No, that’s not how it works! Monologue just means one person is talking, regardless of how many people can hear and does not have to be inside. Even a soliloquy involves speaking one’s thoughts aloud. Internal monologue is the one that goes on the inside.
Phew, got the nitpick out of my system, methinks. Sorry I got it all over you.
I second this. It was the first time she did something of personality value (for me).
Billie talks to herself all the time, doesn’t she?
But while Billie’s are usually on the lines of “Next time I swear I’ll do this and noone can stop me” Dorothy’s could be about her superego in polite conversation with her ego. That’d be funny, because you expect them not to co-operate that well in most people.
I know exactly how she feels. i graduated high school and was like “this is it?,” felt the same at 21, and finally graduating from the college i went to. as much as my parents wanted to “prepare” me for adulthood, it was a real letdown to find out what it really is like
I don’t know that adulthood is really all that different from childhood/adolescence. It’s just the same shit with more responsibility, a higher workload, and more independence. I hear about people being disappointed but I never know what exactly they were expecting. Was life supposed to become an American Pie movie? I’m grasping at straws here, I really have no idea. Suffice it to say I was a somewhat dull teenager and became an equally dull adult without too much friction in the transition.
What I miss most about childhood is having someone take care of my bills for me. That was awesome ^_^ Never really even understood how awesome that was until it was gone.
Ah, that makes sense. “I get to make the rules” doesn’t seem quite so significant when you realize that responsibilities, obligations, and the preexisting societal and financial system still dictate your feasible options to a very real extent. You just move from “I work because my parents tell me to” to “I work because I have to”. Not much of a change, but from a perspective that equates adulthood with freedom it’s disappointing that it’s not an improvement.
Fair enough. I guess it’s the same as with the drivers license. Spent years looking forward to turning sixteen so I could get my license. I hit sixteen, realized that if I got the thing I’d be expected to drive people places. I’d have to pay for gas and insurance. I’d start out with all these limitations and there wasn’t anywhere it would take me that the public transit didn’t already do without all that extra baggage. Within seconds the coolest thing became a needless responsibility and I never even bothered to get the license. Illusions shattered.
movie glorifications aside, the real purpose of college is to teach youngsters through drunken mistakes and new found arrest records (not necessarily mutually exclusive) that being an adult really does suck
I think this is my favorite comic of the lot. the artwork is splendid, the storyline is very good, and i actually get the jokes 90% of the time.
that being said, i’ll now go re-read the other comics XD
No Dorothy! This is not the time to be an adult, this is the time to preform wacky shenanigans to try and write both stories at once! Which will lead to nothing getting done except inadvertently leading Danny on because he’ll think you are only talking to Joe to make him jealous.
A confirmed piece in which someone knows one of the people and the other is a registered student is more important than a piece than a criminal on campus that you’re not sure when or if you can see them. It’s a guaranteed piece rather than a possible piece.
Vigilantism is illegal. Thus, Amazigirl is technically a criminal.
Interfering with Ruth’s villainy as a bystander? Acceptable. Going there with the intent of stopping Ruth? Iffy, but she had little time to do something else. Having a costume that indicated that she intended to do that, and watching out for criminals so that she could personally stop them instead of contacting somebody with the legal authority to deal with the situation (namely police)? Illegal.
Criminal =/= Bad. Usually one implies the other, but it’s not proof.
If you commit a crime, you are a criminal. The moment she beat up those guys who were going to beat up Danny, she became a criminal.
The thing is, it’s illegal so that people don’t get hurt putting themselves into stupid situations. You want to be a hero? Call the police or become a cop/firefighter. Help out the people who need help like the homeless and unprivileged kids. Don’t put on a mask and fight other crooks.
They had already laid hands on him (the push), and punched him. What she did was defense of another, not a first strike. So, not vigilantism, and you can bet she’s already researched all of this before she started doing this. She’s too smart to make such a stupid mistake.
Also, you speak as someone who sees everything as one or another, this or that. Try running afoul of a law system that’s been increasingly more and more restrictive of what is and isn’t “criminal”, then we’ll talk. 🙂
Regardless of how restrictive or unjust your legal system is, if your actions are not approved by it that makes you a criminal. This is not an issue of right and wrong. Everything is one of the other. It is a boolean value in the strictest sense.
One can be in the right when opposing the law and in the wrong when following it. That’s not the issue.
