Ch12 - p70


July 3, 2017, at 12:00 AM

Coming on a little strong there, Duane. Quigley's not gonna die tomorrow, you have time to convince him. Ah, just a reminder that we're on a two page a week schedule now, so next page is on Friday! Have a wonderful week, readers.
57 Comments

Comments

  1. Mathis Quigley: “Soldiers should be … kept in asylums.”

    That does it. Quigley has officially crossed the moral horizon.
    He is irredeemable.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  2. They should bond over their common experience hunting and killing Aldish dissidents.
    Scratch on
  3. I'm tearing up. Thanks again, Miss A.
    Holaved on
  4. ...man, I'm torn between the urge to applaud Duane and smack him. On the one hand, he does make some good points - don't take out your frustrations on your son, pymary is still useful even if it can't bring back the dead, be a better dad - but he does it in an almost hilariously tone deaf way. For instance, he keeps insisting that Matty learn pymary, although the boy's main interest is in cooking. (And how sympathetic would Duane be to that "womanly" ambition, I wonder?)

    Still, his heart's in the right place. What he said in the last panel is something Quigley desperately needed to hear, although I'm not sure he'll listen.
    Jim Handy on
  5. That is so nice, a scene with the two men talking about the boy's future. And how nice that Duane got someone from Alderode to talk to.
    Carpenter on
  6. Author confirmaton Quigs is toast before sundown.
    Asthix on
  7. @Mad'Monster'Maniac -- What moral horizon? Soldiers could be viewed as dangerous madmen: trained by their states to be ravenous dogs when pointed in the right direction, often discarded as wounded and broken when their terms of service are done, and left for the general populace to deal with. I've watched members of my own family languish in agony, ignored by the VA, used up and tossed aside. I do not wonder that some such returnees turn to violence, using the tools of their trained trade: and bringing a sword to every table. I do not view Quigley's statement as rendering him irredeemable. Rather, I half agree with him, even as I mourn the circumstances that produce such broken souls.
    Eiríkr Útlendi on
  8. "Quigley's not gonna die tomorrow" Now I'm worried.
    Anon on
  9. The navigation stack from the last page seems a little messed up.
    on
  10. Learning Pymary and cookery at the same time wouldnt hurt, a bit of each and let Matty decide what he wants to do, respecting his mothers wishes is admirable but slightly misguided, both yours and her experiences of Pymary dont have to be Matty's. Let him at least understand whats around him.
    Mistwraith on
  11. @Eiríkr Útlendi: "Soldiers could be viewed as dangerous madmen: trained by their states to be ravenous dogs when pointed in the right direction"

    They could. And when they are, they could be...

    "often discarded as wounded and broken when their terms of service are done, and left for the general populace to deal with"

    And you saw it:

    "I've watched members of my own family languish in agony, ignored by the VA, used up and tossed aside."

    "I do not wonder that some such returnees turn to violence, using the tools of their trained trade"

    For that, you no longer need to become a mercenary. Sign up with "Academi" or an equivalent...But really, why not to serve until retirement with full benefits instead?

    "bringing a sword to every table"

    Until fairly recently, you literally had to: bladed weapons were part of uniform. Surely in reality in times corresponding to those described in "Unsounded" they were.

    The moral of all this is:
    They who do not feed their own army (including its veterans), WILL feed someone else's.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  12. @ Mad'Monster'Maniac: It's not the soldiers and Generals who should be -- and sometimes *NEED* to be -- put in asylums (although I do agree with Erikir Utlendl that we need to provide better mental health care for our veterans), it's the politicians who *start* useless wars and their corporate overlords who use "protecting American interests" and "National Security" to justify profiteering off of them through the "privatization" of support services. (Yes, I'm looking squarely at you, Halliburton and Blackwater!) To them, the soldiers are just so much cannon-fodder to be used as a means to an end. And isn't that pretty much the definition of Sociopathy? 'Nuff said.
    reynard61 on
  13. @reynard61: "protecting American interests"

    Um...I hope you do not imply armed forces of countries other than USA necessarily protect American interests?

