i’m thinking “your Catholic”is like “my Lesbian” in Shortpacked.
ninja_jesus
That’s really funny. I mean, if even a child can see through the logic, then it’s clearly bullshit.
Leorale
IIRC, at an important point in the church’s development, there was a big debate about whether Jesus was more God or more human. The concept of the trinity was intentionally illogical, and was in direct response to this debate — basically, “Fine, you can’t agree, well he’s BOTH! And the Holy Ghost, too! It’s a MYSTERY. …Now let’s move on.”
Leorale
(By which I mean, the fact that a child can’t understand it is *intentional*. It’s meant to be mysterious, and not understandable, so that the adults could stop arguing over it.)
No insult on Christianity meant at all – I respect this argument and its solution. In my culture, arguing a lot throughout history makes a religion much MORE valid, not less.
begbert2
In my culture, resolving an argument by declaring that nonsense is correct just means that your religion has deliberately decided to be nonsense. And nonsense religions are bullshit.
I don’t particularly mind insulting christianity, and it’s a good thing too, since my education in logical and rational thinking forces me to recognize that being illogical makes something false.
Malebranche
I used to think like that, then I realized:
A God you can understand is not worthy of worship.
Jen Aside
Ya know, I *still* don’t get what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be, other than making an all-important-to-superstitions triplet.
The Holy Ghost is the part of Gawd that inhabits each and every one of the Saved.
Yep, didn’t make much sense to me as a child either, which was a tiny part of why I’m a Pagan (Eclectic Bicyclic Wiccan tradition) now. That and the whole “We have to destroy the Earth and all it’s natural resources or else Geezis won’t come back,” thing, which was the straw of nonsense that broke the logical but non-existent camel’s back.
Jen Aside
=s =/
The Candyman
It’s also funny because the main church’s answer to that question would be ”yes, yes he is. Now stop thinking about it too hard.”
Beige
in this situation, I like to quote the archbishop of cantabury when asked why the church of england didn’t reject darwin and his theory of evolution “Good god, don’t take this book so literally”
TheSuicidalGiraffe
HA! I officially give onto this comment not one but TWO WHOLE INTERNETS!, use them wisely
In all honesty a religion is based on a simple factor of faith, who can actually say what really happend verses what was simbolic and not the actual physical actions.
For instance, miracles i do believe in, but Jesus Christ of Nazareth had ALOT of miracles, even for the son of God i mean really this dude did way to many so i like to think some of it was simbolic rather then literal and at the end of it all who cares if it was or wasn’t the message is still clear be kind to others and don’t be an ass more then 15% of the time
Sambo
Faith in christianity: restored 😀
cmd1095
sounds about right, religious people don’t like it when people actually think. They just want you to blindly accept what they say and obey them like good little sheep as they rally you against whatever group they’ve decided to hate that day (pretty sure they have a giant spinning wheel that they spin once a week to decide)
KO
Not entirely true, not all religious people act this way – I don’t
begbert2
Nice religious people get drowned out by the a-holes. Sad fact of life.
No way man. Mike is true neutral. He likes being a pain in the ass to everyone.
Carlos
I think Chaotic Neutral is more accurate. I’ve seen CN characters and trust me when I say they can be a nasty bunch
Connor
Yeah, he’s definitely Chaotic Neutral. He doesn’t seek balance in any way, and he’s a dick to everyone because it amuses him, not because he believes there’s a moral imperative to be a dick to everyone equally. Probably. It’s hard to know for sure why he does anything he does.
Steven
A lot of Mike’s teasing in this universe seems more to be to make people better. “Cruel to be kind”, he gives people their flaws in a way that forces them to confront them. One prime example I remember is him guilting Ethan for eating Chick-Fil-A because of the owner’s anti-gay status. But he does it in a way that makes Ethan decide to KEEP eating there, deciding to not let the issue control that part of his life. He strikes me more as chaotic good.
begbert2
I haven’t been able to figure out why everyone thinks Mike’s a force for good, other than the whole Draco in leather pants thing. Even if we presume that Mike carefully orchestrated/mind-controlled Ethan into the decision he made, that decision led directly to the horrible self-destructive denial spiral that Ethan has plunged himself into with Joyce.