Ah yes, because doing something as heinous as pushing someone who’s yelling in your face because you committed the atrocious act of politely disagreeing with them is such a terrible thing it has to go right to “criminal” status, yes, of course! =D (note: speaking from personal experience, and sarcastically)
Again – Go out and run afoul of the increasingly restrictive, increasingly -stupid-, and increasingly -WRONG- “justice” system. Then toss the word “criminal” around so lightly. G’wan, give it a try! =D
Hey, I can’t speak for how people react, but that’s the definition. If people where you live are committing crime and don’t like to be called criminals, then whatever. That’s cool. I won’t call them that (as if it was gonna come up). However, the word means a very specific thing. If you can show me a definition of the word that does not boil down to a boolean value, then we can chalk this up to a misunderstanding. The definition of the word I, and I imagine the rest of us, are operating under though is. It’s quite black and white.
If you own land you’re a landowner. If you buy things you’re a consumer/customer. If you kill people, you’re a murderer. If you steal, you’re a theif. If you fly planes, you’re a pilot. If you play music, you’re a musician. If you rape, you’re a rapist. In the same fashion, if you commit crime, you’re a criminal. That’s what the word means. “One who commits crime”.
There’s nothing in the word that indicates magnitude, quality, variety, or ethics. Johnny Cash and the garage band down the street are both musicians. Whether they sing goodly songs that inspire or blatantly racist propaganda they’re still musicians. Anything else they may do when they’re not playing music does not make them not musicians. None of these things are specified by the use of the word.
Maybe pretend like I’m stupid for a moment. Walk me through, piece by piece, how one comes to a definition of criminal in which a non-law abiding citizen is not a criminal. You keep talking about restrictive and unjust legal systems. Perhaps that could be a good place to start.
@gangler: I shall put it this way. I, personally, refuse to answer to the label “criminal”, when my one-time offense was pushing a guy yelling in my face, after all I did was politely disagree with him. Hence “speaking from personal experience.” I was defending my personal space, and my right to go through my day without having my ears and dignity assaulted by a spoiled overgrown manchild’s boorishness. The law however, didn’t see it that way. The law rigidly defines that as “assault”, despite the fact that all I did was push him back a step. The attorney who worked my case, was appalled the officers took a single word about it for a statement. The magistrate who reduced my $2500 bond to a simple $75 fee also felt the system had no business bothering me the way it was. And yet, a year later, I’m still having to bother with it because I’m on probation – because the other guy started the whole mess. What’s even more alarming is how many people these days are on probation for either a minor infraction – or they were the -victim- in the first place.
I obey the traffic laws. I treat my fellow being with courtesy, dignity, and respect. I will never be of the mindset that I “need to get mine, so look out if you’re in my way!” And yet, by your lights, I’m a criminal.
If that’s not a good case of the law being restrictive and unjust, I honestly don’t know what -is- a “just” law, anymore. =\
@Zanosuke_Kurosaki: So you were in the right. I can accept that. You’re an overall swell human being. Nothing wrong with that. You didn’t actually go into the part where your behavior wasn’t criminal though. You were just. You were righteous. It sounds like you’ve only ever partaken in criminal behavior once.
One point that seems to be getting confused is the separation of the law and justice. Justice is a component of what influences the law. It’s often romanticized, but Justice and Law are two entirely separate things. One is an abstract concept relating to ethics, fairness, and equality, the other is a stringent set of rules designed to maintain structure and order within society. Many of the most righteous and just historical figures have been on the wrong side of the law, thus making them criminals. Just about any revolutionary.
Stories of people breaking the law to pursue justice or just to do what’s right abound. Nearly any story of a man protecting his family is bound to involve this. In fiction most characters built up as heroic are going to at least bend the law. The ideas are interrelated, but far from identical, and disagree with more issues than not.
Frankly, calling you a criminal would be a bongo move, simply because anyone likely to be pulling the word out in a situation like that is more likely to be doing so out of judgement rather than because it was relevant from a legal standpoint. You only committed one crime, it was incredibly minor, ultimately harmless. It’s unlikely to be relevant outside of the context of harsh and groundless judgement.
