixed. The DAMNed

[Gil Hamilton]

They could, but we haven't seen anything like that. All the feedings we've seen seem to have been fairly quick affairs, a few minutes at most.

However, we've seen vampires take alot. Remember the strip where Layla finds a "squirter" and asks the Owl Maid to bring over the thermos so she can fill up for later.

Certainly all true. Though of course we're working with a lot of assumptions. That's assuming a vampire stomach is on par with a human's, that they normally feed to capacity, that they regularly feed from single victims...

We really don't have much data to work with. The only vamp we've seen several feedings from is Layla, and 1 is not a statistic. Not only that, but most of her feedings have added issues muddling things. The one couple were already under mind control, Tiff's got interrupted, Chloe was intoxicated. The only really straight forward feeding we've got is with Brooke, and even with Layla needing to feed badly Brooke seemed pretty well off afterwards. Unfortunately she's also not human, so that kind of invalidates her.

What assumptions? I was talking about human blood loss. What does that have to do with the vampire's stomach or their feeding pattern?

Though as a general rule, I'd tend to equate vampires with human biology unless otherwise stated. After all, they used to be human. I doubt the architecture is any different (IE, they've still got a human stomach), for example, and the capacity of that stomach isn't different.

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what I was suggesting. That there is power in blood beyond just the chemical. Which there actually already is, if you had the means to preform a direct mass to energy conversion, which would gain you massive amounts of power from even a little bit of blood, or any matter really.

But back to magic, if blood is magically potent, as in it contains a lot of magical energy, and the vampire body can extract and use that energy, then the caloric value of blood might not even matter.

And really, when you start getting into individuals with super powers, unless you just ignore the ideas of conservation of energy, caloric intake stops being sufficient. You're not going to power super strength and speed with food, not without having to gorge constantly. You need a better power source. And as vampires are pretty much highly magical creatures, a magical power source seems a safe place to turn.

That's a pretty big whopper without evidence. Blood is a well studied substance and there is nothing in EC/MC that suggests human blood contains any more energy than it would chemically.

I find going the "Magic!" route to be unsatisfying. It's artificially tacking on a whole system that we can't talk about in a meaningful fashion. If you go "Magic!" then you can literally make any argument you like about the nature of something, assuming you stick enough fairy tales on it (as a good scientist knows, any scientific theory is allowed a maximum of ONE fairy tale). I could argue that vampires are powered by putting white blood cells on bicycles attached to dynamos and make it work by declaring "Magic!". We can't have a meaningful conversation unless we stick to what we know and what is reasonable.

I'm willing to entertain that vampires can extract energy very well and are very energy efficient, but I don't see any reason to think they need truly minuscule amounts of blood to function. Particularly if the source of that reasoning is so that vampires can be human predators but take so little human blood that the health impact on their prey is negligible (so you don't have to feel bad about liking them).

[Aquila89]

If they felt you poised a threat to their lives or that you might do them serious injury, yes, they would have been.

And just to cut it off, that does NOT mean I'm saying they would have been given free reign to stab you, have you fall down, and then jump on you and keep knifing you until certain you where dead.

Well, they would've been complete and utter idiots to think that. There are attacks where the use of your full force is absolutely unneccessary; like in that case, since the other kids were stronger than me.

Because being a murderer doesn't stop making a character interesting, funny, charming, or anything else. I could ramble off a long list of characters from various works who are murders, but who I still like quite a bit. I probably wouldn't want most of them to visit me at home, but in a book or on tv, I can quite enjoy them.

If being a killer just completely destroys your ability to like a character, well that's your view point and opinion. But I think you'd be surprised at how many people can accept otherwise socially unacceptable traits in characters they find entertaining.

I'd bet than in all of those works, the murders the characters commit are dealt with in the story, and not just assumed by the readers. If the EC characters are murderers, it's never shown onscreen, they never talk about it, the consequences are never dealt with. I repeat, you can't tell a story if you completely leave out the most important things the characters do.

I read EC, because I found it good, light-hearted fun with likeable characters. If they are murderes, that just cannot work.

['J']

while those details might be the most important to you personally as a reader, that does not mean they are important to the story.

[Aquila89]

Give me a break. The fact that the characters regularly kill people is not important to the story? It's more important if Ace gets into an embarrassing situation again because of Nina? What kind of a story would that be?

