Only a little bit of discussion was created by Monday’s strip,but I thought some good points were made about Spy Gal and Jerry. It’s worth checking out.
I feel terrible right now (everybody is throwing up in my house and I really want to but can’t), so I’m gonna keep this short. I look forward to your thoughts.
Next week: Tangerine makes a decision about whether to kill Zurida and save his sons, or sacrifice his sons and stick to his ideals. Be there.
I never got to say this Monday, but. I was both surprised and shocked at Spy Girl taking the high road in confronting Jerry. I guess old age really does change a person.
Also it would be fun to have Sam Hit Jerry. 🙂
Some day, Marcus. Someday… it wouldn’t surprise me if Sam got that chance.
Would he really do it though? The last time he punched someone with non-fighting superpowers didn’t end so well…
It’s a great question. I’d love to see Sam at least get the chance.
Jerry’s denial of Spy Gal’s patronizing is both funny and really, really sad for Jerry. It definitely calls to mind some other comic duos and discussions therein, but I didn’t feel as bad for them because they didn’t seem quite so broken.
I’m like you. I feel bad for Jerry, even while I think Spy Gal’s treatment of him and whatever other punishments he may get are justly deserved.
Oh PLEASE let Sam hit him.
JUST
ONCE.
(Hey, he only hit Money Man once, right? And I can hope …)
DARK.
It’s just the way I think – y’know, I wonder about the pain and suffering and loss of life of bystanders during that little master stroke of his in Las Vegas, if nothing else. When buildings get destroyed and vehicles are tossed around by killer robots, ordinary folks have a tendency to get hurt, maimed and killed.
That is true. You ever read Hulk comics? A few years back, at the time of World War Hulk, writer Greg Pak came up with a great explanation for how Hulk doesn’t kill anybody even with all the destruction causes. Basically, (and I’m paraphrasing so I may not have the details exactly right), Hulk still has Bruce Banner in there somewhere, including his intellect, so when he’s on a rampage he’s always calculating and playing the angles so that no one gets hurt. He makes sure his destruction lands in such a way that people are still safe. I thought that was pretty excellent.
I found it most amusing.
Actually, Sam hitting Jerry right now would almost be an acknowledgement of Jerry as a bad guy. It’s going to be a way worse punishment for him to be, well, ignored. (Even though I bet Sam would feel a lot better)
Too true. Sam hitting anybody is like a bad guy seal of approval. That he could even joke about it in this strip says a lot.
The last panel gave me a good laugh.
On a more serious note, about yesterday’s comment of people changing and not changing. That is an interesting thing. It’s both true and false at the same time. Let me explain.
There is Change and there is Growth. It’s a fine line I’ve learned over the years. There are aspects to a person that are relatively stable their whole lives(we all know that guy who has that lousy sense of humor and always has, and probably always will). These aspects may grow and flourish, but they do not inherently change. Like I said, fine line. They are also often intertwined with each other.
Jerry is still the little boy who felt that nobody paid attention to him. Deep down, that insecure root of him remains. He has changed in other ways, but that root of him is still very much intact. Has he changed? Yes. Has he grown? Not so much. But, that one root is still there, unchanged.
Sometimes we discard these roots, but there are also roots that endure until the day we die. Is it bad to hold onto an aspect of our life? Not necessarily. Change does not necessarily define a person. It is when that Change is accompanied by Growth. A person who has always valued the sanctity of life sees a horrific event happen which only reinforces said beliefs. He has grown in ways, but that aspect of him has not changed. It is merely stronger and more robust. Conversely a man can have his life changed by losing both his legs, it is how he deals with it (growing or not growing) that defines him.
Like I said, its a fine line. Perhaps my explanation wasn’t the best, but its just something I had to comment on. There is also a strange relationship between the two.
Change can happen that does not result in Growth (the change makes you regress to older ways of living). Growth can happen without Change (you are reinforcing your current views of life, just making them stronger and more secure).
However, most of the time they go hand in hand. Change happens when you Grow and Growth happens when you Change. But this isn’t always true (just usually). Some may call separating the two semantics, but … I’m going from personal experience. I’ve seen peoples lives change, but they’re not growing. I’ve also seen people grow in ways without any real changes in their life.
Just food for thought. This matter could of course be discussed ad infinitum endlessly. Just wanted you to think about that fine line about Change and Growth.
People never change their basic nature. Never. What they do is learn and grow. I will never change some basic character flaws I have, I will never be able to change that. What I can do is choose what kind of a person I want to be and learn coping mechanisms to minimize or eliminate the expression of those flaws. You learn. You grow. You don’t change who you are.
KentDA – You make some salient points. You’re right in that I was not drawing a distinction between change and growth. I do think they go hand-in-hand, however. But you’re right that they don’t always. Great fodder for discussion.