Still, if I may attempt to pull this back to the comic, when someone talks about a known criminal on campus, that is relevant. There’s a legal aspect to the story, which in addition to the general importance also makes it easier to spin. More likely to get a statement from someone with authority too. The nature of the crime brings safety into question. Especially since the stories are likely exaggerated, and all they really know is that someone’s allegedly running around campus assaulting delinquents. The campus vigilante being a criminal is quite relevant to it’s importance as a story and makes it more than a mere interest piece. This isn’t a situation where it’s unneeded harsh judgement. It’s a very important fact in relation to the decision in today’s update.
@gangler: Yes, let’s get back to the comic. Sorry for the tangent, I just… find that particular word a bit of a “*twitch*” trigger, if you get me.
That does bring up some interesting questions, about what people have been -saying- about the “Campus Vigilante”. Who is obviously Ultra-Car. XD (who, now that I think about it, is probably never going to show up, since this is minus the aliens, their tech, and their influence. which makes me a sad, sad panda. :'( )
@Zanosuke_Kurosaki: He’s getting rid of the sci-fi, but what he hasn’t said is that he’s bringing in the fantasy. Prepare for a magical car brought to life by Joyce’s failed attempt to become a disney princess.
She wasn’t just a bystander who happened to be there and able to defend Danny. She was in a superhero costume and was presumably watching out for trouble.
That’s the difference between a vigilante and somebody who can plead self-defense or defense of another.
Is Ruth a criminal? Of course! Is Amazigirl bad? Probably not, although we don’t have much evidence yet.
Neither of these things make Amazigirl not a criminal.
Although superheroes do tend to get a pass on the vigilantism, as is necessary for their stories.
Not the person to be said thinking in black and white. The world is a gray and muddied place, but the law is not. It makes no distinction between theft because you can and theft because you need to.
Actually, unless you live in a particularly overly pleasant town in the middle of nowhere, you do NOT EVER want to become a cop if you aspire to being a hero-type person. Firefighter works, but definitely not a cop. Many of the cops that actually have really good hearts wish they hadn’t become them in many places, especially cities. Its not like the police are evil or anything (they are not), but they are definitely not a bunch of knights in shining armor, and anyone who tries to join them wishing to be such will be THOUROUGHLY disillusioned.
That sounds like a problem in the system. We need the good men who want to be knights in shining armor there to try and fix it, and get rid of those who just want the power.
Editorially, it is more important. That’s why she assigned someone who she wasn’t going to give a story to in the first place. If it goes belly up, she hasn’t lost any talent to a story she can’t print.
Both are true. I love my adult life. I get to live by my own principles. I don’t have to answer to anyone about my private life or hobbies. My days aren’t spent trying to avoid the wrath of an authority figure within my own home. Even just the peace of mind that comes with being able to put off doing the dishes until that afternoon without having to worry about terrible consequences is worth its’ weight in gold.
I enjoy choosing my own diet, I don’t enjoy coming home to an empty fridge, or having to cook all my own food. Sometimes I wish I could just come home to a fridge full of sandwich materials like the good old days.
I enjoy living in my own space and not having to worry about every minute action upsetting the owner of the house. Paying rent is a bongo. Eviction notices even more so. I do not fancy being without power in the winter, nor do I fancy the price of heating the place.
I love not having to justify the amount of time I spend on my hobbies. It sucks not being able to afford as many videogames.
As a whole, despite having a new set of worries, difficulties, and having to go without much of the time I must say I’m way happier as an adult than I ever was as a child or teenager. That was an angsty period of time where social problems seemed significant and where coming home meant spending my day walking on eggshells and justifying my every action or lack thereof. I’ve carved out a nice little life for myself. Got four walls, a swell roommate, and a small collection of all the things I love. I derive a lot of satisfaction from that, even if it does sometimes mean living hungry in a subzero environment.
My mom probably regrets the day she said, “As long as you’re getting your education we’ll help support you as best we can.” That was 5 years ago now. Someday I’ll have to pay bills (student loans, yippee, way to get us into deep debt right on the verge of what would have possibly been freedom), but for now I get to boomerang between dorms and my home. That said, I do try to help out through part time jobs and such.
Dorothy has won me over. She’s made the transition off the list of characters I don’t care for. Even though she’s way more mature than I will ever be, I’m right there with her.
Childhood had its moments, adulthood was pretty interesting with loads of highs and lows, but it has taken old age to remind me that my teenage years are truly well behind me.
If you haven’t yet, go read through It’s Walky, it’s a lot longer (since it’s finished) and very good reading. Also it makes everything that happens in DoA drip with dramatic irony.