['J']

it would be a story about ace being embarrassed by nina. whether or not he kills people on a regular basis is only relevant insofar as it affects that story.


one thing i do feel the need to reiterate though is that there is a significant difference between murder and predation. not all killers are murderers.

[Aquila89]

Not much better. In my opinion, a story that ignores the most important things the characters do cannot work. A story that doesn't show that the characters are killers because it wants to show them being cute cannot work.

[Fen]

Well we've been shown that mr Boodles killed people(quite frequently) yet he is still cute...

See, when I see a character named "vampire slayer" I do not need to be shown that he slays vampires. All in the name, ya know?

This is a story about monsters. In the name, ya know?

[Aquila89]

As I pointed out before, it seemed to me that the story is about unusual monsters, who don't want to be monstrous. By the way, Tiffany calls herself a vampire slayer, even though she never slayed a single vampire.

[The Nick]

Any time somebody attacks you, you can be 100% justified in the application of deadly force.

I disagree completely. When I was in high school, I attacked other kids who made fun of me, though they were stronger than me. So, they would've been justified if they pulled a knife and stabbed me to death?

Did they have a reasonable assumption that their lives were in danger?

When I personally use the phrase 'fight', I mean it in a serious way. If two people 'get into a fight' and neither of them go to the hospital, it wasn't a fight. Some kid whining about stolen lunch money while another throws a volleyball at a little girl is not a 'fight.' This is not an opportunity to put five rounds rapid into Little Timmy's skull.

In contrast, if somebody were to brandish a weapon, shoot a rifle at me, hold my mother hostage, stab me in the side, or bite me in the jugular assuring a death from blood loss and asphyxiation, nobody would fault me for fighting back hard.

You still haven't answered my question. I honestly don't understand how can someone enjoy this comic if the characters are murderers. Then the events that we've seen have no importance whatsoever.

The Joker was a killer in Batman, but I still liked that movie. Dennis the Menace gave Mr. Wilson a headache, but I still read his comics.

But vampires draining people to death is traditional, and it seems folks around here tend to err on the side of tradition when lacking specific information about a type of monster in the comic.

A knife can go through flesh surprisingly easily. And vampires might not "need" to drain you dry of blood, but if they wanted to kill you, there's no reason they couldn't suck and spit, suck and spit.

Uhm.. I don't recall Chloe doing anything untoward, unless it's her trying to hunt down Blair to have a boob downgrade.

She got drunk and tried to seduce her friends.

Aww, I said that somewhere first! Nobody took me seriously.

Have to disagree there. It's reckless and dangerous and can only bring about terrible things for people. Evil without a doubt!

Evil is partly in the intent. Faith's intent was to have an exhilarating fight and then (probably) kill the monster. Recklessness isn't evil, just stupid.

If a stunt pilot crashes into a crowd because he lost control of his plane, is he evil? It wasn't his intent to kill anyone, but to put on a show. What he's doing however is inherently dangerous and has the potential for serious consequences.

Evil isn't just about intent, but also outcome. Recklessness does not excuse evil, especially when it's blatantly obvious that there's a risk if you fail to put Layla down that she might go barn-yard-crazy on the neighbors. Even if the chance is small, to risk it just to have fun is unacceptable. In the stunt plane example, he's not evil in the case of a terrible accident. But a reckless, careless stunt pilot whose incompetence and lack of following procedure is the direct cause of audience suffering is certainly a villain.

[Aquila89]

Well, you didn't clarify what you mean by fight previously. You said "any time someone attacks you".

Are you even serious? The Joker is the villain of the story, we want to see him defeated by the hero. Dennis the Menace is not a murderer.

[Geeno]

Evil isn't just about intent, but also outcome. Recklessness does not excuse evil, especially when it's blatantly obvious that there's a risk if you fail to put Layla down that she might go barn-yard-crazy on the neighbors. Even if the chance is small, to risk it just to have fun is unacceptable. In the stunt plane example, he's not evil in the case of a terrible accident. But a reckless, careless stunt pilot whose incompetence and lack of following procedure is the direct cause of audience suffering is certainly a villain.