I’ve also seen it argued that Mike intended for Ethan to accept his gayness, and his whole noshing further into the sandwich (and dating Joyce) was a *bad* thing that Ethan did that flew in the face of Mike’s intent. When the one constant in people’s arguments is that Mike is in leather pants, you start to suspect people of choosing the conclusion they like and inventing arguments to support it.
Steven
Except he DID try to get Ethan to accept his gayness, in a roundabout way. When Ethan decided to date Joyce, Mike’s response was a resounding, annoyed, and disappointed “WOW”. A response obvious enough that Ethan got all the subtext in it, and responded with trying to get Mike to let him try.
I don’t really view Mike in leather pants. I know that Mike in the Shortpacked! comic is a jerk to the HIGHEST degree, and I like that about him there, and if he were one here, I would like him all the same. However, his actions HAVE had good consequences, and at least some of the positive character development could be attributed to Mike.
Malebranche
He’s Chaotic Mike, and that’s all there is to it.
Steven
Chaotic isn’t enough. He is Mike Mike.
John
What if Mike is just bored neutral, looking for whatever is going to shake things up? Technically that makes him opposed to lawful alignment, but if his opposition to stagnation is based on personal affiliation rather than collective alignment then he should be equally opposed to the iconoclast as the apostle. And so fare in DoA he’s followed this pattern as a bored neutral.
nothri
I would submit that he’s a bit too deliberate and meticulous in his assholery to be chaotic. That shit takes careful planning and attention to detail to pull off.
Shade
Chaotic in alignment terms says nothing about ability to be organised. It just means the character will act as they see fit irrespective of the law or other moral codes.
That Damn Rat
A chaotic Character can plan and be deliberate, it’s more about your views on hierarchy and organised society. As a loner outsider, Mike is definitely Chaotic, and his delight in others suffering puts him dangerously close to being evil too.
TPman
I think Mike is from a naturally Chaotic Evil race, but he makes a conscious attempt to channel his sadistic impulses towards the general good. I’m not sure if that makes him Chaotic Good with a side of delicious collateral damage, or just Chaotic Neutral. He’s basically DOA’s Drizzt.
Ikaru
oh, most certainly chaotic. He won’t spare anyone, and does it for his own twisted amusement…and also ‘helps’ those he deems fit. And…yet, he always seems so angry. So not True Neutral.
I think Joyce is more Lawful Evil. Or at the very least, Chaotic Neutral
begbert2
I’m not much into D&D, but I get a lawful good vibe. Except that her ideas of both “law” and “good” are both so horribly warped that she’s like a knight templar fighting the good fight to oppress everyone.
Joyce took a picture of the clothes and exactly what position they were laying. By picking them up Sarah has sabatoged herself because she can’t possibly put them back laying in the exact same position, SO she might as well try them on because Joyce now at least knows that Sarah considered it.
Kevin
Oh thank you, I had no idea what was going on.
Ocbrad1
Yep. Joyce is devious, but it’s the good type of devious.
TPman
Much obliged.
JepMZ
Ohhhhh!!!! That made much more sense! I thought it was a hip trend of today or something so I accepted it as something I don’t understand. Haha
I think the joke is that Joyce has committed to Project Sarah with such a passion that she is now creating photo records of the outfits she chooses in order to make sure that Sarah is actually wearing them.
Bill
No, Yotomoe has the right idea. Just like the old trick of putting a small piece of paper by the door hinge so you can tell if someone has been in your room, or placing a single hair across the cover of your diary so you can tell if someone has been snooping.
I kept thinking that Joyce was saying “It’s okay for you to put them on; you can still look at them being on the chair while wearing them”. And that made, like, anti-sense.