… Danggit. Is anyone else dissapointed that they’re not forming an epic journalism duo? And Billie finally gets a friend? No? Just me? … Well, it could still happen! Eh, I’m just glad Billie got the cool story.
Though I am liking Dorothy more and more with every strip.
Am I alone in thinking that this assignment of stories is actually a bad idea, on the principle that if the reporter is not interested in the story, then they will not pursue it vigorously and will not write it engagingly? Dorothy would pursue Amazigirl, whereas Billie will write “Meh, there’s some geek who doesn’t appreciate cheerleading running around in a stupid jumpsuit. The end.” And Dorothy will write “Joe is a horndog. Duh. The end.” (Though maybe Billie would too – she’d much rather be writing a Ruth hate story.)
Sure if these guys were both professional adults, they would take the assignments given and do them because they’re paid to. But…they’re not. So their level of interest matters. Doesn’t it?
If they can’t write about something that isn’t directly related to their own interests then they don’t belong on the paper or really in journalism at all. Plain and simple.
No offense, people, but if you find adulthood anticlimatic and boring then do something about it! Meet people, go out and have fun, enjoy all the freedoms you never had when you were a kid! No sense crying over being an adult as if you were a little kid.
Adulthood and its direct side effects are anticlimatic and boring – or worse. The transformers and dvds and the like that I can now buy in the periods I’m not chained to my desk, on the other hand, are fun.
Wow, discovering that adulthood is anticlimactic and boring at her age? Perceptive she is. Guess what, it gets worse as you get older (Cue Dennis Leary: “lifes going to suck when you grow up…”). Also, if adulthood is anticlimactic, you are doing it wrong, try a vibrator.
obviously dorothy is amazigirl and if she covers the story herself it’s easier to keep her identity a secret. Like how peter parker always covers spiderman.
Loading ...
Being an adult sucks!
I agree! But I do get paid.
hey i dont what the hell
Dorothy needs to get an inner monologue.
Then she can be a superhero too.
Remember, Dorothy: monologue goes on the inside, dialogue goes on the outside.
Must… resist… urge… to correct… Gah!
No, that’s not how it works! Monologue just means one person is talking, regardless of how many people can hear and does not have to be inside. Even a soliloquy involves speaking one’s thoughts aloud. Internal monologue is the one that goes on the inside.
Phew, got the nitpick out of my system, methinks. Sorry I got it all over you.
He was saying that Dorothy SHOULD keep her monologues on the inside.
Thank you, Dr. Horrible.
I’m here to rule the wo- I MEAN HELP.
I second this. It was the first time she did something of personality value (for me).
Billie talks to herself all the time, doesn’t she?
But while Billie’s are usually on the lines of “Next time I swear I’ll do this and noone can stop me” Dorothy’s could be about her superego in polite conversation with her ego. That’d be funny, because you expect them not to co-operate that well in most people.
Outer monologues are for villains.
Hmm.. Interesting… It would appear that there are two Billies’ in this discussion. The one in the comic and Dr. Alex Horrible’s avatar.
The last panel is basically my whole philosophy.
and thats why I will never be an adult
Walky realized that before he even tried adulthood.
Adult? Riiiiiggghttt.
When did Daisy regain enough control over her hormones to make a valid point?
I know, right?
After she learned the vigilante wasn’t sporting a view of her boobs, I’m guessing.
Aha! This is that strip with the Dorothy side view that was giving you such a hard time! (See? I pay attention to Twitter!)
I love Dorothy…
I wouldn’t be surprised if they wound up trying to swap stories. xD
Maturity is boring. Fight each other!
(It would probably bring out Amazi-girl)
I know exactly how she feels. i graduated high school and was like “this is it?,” felt the same at 21, and finally graduating from the college i went to. as much as my parents wanted to “prepare” me for adulthood, it was a real letdown to find out what it really is like
I don’t know that adulthood is really all that different from childhood/adolescence. It’s just the same shit with more responsibility, a higher workload, and more independence. I hear about people being disappointed but I never know what exactly they were expecting. Was life supposed to become an American Pie movie? I’m grasping at straws here, I really have no idea. Suffice it to say I was a somewhat dull teenager and became an equally dull adult without too much friction in the transition.
What I miss most about childhood is having someone take care of my bills for me. That was awesome ^_^ Never really even understood how awesome that was until it was gone.
As a child, it seems that adulthood comes with far more freedom. This is a lie.