In the law, that's called "depraved indifference to human life", and could be grounds for a manslaughter or murder charge depending on the state.
I'm not 100% sure what Faith did rises quite to that standard, but her actions do seem to be more than just "reckless endangerment". She's running the risk of loosing what she believes is an enraged murder machine on the neighborhood.
The only thing you could possibly defend Faith with here is if EC vampires aren't as powerful/deadly as those of other stories, and Faith knows that. So the risk she's taking isn't that bad, but, in that case, she wouldn't regard them as murdering beasts fit only for extermination.

[mikbuster]

Furthermore, the application of deadly force can be applied FAR BEFORE 'threat to yours or someone else's life.' There are a plethora of situations where the baddy may not, in fact, be a deadly threat to yourself or someone else, but you are within your rights to apply deadly force.

Simply put, when somebody attacks you, the only rational and reasonable assumption to make is this person/thing does not have your best interests at heart. Assuming they just want to scare you, or play a practical joke on you, or are just waving a weapon around to intimidate you is just giving up any advantage you have. These are the actions of a person who wants bad things to happen to you. Whether they want to bite you to have a sip, bite you to rip your throat out and kill you, or just bite you to leave you to bleed, you really can't wait to see the outcome and hope for the best. There's no RESET or RETRY button in real life.

Legally, that's not true. Ethically, there are situations where it could be argued that it's better to kill someone when they aren't an imminent threat to anyone, but you'd have to have some good justification. Even legally there are obviously exceptions on both sides of when lethal force is allowable or not, but I'd suggest being prepared to go to jail anytime you use force against another person.

I don't disagree with doing whatever is necessary to stop an attacker, but if a person states that their goal in any fight is to do as much damage as possible, that's the part I don't agree with. I immediately think of the numerous spots that you could kill a person quickly even without a weapon. If you take the definition of 'attack' to be a party using lethal force against another, then yes, lethal force in response is a good idea. Even then it doesn't give you the right to kill someone automatically. If a person pulls a knife and is 10 feet away, that doesn't mean you can pull a gun on that person and shoot the person 12 times immediately (there should be a step in there giving your assailant the chance to drop the knife and run away, or allowing them to commit to further violent action like moving toward you or preparing to throw the weapon).

I realize that laws don't equal morals and that being lawful or unlawful doesn't necessarily mean an action is good or bad, but since most laws are supposed to be based on ethics it would seem a good place to start. I think this site does a good job explaining what is typically legal concerning self-defense: http://www.criminalattorney.com/news/self-defense/

Going through the comic step-by-step, I would say that Faith would have been justified in staking Layla after the point she realized Layla was a monster, until Layla was no longer a threat. She wouldn't have been justified after releasing Layla because then she was the agressor, purposely attacking someone else for her own enjoyment. If Faith knew that Layla would kill humans in the future (if absolutely all vampires killed humans and none were vegetarians or exclusively dined on non-humans) then she should have killed the vampire at any point it was possible.

Oh, and as far as culling humans not being good for the species, I would point out that humans seem to be overpopulated right now. How much members of the species value those that are killed wouldn't matter from that point of view.

To give a few more examples of characters that people liked that are generally considered bad: Darth Vader (cool villain, again not the same as this comic), Strahd von Zarovich (not sure how many people like him, but he is the main character in some Ravenloft books, and he is shown doing some very bad things unlike EC characters), Raistlin Majere (one of the heroes of the Lance, became an evil god, again the evil things he does happen 'on screen')
Actually, Aquila is kind of right. The main characters in EC are portrayed as not doing anything too bad. In fact Layla is the only main character that is implied to attack people at all. In her case I get the impression that she has other people do most of her hunting for her, only going after exceptionally easy targets of opportunity like Faith seemed to be.

['J']

If a person pulls a knife and is 10 feet away, that doesn't mean you can pull a gun on that person and shoot the person 12 times immediately (there should be a step in there giving your assailant the chance to drop the knife and run away, or allowing them to commit to further violent action like moving toward you or preparing to throw the weapon).

depending on what type of gun and holster you have, a person could easily cross a distance of ten feet before you were able to draw it, release the safty, and bring it bear.

i'd hazard a guess that most prey animals don't get any benefit out of being eaten. feeding specifically on humans/humanoids just makes them predators with a very narrow niche.

But prey species do get something out of predators, collectively instead of individually. Predators winnow out the weak and sick and elderly members of the species, which makes the species more healthy as a whole, and cuts down competition for scarce resources. Predators also tend to reduce competition from other species competing for the same resources.