JE Draft – I simply, absolutely disagree with you. I think our basic nature can change in profound and divine and devilish ways if we allow it. I think our capacity for that change is one of the things that makes human beings unique in the universe. We agree on one thing: it all comes down to choice.
Brock,
The language you use is that of magical thinking, and while that works for those with faith in the unseen, I have to say that in my experience I have never ever ever seen anyone truly change who they are. Your DNA is not (yet) mutable, and your brain is stamped irrevocably with the influences of your infancy and formative years while it is maturing, and so you will always have a tendency to do or like or gravitate to certain things because of the way you are made.
There are no miracles in real life, I fear. There is intelligence (also an inborn trait you either have or don’t have) and choice and hard work. Faith is just one way to game your own brain – and it works, don’t get me wrong. It helps people to achieve amazing things, large and small. Sometimes it’s positive, sometimes it’s negative. People can find internal resources to create themselves as heroes or monsters, depending on the quality of their character or the nature of their faith. But an alcoholic is always an alcoholic. She does not change this basic fact about herself. She can choose to live a sober life, but that choice comes with hard work and learned mental discipline that a non-alcoholic does not have to do to have sobriety. A bully is always a bully. Can he be taught empathy? Most likely not if he doesn’t have the inborn capacity for it. He can learn to parrot empathetic behavior in order to have a more rewarding social and business life, but I don’t believe he’ll ever not be a bully inside, even if he intellectually understands why such behavior is not acceptable. People do not magically change. They learn. They grow. But not change of their basic nature.
You correctly identify our divide along the lines of faith. I believe in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, which can indeed change a person. But I also believe a person can pollute their soul in such a way that they can change for ill as well.
I believe in choice and hard work as well, but I also believe in miracles. Miracles are a type of mercy, but they can also be the result of choice and hard work. I believe a blessing is attached to each of God’s commandments, so you let Him participate more in your life the more you obey him. I object to the term “magical thinking” because for me this is absolute reality, but I understand where you coming from at that. To be fair, I’d dub your thinking, “cynical thinking.”
We do agree on this point: that people can be taught to alter their behavior and can choose to do so. In the end, that’s what really matters. I’d vehemently disagree with any line of thought that argues that we are locked into our behaviors because of DNA. I believe we have far more participation in who we are than that. Our DNA does not make us choose one thing over another, it simply leans us into certain directions.
No argument Brock, they do tend to go hand in hand. But not always. People do at times regress when change happens. They take steps backward, trying to forget what growth they’ve accomplished. Usually of course this is because of extremely shocking things happening. Any alcoholic (or recovering alcoholic) can testify to that. Sometimes they lose it and fall back into the bottle. Of course, even that can sometimes be growth, when they realize that perhaps they weren’t ready or they made the wrong choices which drove them back to the bottle.
JE … the belief that one cannot change is something that they talk about in drug rehab. It’s called a “Web of Excuses”. That’s one of the most COMMON excuses out there.
“Once an addict, always an addict”.
“I’m locked into this life, even if I change I’ll be back here.”
“Nothing I can do will give me the strength to overcome this, so why even try?”
This a fatalistic way of looking at life. If the above statements are true(among others), then the second you start shooting dope(for example), there’s no hope for you. I don’t believe this is true. I cannot accept this.
If its true, if we are locked into a role from a young age, then why even bother? We’re going through the motions. Once a killer, always a killer. What if that killer was defending his family? What if that man was a Soldier protecting his country. Is he condemned to be a killer the rest of his life?
I don’t believe that. I can’t believe that. Thinking that change is impossible leads one to Depression. This is something I understand, I haven’t just BEEN there, I AM there. I take Medication, I see Therapists. I Struggle with these things on a daily basis. I struggle in even DEALING with people without yelling at them or wanting to throttle them for the stupidest of things. If Change was NOT possible, then I would still be the man I was five years ago.
I AM NOT THAT MAN. The fact I can comment calmly on this matter is proof of that. Five years ago I … well, I would not have been this polite. We’ll leave it at that.
Change IS possible.
If it wasn’t possible, then I’m a man doing the Impossible.
I do believe change can go both ways, and that change can be reversed. Again, those are the choices we can make.
KentDA, I really appreciate you sharing all of that. It’s intensely personal, but it’s also important for people to hear stories like yours. Your perspective is valuable.
I cannot state anything new here, but I think it says a lot about this comic and its readership that such discussions are held here.
Next time someone trivializes (web)comics I direct them here.
I appreciate you pointing that out, Cyrian. When we can have discussions like this, that’s my favorite.
I love Atomic Fly taking a picture on his phone in panel one. Delightful touch. I was surprised at Spy Gal’s reaction. Again, I find it interesting she could pity Jerry after the monstrous things he’s done but couldn’t seem to empathize with Captain Spectacular over simply wanting to enjoy his retirement. Perhaps the trauma has forced some personal growth.