Ah, that makes sense. “I get to make the rules” doesn’t seem quite so significant when you realize that responsibilities, obligations, and the preexisting societal and financial system still dictate your feasible options to a very real extent. You just move from “I work because my parents tell me to” to “I work because I have to”. Not much of a change, but from a perspective that equates adulthood with freedom it’s disappointing that it’s not an improvement.
Fair enough. I guess it’s the same as with the drivers license. Spent years looking forward to turning sixteen so I could get my license. I hit sixteen, realized that if I got the thing I’d be expected to drive people places. I’d have to pay for gas and insurance. I’d start out with all these limitations and there wasn’t anywhere it would take me that the public transit didn’t already do without all that extra baggage. Within seconds the coolest thing became a needless responsibility and I never even bothered to get the license. Illusions shattered.
Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
Faulty. They actually enjoy infantry.
It’s also a lot more work Dorothy.
movie glorifications aside, the real purpose of college is to teach youngsters through drunken mistakes and new found arrest records (not necessarily mutually exclusive) that being an adult really does suck
What bugs me is that if you prefer to avoid all that crap from the start, you’re missing out on life apparently O_o
Lol. So very true.
But if you don’t miss out on life, you start failing on the other points of college.
I think this is my favorite comic of the lot. the artwork is splendid, the storyline is very good, and i actually get the jokes 90% of the time.
that being said, i’ll now go re-read the other comics XD
No Dorothy! This is not the time to be an adult, this is the time to preform wacky shenanigans to try and write both stories at once! Which will lead to nothing getting done except inadvertently leading Danny on because he’ll think you are only talking to Joe to make him jealous.
That’s the problem with adulthood, not enough climaxes.
Oh the irony – it’s illegal to buy climaxes unless you’re an adult.
Life is sure cruel at time.
I bought a climax with your mother. For a nickel.
I know this not to be true, we don’t have nickels over here in Oz.
We do have five cent coins, though.
Only if you’re doing it right. Sometimes it requires practice to achieve a satisfactory climax.
I dunno, Daisy, I think “We have a superhero” is pretty up there as far as important newspaper stories go.
“Dorothy knows the dude” and “Billie has encountered the superhero” are good arguments, however.
A confirmed piece in which someone knows one of the people and the other is a registered student is more important than a piece than a criminal on campus that you’re not sure when or if you can see them. It’s a guaranteed piece rather than a possible piece.
“a criminal on campus”? Oh, so they’re doing the piece of Ruth’s behavior that is both immoral and illegal in her job, then?
Note: Criminal + Vigilante = NOT the same thing. Your wording, it is important. =P
Vigilantism is illegal. Thus, Amazigirl is technically a criminal.
Interfering with Ruth’s villainy as a bystander? Acceptable. Going there with the intent of stopping Ruth? Iffy, but she had little time to do something else. Having a costume that indicated that she intended to do that, and watching out for criminals so that she could personally stop them instead of contacting somebody with the legal authority to deal with the situation (namely police)? Illegal.
Criminal =/= Bad. Usually one implies the other, but it’s not proof.
If you commit a crime, you are a criminal. The moment she beat up those guys who were going to beat up Danny, she became a criminal.
The thing is, it’s illegal so that people don’t get hurt putting themselves into stupid situations. You want to be a hero? Call the police or become a cop/firefighter. Help out the people who need help like the homeless and unprivileged kids. Don’t put on a mask and fight other crooks.
“were going to beat up Danny”
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2010/comic/book-1/01-move-in-day/kick/
They had already laid hands on him (the push), and punched him. What she did was defense of another, not a first strike. So, not vigilantism, and you can bet she’s already researched all of this before she started doing this. She’s too smart to make such a stupid mistake.
Also, you speak as someone who sees everything as one or another, this or that. Try running afoul of a law system that’s been increasingly more and more restrictive of what is and isn’t “criminal”, then we’ll talk. 🙂
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/criminal
Regardless of how restrictive or unjust your legal system is, if your actions are not approved by it that makes you a criminal. This is not an issue of right and wrong. Everything is one of the other. It is a boolean value in the strictest sense.
One can be in the right when opposing the law and in the wrong when following it. That’s not the issue.
It’s fundamental to the very concept of crime.