    "profiteering off of them through the "privatization" of support services"

    Bingo! You have to be a serviceperson of armed forces of an actual state to be a lawful combatant. The key is being subjected to military jurisdiction of your country. It cannot be said that private contractors are. Nor do they earn government-guaranteed benefits (how well does the government fulfill its obligations is a separate issue). Things military should be done by the military - those bound by their oath and everything that comes with it.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  14. I think he fears that Quigley will die on Friday, not tomorrow, but close enough.
    Davecom3 on
  15. Duane panel 7: http://www.court-records.net/animation/phoenix-handsondesk(a).gif
    a middle-of-the-road reader on
  16. @Jim Handy Considering he caved in to his daughters' "manly" interest in pymary, I'd say he'd be at worst politely dismissive at first, reluctantly supportive once he had to take a stand on the matter.
    VP on
  17. "Quigley's not gonna die tomorrow"
    Nooooo! Ashley, how could you‽
    Ooooh, poor Quigley..
    Melarec on
  18. @MMM: Calm down, I think Mathis _might_ be refering to soldiers within the comic's setting and not the ones from your country. Geez.
    MDN on
  19. What she said: Quigley's not gonna die TOMORROW. What she meant: Quigley's gonna die the day AFTER tomorrow.
    Sylki on
  20. @Jim Handy hey, at least matty has shown -some- interest in pymary, or the theory of it. Last thing I remember on that note was him being real entertained by duane's fancy spellery when he pretended to attack quigs
    Doodles on
  21. What on earth is all this talk about Matty not wanting to know pymary? He's obsessed with dueling wrights and has asked his dad for lessons. The only thing stopping him, for better or worse, is Quigley.
    John Smith on
  22. I dunno- on one hand, Matty is likely ultimately to be far better off once his bitter, selfish, and (at least in once instance on-comic so far) physically abusive dad finally bites the dust. But Duane isn't exactly great dad material himself- being a mindless flesh-hungry zombie at night means being comforted for nightmares ain't happening, for starters.
    Cuban_Pete on
  23. Having as close to a heart-to-heart as these two are likely to get. You'll learn to love Duane too, Quigs, just you wait.
    Roo on
  24. That attack zombie sure got a big heart inside them rotting guts
    Josh on
  25. Is this foreshadowing... or fauxshadowing? In any case, Matty would not lack for a caretaker if Quigley bites the dust soon. The plot's around the corner, but first a little character growth doesn't go amiss. Be careful you're not caught unawares, though, guxs.
    Knows what comes on
  26. Quigley, just to be sure, what kind of flowers do you want for your funeral?
    Dusty on
  27. What's all this talk about Quigley dying?This is not a manga for 12year olds,thamk god for that.Only there characters die of (often unnatural) character development.
    Malin on
  28. What does Manga have to do with Quigley's untimely death? Also, Ashley said he's not dying TOMORROW so he's going down today! Also, it's a joke. *ba-dum-tuss*
    Dusty on
  29. Pastoral Zombie is best zombie!
    CircleReader on
  30. Mathis Quigley: “Soldiers should be kept from politics. Kept in asylums! You bring a sword to every table.” One of the greatest quotes of Unsounded IMO. Of course not all old soldiers are fit for the asylums, but yeah, certainly should be kept out of politics. War is not a continuation of politics. Politics require flexibility, military science the opposite. Making peace requires wisdom and emotional intelligence, things you can do without as a soldier. The mindset and skill set needed is completely different. - Also, as Quigley points out, there a high probability the bitterness, the thirst for vengeance and traumas built up will destroy you as an effective politician
    GhostlyJorg on
  31. @GhostlyJorg: "old soldiers...certainly should be kept out of politics"

    Winston Churchill should have been kept out of politics.
    Charles de Gaulle should have been kept out of politics.
    Dwight Eisenhower should have been kept out of politics.

    Gee, what a wonderful world would it be, were these old soldiers kept out of politics...

    "War is not a continuation of politics. Politics require flexibility, military science the opposite."

    Poor, poor, Carl von Clausewitz!
    He never lived to learn of this great revelation.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  32. @GhostlyJorg: "the bitterness, the thirst for vengeance and traumas built up will destroy you as an effective politician"