I think it’s a combination of that and the degree of the sins. You’d think, logically, that the great crime the greater the anger against it, but I think the smallness of Cap’s sin was what made Spy Gal so angry. It was such an easy thing to fix and he just wouldn’t do it. Whereas with Jerry the crime is so monstrous that it requires an entire rewiring of her opinion of him–she realizes he’s far, far gone and that’s a pitiable thing. Also, I think, her culpability is different. Cap’s attitude was independent of Spy Gal, whereas she does not feel entirely blameless for what Jerry has become.
Why was I suddenly reminded of Heinlein’s story “Jerry Was A Man”?
NICE.
Now I’m waiting for Jerry to open a door under his chair and drop through to get away.
Oh, yeah, the power dampers. (Not “dampeners”…I hate wet power. Who am I, Aquaman?)
Having Sam want to hit someone really shows how much the unveiling of Jerry has affected everyone. After Money Man Sam really shut down for a long time, to put those fists back into action really speaks volumes to the situation. I know Sam has always been eager since the invasion to get back in there and now he has some justified pounding that I’m sure he’d be more than happy to commence.
Or, is Sam all talk? I, for one, would love to see Sam actually get the opportunity to hit Jerry, just to see what he would do.
And there you have it. Spy Gal’s comments last strip and Jerry’s reaction this strip confirm what I’ve always thought of Jerry… he’s still a little boy. And I think the biggest root of this problem is, that’s how Cap see’s him. That’s how Cap has always seen him. And he’s treated him appropriately. Cap always cared about Jerry, possibly even as a son, but look how he treated his actual son. Cap is a big reason for why Jerry turned out this way. This is the point where I almost feel sorry for Jerry. Almost.
Great observations about Cap. It’s been a while since he and Jerry have been in a room together (relatively speaking, in the world of the strip it’s probably only been a few days or so), but it’s good to remember how critical that relationship is to the entire story of SF.
The saddest thing is, Cap may not have been treating him like a boy or a “son” with any malicious or wicked intent. As the old saying goes, “The road to hell is often paved with good intentions.”
Jerry tried to gain recognition, but could never get it from Cap (and apparently not from others either). Was it possible that Jerry needed that attention right at the start of their relationship (from a bad childhood or whatever), or did that desire for attention develop from how Cap treated him?
That I think is a very interesting question, either of which put some of the blame on Jerry’s behavior on Cap. If it was the former and Cap didn’t see it, or thought he’d grow out of it, then one can say he was negligent on helping a kid who needed some serious help. If it was the latter, then he himself actively created that need, in which case he himself led to the creation of the monster that Jerry became.
Or it could have been a bit of both. Only the writers know the answer. Of course sometimes even they don’t! I mean, I write, and I’ve had people proofreading my stuff ask me questions that I had NOT considered.
To be honest, I would blame it more on Jerry. Of course, having no amazing, world shattering superpowers and then always standing behind the alpha hero is not healthy for ones self-esteem- but during reading the comic I got the impression that Jerry’s main problem was his unfortunate love to Spy Gal.
I understand loving someone and not being loved back and I understand going through some lengths to impress that person, but Jerry apparently pursued this person and his plans for decades. Correct me if I’m wrong, but did he ever confess his love before Vegas? I don’t think so.
He basically took the hard way without checking the map for the easy one, even when he should have been honest with himself and just move one; possibly by leaving the a-league supers all together.
I admit, he could have been treated better, but he chose to follow a dark and destructive path, seemingly without a second thought.
I think he can still escape. It’s likely no one there knows those gauntlets like he does, and he probably still has the option of overloading his stun gloves to short out the power dampeners.
IF he’s wearing them.
Don’t forget, Jerry warped his own path, when Old Jerry talked to Young Jerry. Old Jerry told his younger self how Spy Gal would someday be his. He was the only one exempted from forgetting this event…and because he had been given what looked like a firm direction, he did not look to other possible solutions. He didn’t consider sounding her out ahead of time, his older self had told him that was pointless already — even though Old Jerry had not, himself, tried anything else, because he, too, had been told not to waste his time, by himself. Time loops are dastardly things.
People will do the most irrational things when the situation calls for rationality. This is a massive case of diagnosis bias and “priming”. Jerry is convinced, with evidence from his own, equally-irrational and biased self, that no other path is viable. He has “primed” his own bias, and will not see a more rational alternative.
(Yes, I’ve been reading about the psychology of bias. The book “Sway, The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” is an amazing work. http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609)
I really like the concepts you’re highlighting here, Gwen. I think you’re 100% right about Jerry “priming” himself. He pretty much locked himself in. In that way, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, Jerry made his own choices, but a lot of different factors contributed to those choices.
[…] 4th, 2013 Comic » SF » Chapter 17 – Invasion, Pt. 4: The End of Lies Last week’s discussion was AWESOME. Some great, opposing point of views were shared and I really appreciate how respectful and […]