Ah yes, because doing something as heinous as pushing someone who’s yelling in your face because you committed the atrocious act of politely disagreeing with them is such a terrible thing it has to go right to “criminal” status, yes, of course! =D (note: speaking from personal experience, and sarcastically)
Again – Go out and run afoul of the increasingly restrictive, increasingly -stupid-, and increasingly -WRONG- “justice” system. Then toss the word “criminal” around so lightly. G’wan, give it a try! =D
Hey, I can’t speak for how people react, but that’s the definition. If people where you live are committing crime and don’t like to be called criminals, then whatever. That’s cool. I won’t call them that (as if it was gonna come up). However, the word means a very specific thing. If you can show me a definition of the word that does not boil down to a boolean value, then we can chalk this up to a misunderstanding. The definition of the word I, and I imagine the rest of us, are operating under though is. It’s quite black and white.
If you own land you’re a landowner. If you buy things you’re a consumer/customer. If you kill people, you’re a murderer. If you steal, you’re a theif. If you fly planes, you’re a pilot. If you play music, you’re a musician. If you rape, you’re a rapist. In the same fashion, if you commit crime, you’re a criminal. That’s what the word means. “One who commits crime”.
There’s nothing in the word that indicates magnitude, quality, variety, or ethics. Johnny Cash and the garage band down the street are both musicians. Whether they sing goodly songs that inspire or blatantly racist propaganda they’re still musicians. Anything else they may do when they’re not playing music does not make them not musicians. None of these things are specified by the use of the word.
Maybe pretend like I’m stupid for a moment. Walk me through, piece by piece, how one comes to a definition of criminal in which a non-law abiding citizen is not a criminal. You keep talking about restrictive and unjust legal systems. Perhaps that could be a good place to start.
@gangler: I shall put it this way. I, personally, refuse to answer to the label “criminal”, when my one-time offense was pushing a guy yelling in my face, after all I did was politely disagree with him. Hence “speaking from personal experience.” I was defending my personal space, and my right to go through my day without having my ears and dignity assaulted by a spoiled overgrown manchild’s boorishness. The law however, didn’t see it that way. The law rigidly defines that as “assault”, despite the fact that all I did was push him back a step. The attorney who worked my case, was appalled the officers took a single word about it for a statement. The magistrate who reduced my $2500 bond to a simple $75 fee also felt the system had no business bothering me the way it was. And yet, a year later, I’m still having to bother with it because I’m on probation – because the other guy started the whole mess. What’s even more alarming is how many people these days are on probation for either a minor infraction – or they were the -victim- in the first place.
I obey the traffic laws. I treat my fellow being with courtesy, dignity, and respect. I will never be of the mindset that I “need to get mine, so look out if you’re in my way!” And yet, by your lights, I’m a criminal.
If that’s not a good case of the law being restrictive and unjust, I honestly don’t know what -is- a “just” law, anymore. =\
@Zanosuke_Kurosaki: So you were in the right. I can accept that. You’re an overall swell human being. Nothing wrong with that. You didn’t actually go into the part where your behavior wasn’t criminal though. You were just. You were righteous. It sounds like you’ve only ever partaken in criminal behavior once.
One point that seems to be getting confused is the separation of the law and justice. Justice is a component of what influences the law. It’s often romanticized, but Justice and Law are two entirely separate things. One is an abstract concept relating to ethics, fairness, and equality, the other is a stringent set of rules designed to maintain structure and order within society. Many of the most righteous and just historical figures have been on the wrong side of the law, thus making them criminals. Just about any revolutionary.
Stories of people breaking the law to pursue justice or just to do what’s right abound. Nearly any story of a man protecting his family is bound to involve this. In fiction most characters built up as heroic are going to at least bend the law. The ideas are interrelated, but far from identical, and disagree with more issues than not.
Frankly, calling you a criminal would be a bongo move, simply because anyone likely to be pulling the word out in a situation like that is more likely to be doing so out of judgement rather than because it was relevant from a legal standpoint. You only committed one crime, it was incredibly minor, ultimately harmless. It’s unlikely to be relevant outside of the context of harsh and groundless judgement.
Still, if I may attempt to pull this back to the comic, when someone talks about a known criminal on campus, that is relevant. There’s a legal aspect to the story, which in addition to the general importance also makes it easier to spin. More likely to get a statement from someone with authority too. The nature of the crime brings safety into question. Especially since the stories are likely exaggerated, and all they really know is that someone’s allegedly running around campus assaulting delinquents. The campus vigilante being a criminal is quite relevant to it’s importance as a story and makes it more than a mere interest piece. This isn’t a situation where it’s unneeded harsh judgement. It’s a very important fact in relation to the decision in today’s update.