Now that Sarah’s picked up the shirt, there’s no way to hide the fact that she was interested in the clothes Joyce picked out for her, since she can’t drape it down on the chair in the exact same way, so there’s no further embarrassment in just wearing them.
If Sarah tries to put the clothes back down, Joyce will know that she even considered wearing it. So she should just save herself the stress and wear them.
Well,
She could tidy the room, leaving nothing as it was. By straightening up, she can say she didn’t look at the clothes, she put them where they belonged.
For extra fun, she can leave the note on it as if she never noticed it was there, but I find that hard to believe unless the top was still nicely folded, and stiff enough to mask the stiffness of the paper.
Of course, that requires that it be a good time to clean the room.
167 thoughts on “Magnificent”
Jen Aside
“No, I’m pretty sure my parents are married!”
Ancestral Hamster
“… but not to each other!”
shadowcell
but no bastard is more magnificent than god, amirite
matt
wouldn’t Jesus be the bastard
Blob Marley
Jesus is God. Sorta.
Yotomoe
Jesus had 2 dads and a mom. He’s an anti-bastard.
MichaelHaneline
If your Catholic, the belief is that Jesus is God. So is God, and the Holy Spirit. They are all equally God.
About 1700 years ago, the church actually excommunicated a bunch of priests and such who would not preach that Jesus IS God.
And yet, I still got punished by the nuns when I was a child for asking if that meant that Jesus was his own daddy.
MichaelHaneline
*you’re
kirwar4face
i’m thinking “your Catholic”is like “my Lesbian” in Shortpacked.
ninja_jesus
That’s really funny. I mean, if even a child can see through the logic, then it’s clearly bullshit.
Leorale
IIRC, at an important point in the church’s development, there was a big debate about whether Jesus was more God or more human. The concept of the trinity was intentionally illogical, and was in direct response to this debate — basically, “Fine, you can’t agree, well he’s BOTH! And the Holy Ghost, too! It’s a MYSTERY. …Now let’s move on.”
Leorale
(By which I mean, the fact that a child can’t understand it is *intentional*. It’s meant to be mysterious, and not understandable, so that the adults could stop arguing over it.)
No insult on Christianity meant at all – I respect this argument and its solution. In my culture, arguing a lot throughout history makes a religion much MORE valid, not less.
begbert2
In my culture, resolving an argument by declaring that nonsense is correct just means that your religion has deliberately decided to be nonsense. And nonsense religions are bullshit.
I don’t particularly mind insulting christianity, and it’s a good thing too, since my education in logical and rational thinking forces me to recognize that being illogical makes something false.
Malebranche
I used to think like that, then I realized:
A God you can understand is not worthy of worship.
Jen Aside
Ya know, I *still* don’t get what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be, other than making an all-important-to-superstitions triplet.
Opus the Poet
Oh,oh, oh! Mr, Kotter!!!
The Holy Ghost is the part of Gawd that inhabits each and every one of the Saved.
Yep, didn’t make much sense to me as a child either, which was a tiny part of why I’m a Pagan (Eclectic Bicyclic Wiccan tradition) now. That and the whole “We have to destroy the Earth and all it’s natural resources or else Geezis won’t come back,” thing, which was the straw of nonsense that broke the logical but non-existent camel’s back.
Jen Aside
=s =/
The Candyman
It’s also funny because the main church’s answer to that question would be ”yes, yes he is. Now stop thinking about it too hard.”
Beige
in this situation, I like to quote the archbishop of cantabury when asked why the church of england didn’t reject darwin and his theory of evolution “Good god, don’t take this book so literally”
TheSuicidalGiraffe
HA! I officially give onto this comment not one but TWO WHOLE INTERNETS!, use them wisely
In all honesty a religion is based on a simple factor of faith, who can actually say what really happend verses what was simbolic and not the actual physical actions.