But humans, being sentient and able to value the sick, weak, and elderly, unlike other natural species, do not appreciate the "benefits" of being preyed upon.

are you suggesting that animals don't have social relationships with each other? i personally don't buy the idea of 'sentience' as some human specific trait.

Unlike most predator/prey relationships, humans and vampires can do something no other pairing can do . . . negotiate.

now that's an interesting concept, an inter-species peace treaty. the problems is that in order to make it work there'd have to be some pretty punitive restrictions on the vampire population, and that the vampires can't really offer humanity anything to make coexistence worth the trouble. since one side gets nothing out of the bargain, and the other is better off as things are, what is the incentive for peace?

The usual incentive for peace is to not be at war. A peace accord, even one which funds a daily blood allotment for every vampire, is likely to be cheaper than on-going conflict at any scale, both financially and socially. Vampires also can live for centuries, which makes them valuable as repositories of historical knowledge. And assuming that vampires can continue to learn and improve over the centuries, they should be highly skilled in a wide range of subjects, and therefore valuable members of a community. Also, due to the magic of compound interest, vampires of a certain age should all be rolling in cash, and should be able to be influential movers and shakers. And don't forget the superhuman abilities, which could be valuable in a variety of specialized circumstances.

In exchange for a small increase in blood donations, humanity could get a great deal of value from vampiredom if there was peace.

well see, that's the thing. we already have trouble getting enough willing blood donations to serve our own needs, which in most cases just means keeping a stock for use in emergencies. in order to keep a vampire population healthy with three meals a day, we'd need to drastically increase that, and make sure that the supply can be relied upon consistently. the only reasonable way to make that happen would be to institute compulsory blood donations, which are not going to be very popular among the human population.

on the vampire side of things there is the problem of population control, as vampires need to be kept at a sustainable fraction of the human population. that means government registration in order to keep track of demographics, as well as some means of restricting their reproduction. furthermore, there would need to be monitoring and restriction of travel, to keep too many vampires from congregating in one place and overwhelming local blood donation infrastructure. it would all be abit police stateish for them, and they might not like that.

what we're talking about here is a very expensive peace, in order to stop a very inexpensive war. as it stands, there is no 'vampire nation' with humans sending soldiers and equipment half way around the world to fight. the vampires act more like criminals or domestic terrorists; dangerous individuals who have infiltrated human society and need to be found through investigation and police work. arguably, both sides are better off with this arrangement; the vampires have great personal liberty for as long as they can successfully maintain their covert lifestyle, while the humans keep their population down to minimally impactfull numbers by killing the ones that can't.

[The Nick]

Well, you didn't clarify what you mean by fight previously. You said "any time someone attacks you".

Are you even serious? The Joker is the villain of the story, we want to see him defeated by the hero. Dennis the Menace is not a murderer.

I obviously meant "physically endangers my safety." If somebody committed a character attack, or a water-balloon attack, or posted embarrassing photos of me on Facebook, that does not justify lethal self-defense.

And I am serious. In the Joker example, I'm using him as an example of a character in a very popular movie/series who is just as much of a protagonist (in the last movie, at least) as the "hero." Just because one of the two leading roles belongs to a 'murderer' hardly makes the movie not worth watching.

The Dennis example is an example of a character who has bad qualities and is a main character. "Murder" is bad. "Misbehaving" is bad. If your point is, "Main characters with flaws makes for a bad story," then Dennis the Menace is a bad story since he has a bad flaw. Your counter might be 'murder is worse than misbehaving', which is true, but at this point, you're not saying "badness in main characters is bad," but you're picking an arbitrary point on the bad line that makes a story worthless.

Vampire problems

The Camarilla is the answer.

Furthermore, the application of deadly force can be applied FAR BEFORE 'threat to yours or someone else's life.' There are a plethora of situations where the baddy may not, in fact, be a deadly threat to yourself or someone else, but you are within your rights to apply deadly force.

Legally, that's not true.

Legally, it is true. The standard is not, "Will you definitely die if you don't respond?" but rather, "Is there a reasonable expectation of harm if you don't respond?" A man kidnapping a child, someone breaking into your house at night, and a rape-in-progress are all examples of situations where someone could make an argument that nobody's life is necessarily in danger, but safety and well-being are in danger. There is a reasonable expectation of harm to innocent people in all of these situations. You'd be entirely within your rights to shoot somebody.

Double post merged. The DAMNed