@gangler: Yes, let’s get back to the comic. Sorry for the tangent, I just… find that particular word a bit of a “*twitch*” trigger, if you get me.
That does bring up some interesting questions, about what people have been -saying- about the “Campus Vigilante”. Who is obviously Ultra-Car. XD (who, now that I think about it, is probably never going to show up, since this is minus the aliens, their tech, and their influence. which makes me a sad, sad panda. :'( )
“If you kill people, you’re a murderer.”
If you murder, you’re a murderer. You can kill without being one. Murder is a type of killing.
@Zanosuke_Kurosaki: He’s getting rid of the sci-fi, but what he hasn’t said is that he’s bringing in the fantasy. Prepare for a magical car brought to life by Joyce’s failed attempt to become a disney princess.
She wasn’t just a bystander who happened to be there and able to defend Danny. She was in a superhero costume and was presumably watching out for trouble.
That’s the difference between a vigilante and somebody who can plead self-defense or defense of another.
Is Ruth a criminal? Of course! Is Amazigirl bad? Probably not, although we don’t have much evidence yet.
Neither of these things make Amazigirl not a criminal.
Although superheroes do tend to get a pass on the vigilantism, as is necessary for their stories.
Not the person to be said thinking in black and white. The world is a gray and muddied place, but the law is not. It makes no distinction between theft because you can and theft because you need to.
No, it is not right, but it is not wrong either.
Actually, unless you live in a particularly overly pleasant town in the middle of nowhere, you do NOT EVER want to become a cop if you aspire to being a hero-type person. Firefighter works, but definitely not a cop. Many of the cops that actually have really good hearts wish they hadn’t become them in many places, especially cities. Its not like the police are evil or anything (they are not), but they are definitely not a bunch of knights in shining armor, and anyone who tries to join them wishing to be such will be THOUROUGHLY disillusioned.
That sounds like a problem in the system. We need the good men who want to be knights in shining armor there to try and fix it, and get rid of those who just want the power.
More likely to get enough reliable information to write a good article I’ll give you. Still dunno about more important, though.
Editorially, it is more important. That’s why she assigned someone who she wasn’t going to give a story to in the first place. If it goes belly up, she hasn’t lost any talent to a story she can’t print.
Here Here!!
Grammarnazifalconpawnch!
It’s “hear, hear.” As in “everyone should take heed of what has just been said.” 🙂
Wrong! Joebo was merely calling you over to him/her. Why don’t you oblige Joebo with a visit?
I’m surprised that you can speak with your face stuck that way. 😛
Pft. You’re one to talk.
Invocking hypocrisy is the modern mainstay of humour these days. ^_^
I like my adulthood way better than my childhood/adolescence.
More toys than when I was a kid.
More sex than when I was an adolescent.
Go to bed when the f*** I feel like it.
Paying bills.
Struggling with rent.
Unable to buy the cool toys.
Both are true. I love my adult life. I get to live by my own principles. I don’t have to answer to anyone about my private life or hobbies. My days aren’t spent trying to avoid the wrath of an authority figure within my own home. Even just the peace of mind that comes with being able to put off doing the dishes until that afternoon without having to worry about terrible consequences is worth its’ weight in gold.
I enjoy choosing my own diet, I don’t enjoy coming home to an empty fridge, or having to cook all my own food. Sometimes I wish I could just come home to a fridge full of sandwich materials like the good old days.
I enjoy living in my own space and not having to worry about every minute action upsetting the owner of the house. Paying rent is a bongo. Eviction notices even more so. I do not fancy being without power in the winter, nor do I fancy the price of heating the place.
I love not having to justify the amount of time I spend on my hobbies. It sucks not being able to afford as many videogames.
As a whole, despite having a new set of worries, difficulties, and having to go without much of the time I must say I’m way happier as an adult than I ever was as a child or teenager. That was an angsty period of time where social problems seemed significant and where coming home meant spending my day walking on eggshells and justifying my every action or lack thereof. I’ve carved out a nice little life for myself. Got four walls, a swell roommate, and a small collection of all the things I love. I derive a lot of satisfaction from that, even if it does sometimes mean living hungry in a subzero environment.