    But of course. Just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt was so embittered and traumatized by polio, that he was completely ineffective as a politician.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  33. "Um...I hope you do not imply armed forces of countries other than USA necessarily protect American interests?" No, I don't. (However, it's not as if The U.S. hasn't suborned military leaders of other nations into doing so before -- i.e. the "Banana Republics" of South and Central America from the 1930s through the recently departed Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was our ally in the "War on cocaine" before he wasn't.)
    reynard61 on
  34. @Malin: Plats die young. Like, thirty young. Quigs is on his way out, and knows it. Not today, not tomorrow, but within a few years.
    John Smith on
  35. @ MMM, the historical examples you give are impressive, but the truth is that, had those men not entered politics, many things would have been different, to the point that we won't ever know what they would have been. Other men would have stood in those places, and said different things, made different decisions. But that doesn't mean the outcomes would have been necessarily worse. We cannot know. Consider that every military coup in history has been an example of a soldier entering politics. ghadaffi, pol pot, saddam hussein, el-sisi, are just a few examples that come to mind. ask any of the people who have lived under those regimes if they wouldn't prefer non-military governors. pulled straight from wikipedia's "coup d'etat" article: According to Clayton Thyne and Jonathan Powell's coup dataset, there were 457 coup attempts from 1950 to 2010, of which 227 (49.7%) were successful and 230 (50.3%) were unsuccessful.[1] They find that coups have "been most common in Africa and the Americas (36.5% and 31.9%, respectively).... .... 2016 study found that about half of all coups — both during and after the Cold War — install new autocratic regimes.[13] New dictatorships launched by coups engage in higher levels of repression in the year that follows the coup than existed in the year leading to the coup. so, MMM, especially when you consider the multitude of african nations ruled by military dictators which I have not even mentioned because my privileged white ass doesn't need to know about them, your stately examples of soldiers-turned-politicians, I'm afraid, are far outweighed.
    Crunchy on
  36. Is it just me or does Uaid look like he's having a bit of a rough time of it at the moment, the previous page also. Maybe Quigs and Duane should put their political/philosophical/moral discourse on hold and pay attention to the well being of their transport.
    Iceea on
  37. @Crunchy: "when you consider the multitude of african nations ruled by military dictators..."

    ...You also MUST consider that in those Ssael-forsaken places the military are pretty much the ONLY group of people organised AND educated enough to be even remotely capable to govern anything, especially a country.

    "my privileged white ass doesn't need to know about them"

    Does your ass need to know about bakufu? Successive shogunates took over from hopelessly corrupt, decadent and effete civilian aristocracy and, after three iterations, built the most urbanised society on earth, which lasted until Cmdr.Perry showed up. Notably, during sakoku Japan was absolutely no threat to anyone abroad. So here is a long-running military government for you.

    See some latter-day love and beauty blossoming:

    https://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2017-05/princess-mako_650x400_61495109796.jpg
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  38. Say what you want about MMM, but he's shown to be pretty knowledgeable. I do wonder what he does for a living, since his spare time is obviously spent here...
    Dusty on
  39. Toll booth operator.
    Fox on
  40. @Dusty: "his spare time is obviously spent here"

    A more plausible explanation would be that I have a really good connectivity at my disposal at ALL times, would it not?
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  41. yes, I have heard vaguely about this part of japanese history, and yes, it is a beautiful example (one recent thing I encountered was an episode of samaurai champloo which discussed the very progressive nature of the latter portion of that era) I will say this, in response to both of your points: too many other factors exist to be able to say definitively that the effect of "soldiers" in politics is overall positive or negative based on the examples of african military dictatorships or bakufu. it could be said that castro is an example of a soldier bringing his sword to a political table, but whether cuba is a positive or negative example may be a murkier question to discern or disentangle. however, it is interesting to note the similarities between japan before cmdr.Perry and Cuba after embargo. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1218615/Trevor-Noah-argues-Trump-perfect-African-president.html
    crunchy on
  42. "A more plausible explanation would be that I have a really good connectivity at my disposal at ALL times, would it not?"

    Not entirely. Good connectivity does not imply frequent availability; it only allows it. I have WiFi & a mobile phone just about all day long (except when driving), but at work I'm often working, or at home I'm with kids, or sleeping. Having good connectivity doesn't necessarily mean I also have the free time to research & post here (though I wish I still did, sigh...).

    Khyrberos on
  43. @Khyrberos: "free time to research"

    I do not have it either. If I do not think I know already, I do not post.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  44. "What moral horizon? Soldiers could be viewed as dangerous madmen" What a ridiculous little speech you got there, Eirikr. Starting with lumping all soldiers together. But I assume you feel mightier after stepping up on a soapbox and ranting for a while. In the future, how about you focus on commenting on the comic instead of exploiting it for your own rants?
    Carpenter on
  45. @Carpenter: "ridiculous little speech"

    And intentionally so. Eiríkr Útlendi could not be unaware of universal military conscription for males in most developed countries (and in some - for medical personnel, regardless of gender, and even for all women as well). Eiríkr Útlendi did not post anything else this time. The nickname looks unfamiliar. Surely the posting was intentionally controversial, akin to throwing a pebble into a still pond, just to watch circles spreading across the water surface.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  46. Kudos to our undead wright - our wight, if you will. Wisdom and revelation to our cynical father. In re Eiríkr Útlendi's comment about soldiers becoming violent, American soldiers are FAR less violent and likely to commit crimes than the general population and even during McNamara's idiot "brain trust" period of giving people a choice between jail or the military, combat vets from Vietnam, (as opposed to people claimed to be combat vets to get lighter sentences) were far less likely to be arrested and so on.
     
