PaRARGdox 19
Trolley problem: OK, some familiar faces for long time readers. But for those needing a reminder/catch-up, we have here Charisma Epoch (styling a new do, as seen in the earlier pages and cover) and Billy Banks (still with his long hair and sideburns, but with, um, a man bun too!) Anyway, these two are the flying bricks of third year… strong, largely invulnerable and able to fly. We’ll delve more into Charisma’s ongoing one-sided feud with Kaycee Jones as the story progresses… but needless to say it hasn’t changed all that much since the last encounter we saw – here on page 6.336.
Also, we see Mark Morgan (aka Bamboozl) from the Faculty teaching – he was first seen way back on page 1.19… unintentionally coincidental that it is, but appropriate that he should finally get a speaking role on page 7.19!!
Patreon: By the way, should it be a thing that interests you, my Magellan patrons over at Patreon have been getting full previews three updates ahead of schedule. And you can too for as little as $1 a month… 😎
Families/Cемьи: New voting incentive featuring Red Vlad and Comrade Katya … page 4 up now!! Next update will be April 1 at 5pm Sydney/1am New York time. By voting you not only get a new page of this story but you help raise Magellan’s profile and help potential new readers find us.
Next update:Â Wednesday, April 1, 2020: Who dies for the greater good?
When a retconjurer (I like that term, too 🙂 ) tells you to do something, it’s generally wise to do so without hesitation.
Misunderstood your comment for a second as applying to Mudge Wilson (who seems to be the leftmost cadet in the last panel here)! Just realized that PsiConjurer would be a better name for Mudge than PsiJector.
Hmm… Psi-Jector looks like a combination of Psi- and projector. Psi- referring to his tactile telepathy (which includes elements of psychometry), and projector alluding to the holographic images of the same ‘visions’ that mudge is receiving. That makes it seem like an appropriate code-name for him, but there’s still time for him to choose his own 🙂
It’s time to Psi-ject you to some justice!
The man-bun? I know Billy wants to avoid future baldness, but at what cost?!
Actually… I think baldness can be caused by putting too much stress on the scalp, including binding your hair too tight. He might actually be making his future baldness more likely!
I must shamefully admit that Billy looks kinda hot with this ‘do, though. Some guys can manage it.
Look at Mudge getting along!
Looks like he’s getting into shape too.
About time, too! 😤 I guess he *must* be more capable than he has come off in his appearances, as he’s always seemed like a cadet headed for washing out. Glad to see that the confidence from getting his ability under some control seems to have helped him in other areas.
His experiences during Lock(e)down did the trick, based on the ending pages of that story. It began when he saw his alternate-future bad-ass self in Bad Karma, and then in Lock(e)down he overcame his power’s painful and involuntary restrictions. I even get the idea that PsiJector (the alt-self) had never managed that, so our Mudge is genuinely liberated. Presuming at least a LITTLE bit of sex for him since then (c’mon Grace, have a heart!), I’m not surprised to see a new and perhaps formidable Mudge, preferred codename unknown, in this story.
Will Mudge get a leg over…?
Was it friendship? The *fiend!*
Billy and his hair issues are comedy gold!
I like that this is being addressed in class. As superheroes, they are likely to be needing to make that decision, in the heat of the moment, and that moment CAN’T be the first time they’ve considered it.
The trolley problem is always a tough call. Logically, yes, letting the one person die to save the many is the best course of action, but letting ANYBODY die is difficult to let happen. Compound with if you know the one person personally, but don’t know any of the many. Say the one person is a close family member. Can one logically say they’d let that person die, no matter how many that would save?
Superhero comics do usually dodge this choice entirely, as the characters so often take a third option and save both sides. However, this is often a narrative contrivance. Still, sometimes it isn’t, since in a place like in the first Spider-Man movie, it truly is an application of quick thinking in a tense moment, but other times it’s not so easy to justify. Thinking of the MCU, the first Avengers movie addresses this problem, but in the sense that the one person is one’s own self. So even then, it’s how someone would take the third option. Captain America would throw himself in front of the train to derail it, while Iron Man would blow up the track. It would be interesting how the writers of the movie would put it if there was no third option, and you had to consciously make a choice that will lead to the death of someone that’s not one’s self.
Ultimately, I think people can often forget that Superman is faced with the trolley problem basically all the time. He can hear every cry of help through at least all of Metropolis, and he chooses which ones need the most saving. In a sense, I think he’s a lot more prepared for such a dilemma than a lot of other superheroes.
Look at me, going off on a rambling tangent.
One thing that isn’t addressed often enough, in my opinion, is the repercussions of being merciful. It’s easy to weigh “one life vs several” in the moment, but what about the potential lives saved by killing a villain before they make any more victims?
But on the other hand, how do you know? If you kill the murderer who could have been reformed you just killed one more person. But if you let them live and they kill more in the future those are all people you could have saved if you hadn’t given the villain a second chance. Adopting a zero-tolerance policy might seem safer, but it’s cold and too neat for the messy realities of the world. But you can’t keep giving them more chances right? At what point do you decide that someone is beyond help? At what point do you consider that preserving your own moral code isn’t worth the collateral damages?
Like, seriously, how many people does the Joker kill every time he breaks out of Arkham? How many could have Batman saved if he’d just killed the psycho already?
In comics it always seems to be “don’t kill the baddie!” but in movies it’s “kill the baddie!”
My thoughts on the Joker are:
1) Is he really legally insane and incapable of understanding the harm he causes and its implications? Probably not.
2) Has a jury (or just a judge) been given the opportunity to render a guilty verdict, perhaps with a death penalty attached?
For any law-enforcement officer (including Batman), the primary response should be to arrest a criminal and collect evidence of their criminal wrong-doing. Killing the criminal should only happen when that is the only choice to prevent further harm to the community. I have heard of multiple cases where police officers have lost their careers and even been convicted for murder and spending decades in prison for killing a suspect when alternatives were available.
Depending on how psycho the Joker is in any specific iteration, any judge or jury sentencing him at all is likely to be on a hit list for harm to themselves and loved ones.
I’m not too sure about that. Outside of Harley Quinn, Joker doesn’t really have any loyal followers. Given how unpredictable he can be, I’d imagine most of the Gotham underworld would be happy to be rid of him.
The Joker is a narcissistic, psychotic sociopath. I’m pretty sure most psychiatrists would file that under “insane.”
Anybody else weirdly grateful they take ethics classes?
Nothing weird about it.
More real-world careers need ethics and morality classes as part of their education curriculum. Speaking from personal experience; the games industry especially.
A paper and presentation on the “needs of the many” debate? Harsh.