My mom probably regrets the day she said, “As long as you’re getting your education we’ll help support you as best we can.” That was 5 years ago now. Someday I’ll have to pay bills (student loans, yippee, way to get us into deep debt right on the verge of what would have possibly been freedom), but for now I get to boomerang between dorms and my home. That said, I do try to help out through part time jobs and such.
Dorothy has won me over. She’s made the transition off the list of characters I don’t care for. Even though she’s way more mature than I will ever be, I’m right there with her.
…And then they kissed, Ironically, Daisy had already left the room.
I was promised Okapi Facts, Willis. DELIVER THEM UNTO ME.
The okapi is one of the last remaining ancestors of the common giraffe.
Willis and Jaques both dropping Okapi facts?
I’m not ashamed to say that I had no clue what an Okapi was until around 5 minutes ago when I searched it after reading QC.
Childhood had its moments, adulthood was pretty interesting with loads of highs and lows, but it has taken old age to remind me that my teenage years are truly well behind me.
Dammit! I just saw your ad on Questionable Content and already read through the whole archive. Now I need more updates!
If you haven’t yet, go read through It’s Walky, it’s a lot longer (since it’s finished) and very good reading. Also it makes everything that happens in DoA drip with dramatic irony.
… Danggit. Is anyone else dissapointed that they’re not forming an epic journalism duo? And Billie finally gets a friend? No? Just me? … Well, it could still happen! Eh, I’m just glad Billie got the cool story.
Though I am liking Dorothy more and more with every strip.
Called it
The punchline:
TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN.
Am I alone in thinking that this assignment of stories is actually a bad idea, on the principle that if the reporter is not interested in the story, then they will not pursue it vigorously and will not write it engagingly? Dorothy would pursue Amazigirl, whereas Billie will write “Meh, there’s some geek who doesn’t appreciate cheerleading running around in a stupid jumpsuit. The end.” And Dorothy will write “Joe is a horndog. Duh. The end.” (Though maybe Billie would too – she’d much rather be writing a Ruth hate story.)
Sure if these guys were both professional adults, they would take the assignments given and do them because they’re paid to. But…they’re not. So their level of interest matters. Doesn’t it?
I was thinking that too, and I also think it’s hard to write something unbiased when you’re involved in it.
The IDS pays its writers. It’s a self-sufficient newspaper. I got paid for drawing Roomies! for it, back in 1997.
That “…they’re not” was also in regards to their status as professional adults. Which I’m still not thinking they qualify as.
Though the fact that they’re paid gives some reason to think they’ll actually obey Daisy…at least long enough to grudgingly write something.
If they can’t write about something that isn’t directly related to their own interests then they don’t belong on the paper or really in journalism at all. Plain and simple.
No offense, people, but if you find adulthood anticlimatic and boring then do something about it! Meet people, go out and have fun, enjoy all the freedoms you never had when you were a kid! No sense crying over being an adult as if you were a little kid.
Adulthood and its direct side effects are anticlimatic and boring – or worse. The transformers and dvds and the like that I can now buy in the periods I’m not chained to my desk, on the other hand, are fun.
Wow, discovering that adulthood is anticlimactic and boring at her age? Perceptive she is. Guess what, it gets worse as you get older (Cue Dennis Leary: “lifes going to suck when you grow up…”). Also, if adulthood is anticlimactic, you are doing it wrong, try a vibrator.
do we really need dorothy? im not seeing her as making a contribution to the funnies quite yet, aside form making Walky faceplant over himself.
She’s a good normal. You can compare her to the rest of the cast to see how abnormal they’re really being.
Because people can only exist if they’re there to contribute to lulz. ಠ_ಠ
I believe that Dotty is an example of a comedic ‘Straight Man’.
The ‘Straight Men’ serve as a wall to bounce comedic balls off of.
“The ‘Straight Men’ serve as a wall to bounce comedic balls off of.”
Is that her purpose as it relates to Walky?
Only if they get that far in the relationship. 😀
Thank Goodness. Finally, some sense out of Daisy *was worried for a second* ^^;;
hah- anticlimactic, Daisy?? eh? eh? well, maybe not
…and now I’m picturing some Dorothy x Amazigirl.
Nah, Billie’s the “Lois Lane” here.
I think Billie would agree.
obviously dorothy is amazigirl and if she covers the story herself it’s easier to keep her identity a secret. Like how peter parker always covers spiderman.
Exactly, that’s why I don’t bother acting like an adult..