    As for Halliburton and other military contractors, it makes no sense to have uniformed service members doing, say, sanitation work, badly (it isn't their main job, after all), and the security contractors from such outfits fight and often die too. As for the VA (Veteran's Administration) healthcare, it is probably, certainly arguably, the best-run government health system in the world. Perhaps having the people supporting the medical staff be unionized AND subject to civil service protections isn't the best idea (I kid - of course it isn't - that's why we often sue the VA), but once one actually gets to medical care, if one doesn't fall through the cracks, the quality of care is very, very good.
     
    I really don't get the weird anti-military vibe from people who live in a nation with an all volunteer force, but then, my folks were refugees and I grew up on tales of the Union military freeing slaves, so I'm "biased" by real-world comparisons a good deal more meaningful than Quigley's self-pitying cynical twaddle.
     
    As for MMM assuming what Eiríkr Útlendi could not be unaware of ... I met people yesterday, college graduates, of course, who didn't know why Europeans dislike being called Russian, and didn't know Communism had killed anyone. As Napoleon Bonaparte (of all people) said, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." He should have said "ignorance". At the 400 or so American schools that test for it, critical thinking declines with higher ed for the majority, especially at prestigious schools.
    Honzinator on
  47. @Honzinator: "critical thinking declines with higher ed for the majority, especially at prestigious schools"

    This is fully intentional. People thinking critically are inherently dangerous to elites. The elites are perfectly aware of it: German nuclear physicists sabotaged Nazi nuclear program, Soviet Union exterminated the professionals it inherited from Russian Empire, but its hopes that Soviet-trained professionals would stay loyal failed - they turned against the nomenklatura, eventually bringing the system down from within.

    Elites learn, but mostly learn the wrong things - any elites that overreach, fall hard. Often fatally - French Revolution, for example.

    How do the elites survive indefinitely? Live and let live, of course - British aristocracy, for example. You reap what you sow.

    Those, who complain about Trump in America, have seen nothing yet. It is not about Trump, or Geert Wilders, or EDL, or even about Anders Breivik. It is about the profound caused of these excesses, causes obvious for the working middle class, who now, as they always did throughout history of humankind, bear almost all the burdens and make almost all the sacrifices. The only reason elites can be blind to these causes, is because they chose to be. But it never saved the elites who chose this path. Like fire spreading through a coal seam, the discontent gradually reaches the surface, and once it does - changes will occur.
    For those not ready, the changes will turn cataclysmic, even fatal.
    This how it always was.
    This how it is now.
    This how it always will be.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  48. Quigly's own dislike and even hatred of soldiers in some cases is quite understandable considering how some killed his wife. it is also understandable considering the bloody and horrifying wars between cresce and alderode that must happen constantly and the number of his friends likely conscripted to fight as battle wrights. quigly himself was almost the alderode version of the Gestapo in how he hunted down dissidents himself, so his wifes death must be an even more bitter pill to swallow.
    Asshat on
  49. Mad'Monster'Maniac@ You completely misses the point, and people call you knowledgeable :-) If you want a war or warlike government or if war is inevitable, then yes, you probably should elect a soldier. Because that is their trade. If you want peace or civilian check on the military, then you should keep soldiers far away from politics (as an overwhelming rule). As far as soldiers bringing discipline and competence to a government. Well - as you say - if the only educated people are soldiers, then I guess so. But luckily that's not the case in most of the world today. And often, in peace time a soldier might also be weak on those points. People often cite the English people for being ungrateful for ousting Churchill after the war was won. But that is exactly how you should do it. It was the Americans who insisted on President Grant. Also, in the nuclear age there is very little margin for failure in terms of war. I would be doubly weary of soldiers in politics today. Even people I agree with politically
    GhostlyJorg on
  50. I think Duane is channeling and projecting some of his regret for Mikayla with her love of pymary not being able to pursue her talents onto Matty. That's so sad. He probably likes Matty so much because he's every bit as bright and bubbly as she was.
    Merlion on
  51. @GhostlyJorg: "If you want a war or warlike government or if war is inevitable, then yes, you probably should elect a soldier."

    Tsk, tsk, and who do you elect if EVERYONE served because of universal conscription, like in Norway?

    "Because that is their trade."