For instance, miracles i do believe in, but Jesus Christ of Nazareth had ALOT of miracles, even for the son of God i mean really this dude did way to many so i like to think some of it was simbolic rather then literal and at the end of it all who cares if it was or wasn’t the message is still clear be kind to others and don’t be an ass more then 15% of the time
Sambo
Faith in christianity: restored 😀
cmd1095
sounds about right, religious people don’t like it when people actually think. They just want you to blindly accept what they say and obey them like good little sheep as they rally you against whatever group they’ve decided to hate that day (pretty sure they have a giant spinning wheel that they spin once a week to decide)
KO
Not entirely true, not all religious people act this way – I don’t
begbert2
Nice religious people get drowned out by the a-holes. Sad fact of life.
Jen Aside
EVERYONE gets drowned out by a-holes
Krieger
Also, yes.
Ivan
DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU JUST STARTED? Again!!!
Well, at least I can skip the comments today.
Yotomoe
So apparently Joyce is the Anti-Mike.
NCP19
The Lawful Good to his Chaotic Evil? (That may be up for debate)
nothri
No way man. Mike is true neutral. He likes being a pain in the ass to everyone.
Carlos
I think Chaotic Neutral is more accurate. I’ve seen CN characters and trust me when I say they can be a nasty bunch
Connor
Yeah, he’s definitely Chaotic Neutral. He doesn’t seek balance in any way, and he’s a dick to everyone because it amuses him, not because he believes there’s a moral imperative to be a dick to everyone equally. Probably. It’s hard to know for sure why he does anything he does.
Steven
A lot of Mike’s teasing in this universe seems more to be to make people better. “Cruel to be kind”, he gives people their flaws in a way that forces them to confront them. One prime example I remember is him guilting Ethan for eating Chick-Fil-A because of the owner’s anti-gay status. But he does it in a way that makes Ethan decide to KEEP eating there, deciding to not let the issue control that part of his life. He strikes me more as chaotic good.
begbert2
I haven’t been able to figure out why everyone thinks Mike’s a force for good, other than the whole Draco in leather pants thing. Even if we presume that Mike carefully orchestrated/mind-controlled Ethan into the decision he made, that decision led directly to the horrible self-destructive denial spiral that Ethan has plunged himself into with Joyce.
I’ve also seen it argued that Mike intended for Ethan to accept his gayness, and his whole noshing further into the sandwich (and dating Joyce) was a *bad* thing that Ethan did that flew in the face of Mike’s intent. When the one constant in people’s arguments is that Mike is in leather pants, you start to suspect people of choosing the conclusion they like and inventing arguments to support it.
Steven
Except he DID try to get Ethan to accept his gayness, in a roundabout way. When Ethan decided to date Joyce, Mike’s response was a resounding, annoyed, and disappointed “WOW”. A response obvious enough that Ethan got all the subtext in it, and responded with trying to get Mike to let him try.
I don’t really view Mike in leather pants. I know that Mike in the Shortpacked! comic is a jerk to the HIGHEST degree, and I like that about him there, and if he were one here, I would like him all the same. However, his actions HAVE had good consequences, and at least some of the positive character development could be attributed to Mike.
Malebranche
He’s Chaotic Mike, and that’s all there is to it.
Steven
Chaotic isn’t enough. He is Mike Mike.
John
What if Mike is just bored neutral, looking for whatever is going to shake things up? Technically that makes him opposed to lawful alignment, but if his opposition to stagnation is based on personal affiliation rather than collective alignment then he should be equally opposed to the iconoclast as the apostle. And so fare in DoA he’s followed this pattern as a bored neutral.
nothri
I would submit that he’s a bit too deliberate and meticulous in his assholery to be chaotic. That shit takes careful planning and attention to detail to pull off.
Shade
Chaotic in alignment terms says nothing about ability to be organised. It just means the character will act as they see fit irrespective of the law or other moral codes.
That Damn Rat
A chaotic Character can plan and be deliberate, it’s more about your views on hierarchy and organised society. As a loner outsider, Mike is definitely Chaotic, and his delight in others suffering puts him dangerously close to being evil too.
TPman
I think Mike is from a naturally Chaotic Evil race, but he makes a conscious attempt to channel his sadistic impulses towards the general good. I’m not sure if that makes him Chaotic Good with a side of delicious collateral damage, or just Chaotic Neutral. He’s basically DOA’s Drizzt.
Ikaru
oh, most certainly chaotic. He won’t spare anyone, and does it for his own twisted amusement…and also ‘helps’ those he deems fit. And…yet, he always seems so angry. So not True Neutral.
ProjectXa3
Wouldn’t that be Neutral Evil?
Pope William T Wodium
That’s my vote, yeah.
arank11
I think Joyce is more Lawful Evil. Or at the very least, Chaotic Neutral
begbert2
I’m not much into D&D, but I get a lawful good vibe. Except that her ideas of both “law” and “good” are both so horribly warped that she’s like a knight templar fighting the good fight to oppress everyone.
Pat
So… evil?
Deathjavu
I’d say more like reversed-mike. I would think Anti-Mike just wouldn’t make such genius plots.
Nightsbridge
I don’t understand teh joke.
Chase
Glad I’m not the only one missing the joke… halp? D:
timemonkey
I got nothing, I was hoping the comments would clarify.
KevinGriffin3CD
Joyce knew Sarah would go back in for the clothes, so she took a picture so that Sarah couldn’t deny it.
Yotomoe
Joyce took a picture of the clothes and exactly what position they were laying. By picking them up Sarah has sabatoged herself because she can’t possibly put them back laying in the exact same position, SO she might as well try them on because Joyce now at least knows that Sarah considered it.
Kevin
Oh thank you, I had no idea what was going on.
Ocbrad1
Yep. Joyce is devious, but it’s the good type of devious.
TPman
Much obliged.
JepMZ
Ohhhhh!!!! That made much more sense! I thought it was a hip trend of today or something so I accepted it as something I don’t understand. Haha
Thanks, I'll Have Another!
I think the joke is that Joyce has committed to Project Sarah with such a passion that she is now creating photo records of the outfits she chooses in order to make sure that Sarah is actually wearing them.
Bill
No, Yotomoe has the right idea. Just like the old trick of putting a small piece of paper by the door hinge so you can tell if someone has been in your room, or placing a single hair across the cover of your diary so you can tell if someone has been snooping.
Aizat
Joyce knows that Sarah will try the clothes that Joyce bought for her.
Wack'd
Sarah presumably didn’t memorize how the clothes laid on the chair, so regardless of what she does next Joyce will know she moved them.
timemonkey
But how does moving them mean she might as well wear them? They’re ona chair, that pretty much guarantees that they’ll be moved.
Cephalo the Pod
By moving the clothes, Sarah shows interest. Because of the photo, Sarah cannot deny so.
TPman
Her aloof persona has been shattered through cunning deception.
LiveWire
While that may be true, Sarah can just move them and say she needed to use her chair. A lie, maybe, but she could deny interest in the clothes.
HAB
I’m pretty sure everyone was explaining at the same time (i hate when this happens)
Cephalo the Pod
Thank you.
I kept thinking that Joyce was saying “It’s okay for you to put them on; you can still look at them being on the chair while wearing them”. And that made, like, anti-sense.
Jackson
Now that Sarah’s picked up the shirt, there’s no way to hide the fact that she was interested in the clothes Joyce picked out for her, since she can’t drape it down on the chair in the exact same way, so there’s no further embarrassment in just wearing them.
HAB
If Sarah tries to put the clothes back down, Joyce will know that she even considered wearing it. So she should just save herself the stress and wear them.
Ashirogi
Thanks all for explaining. This threw me, too.
Sean
Well,
She could tidy the room, leaving nothing as it was. By straightening up, she can say she didn’t look at the clothes, she put them where they belonged.
For extra fun, she can leave the note on it as if she never noticed it was there, but I find that hard to believe unless the top was still nicely folded, and stiff enough to mask the stiffness of the paper.
Of course, that requires that it be a good time to clean the room.
Aizat
She read your book, Sarah.
Kernanator
Did you read her book?
Aizat