    Plain wrong. Their trade is to protect peace: "Si vis pacem, para bellum"

    You completely misses the point, and people call you knowledgeable

    My point was that people should not be deprived of their liberty, dignity and right to elect and be elected to public office based on them having served in the Armed Forces.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  52. Mad'Monster'Maniac@ If conscription only last up to a year, and you see no action, then that is not becoming a soldier. Any more than boarding school is military training. (I'm sure you would agree). As the current comic implies, it's the action that gets to you. Every other real world veteran states like Duane, that they kept going after the enemy to honour their fallen brother-in-arms. - I'm sure that is a way to cope with the trauma, but it's pretty easy to imagine how that way of dealing - and that mechanism - can be extremely detrimental to say, a political diplomatic effort. But if you have a country of real universal conscription. Then at best you would have an expansionist state like Rome - constantly at war. And at some point it would devolve into a military dictatorship. Like the US most probably will devolve into - in not that long. "Plain wrong. Their trade is to protect peace: 'Si vis pacem, para bellum'" I must say, given some of your posts I have read, I didn't take you for the naive kind. Confusing ideals and wishful thinking with the reality of things. Or you are just BS'ing :-)
    GhostlyJorg on
  53. @GhostlyJorg: "If conscription only last up to a year, and you see no action, then that is not becoming a soldier."

    Since you use America for reference, only one out of every eleven American servicepesons belongs to a combat unit. The rest belong to support units. By that token, they are no soldiers. But I'd rather not be the one to tell that to their faces...

    "to honour their fallen brother-in-arms"

    They may say that. The real reason is that they get to see first hand what the enemy DOES, and once you see THAT, you can no longer live with the thought that you did not try to prevent THAT from happening to your people.

    "at some point it would devolve into a military dictatorship"

    If I had your foresight, I would be fabulously rich from predicting stock prices, winning lottery numbers and which horse wins which race.

    "Confusing ideals and wishful thinking with the reality of things."

    Nowadays no country has a "War Office", or Ssael forbid, "Ministry of Aggression". What they all have is a "Ministry of Defense", or some such. Of course they are peaceful!

    "I didn't take you for the naive kind."

    It is cost versus benefits.
    The point of every armed force is to make the gain from conquering your country worth the losses and expenses. The more attractive a target you are, the better defense you need. Usually the attractiveness (i.e. wealth) of a country closely correlates with its ability to defend itself. A small, but ferocious nation is not worth bothering to conquer. Soviets had to give up conquering Finland, since it turned out not to be worth doing what it takes to subdue it. Same with Soviet-Afghan war and American-Vietnamese war - neither was worth winning. Russia put up with Chechen autonomy - Chechens were too hard to put down. Switzerland never was particularly strong, but it was never worth the losses Swiss army would inflict on any would-be aggressor.
    "Protecting peace" amounts to no more than that.
    It is always cost versus benefits.
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  54. Oops, it should have been: "The point of every armed force is to make the gain from conquering your country NOT worth the losses and expenses."
    Mad'Monster'Maniac on
  55. a point on universal conscription, if I may. it is very much because of the "volunteer" nature of our military that we US citizens have been as willing, in recent years, to engage in state organized violence. had we been deciding whether to send all of our 18 to 20 year old children into battle, regardless of class or privilege, there would have been no iraq war, (incidentally, I turned 18 in '03) and quite possibly not even an afghanistan war. please don't get this wrong. in the case of modern superpowers, universal conscription reduces warlike tendency on the part of politicians. it's also true that in many cases the former soldiers who have entered politics have cooler heads and are less willing to start new wars. it takes a lot of effort to resist the inertia of the military industrial complex. there is so much money to be made. but remember, even the lottery based conscription that we had in the vietnam era was enough to create a real anti war movement in response, while we simply haven't seen anything like that in response to twenty first century wars. universal conscription would force politicians to be even more cautious before engaging in armed conflicts. as such, a nation with universally conscripted soldiers is much LESS likely to be a warring one.
    crunchy on
  56. You people are so full of shit and hot air, too much wit and not enough common sense and knowledge in my opinion. What is it about this comic that attracts such types?
    Yuri on
  57. "If I had your foresight, I would be fabulously rich from predicting stock prices, winning lottery numbers and which horse wins which race." Well. I did predict a Trump win a year before the fact. And I'm European. Only won a small 1:4 bet with a friend who thought I was insane, though. I contemplated betting on it on a bigger scale, but I didn't want it to be something I rooted for. (But neither was a Clinton win at all appealing to me.) In any case, you can't predict anything worth predicting to a 100% But given the trajectory you can say something has a high probability. And you'd have to be blind to see the US trajectory going forward as pretty. Although the US might pull through with a constitutional convention or some such last ditch effort. But that's an entirely different topic. Let's end it here
    GhostlyJorg on