The thing I think was wrong with Nadia...

[Valdulan]

In the end, perhaps it wasn't her profession which bothered me - although it didn't help. Rather, it was the way she was included with the heroes: too fast, to leniently and too easily.

Here we have someone who committed multiple crimes, who fought heroes high above the city - smashing one into panels, which probably fell down on the streets. She was a public danger for quite a length of time, by herself as well as with her team.

Then she helps the heroes once. Not out of altruism, but mainly because she was pissed at her boyfriend. Her actions might have been good, but thats something on the side. It wasn't her intent, from the way she acted and talked.

So, here we have a hero who takes pity on her - which is fine in itself - and tries to help her - which is also fine.

Here it gets ugly. Despite her crimes - thats what they were - she isn't sentenced to any prison, but rather to serve time aiding the heroes. That might be fine but, the fact is, she was delighted by the idea of it. Which goes against the very idea of punishment. Although it doesn't always have to be harsh, punishment is always meant to be something boring or disgusting. Tedious, not fun.

And then the heroes. They knew she was a criminal, they battled her before. And they accepted her without even blinking - or, if they did, it lasted 30 seconds. They opened up from the get-go, and pretty much seem to let her do whatever she wants.

I see no evidence of surveilance, any evidence of tension - all of which should be present. Even worse, one of the heroes flew into the face of another hero who didn't agree with the decision, even before she had even proven herself a little.

In short, Nadia had it easy. She committed crimes, and was never actually punished in any way for them. And so it greatly irritates me, making the whole character sometimes very irritating.

I've said my piece. Whats your take, guys?

[Kasaii]

There are a few things I would mention here.

The first thing is, Nadia's opinion about being a superhero is as much a result of her absolutely relentless ability to become happy about things, no matter how much of an emotional beating she takes. If she's unhappy for more than three strips, there's a serious problem. The truth is, being a superhero has its glamourous moments, many of which get touched on, but it's also a dangerous profession, even with the Accords in place. There's a reason that half the older heroes are retired, after all.

That being said, I should have spent more time dealing with Nadia integrating and being watched. It was one of those things where I didn't do it immediately, and by the time I thought there might be a good chance for it, she'd been on the team for six months and it seemed odd to throw in. Lucky's leaping to Nadia's defense from Dudeman is also for reasons of his own, as much as anything else, and looking back I should have spent a couple of strips making it clear that she sort of got caught in an ongoing dispute between the two, rather than just spending a few panels suggesting it.

The final problem is the one that the Antiheroes are going on about, in their own psychotic way. Having institutionalised villainy makes superheroes blasé about villains changing sides, even when the villains aren't technically registered supervillains. Amber sits down to dinner with a supervillain every week, Lucky hangs around in Malefico in his off hours. It makes for an environment where it's easy to assume that someone really is a hero. This will, of course, not have any long term consequences whatsoever. Nope.

[Tinkerbell]

I have a couple of things to say here.

First off, I don't really think the purpose of a judicial system is to punish wrongdoing. No, bear with me. The judicial system is the arm of the state responsible for protecting citizens from each other. Its goal is *not* the punishment, but the *prevention* of wrongdoing. That being the case, it is far better that Mayfly's talents be put to use fighting criminals and villains than her being locked up.

As for her not being under surveillance? Well, just because there's no evidence for it doesn't mean it's not happening. Remember she's been assigned to a unit of superheroes; even if they aren't always watching her like hawks, they'll all be keeping an eye out and they're very good at spotting misconduct.

For why they were so ready to accept her, in addition to what Friv said (good points all), they are 'good guys'. Part of being a good guy is having the mercy to grant someone another chance. It's traditionally held by almost every ethical system that forgiveness is a good thing, and I can't imagine anyone being called a hero without being fairly forgiving. I'm all in favour of Mayfly getting another chance - and let's be fair, so far she's justified putting that faith in her.

Just a thought,

Tink

[ArkKMS]

i agree with Yetiman and Vald that she needed more intergration. As with comic, one could go a series of her getting used to the team, and call it an omake or gaiden or jsut simply sidestory.
I was on the thoughts that Heroes would go for a villian going good to keep the villian/hero ratio in their favor. As for Timebender sitting down with a villian everyweek, well, sisters dont count. Even Professor X and Jugerrnaut have a civil dinner once in a while.

[Valdulan]

Its goal is *not* the punishment, but the *prevention* of wrongdoing. That being the case, it is far better that Mayfly's talents be put to use fighting criminals and villains than her being locked up.

Prevention is fine, but once the wrong is committed, there must be punishment when the person is caught. It must be tangible, not nonexistent as it seems to be in this case.

Well, just because there's no evidence for it doesn't mean it's not happening. Remember she's been assigned to a unit of superheroes; even if they aren't always watching her like hawks, they'll all be keeping an eye out and they're very good at spotting misconduct.

But there's no evidence of that. Actually, the heroes seem to let her walk arounf and do whatever she pleases.

Part of being a good guy is having the mercy to grant someone another chance. It's traditionally held by almost every ethical system that forgiveness is a good thing, and I can't imagine anyone being called a hero without being fairly forgiving.

What about Batman? He's an iconic superhero, and he's not forgiving most of the time.

Being good doesn't mean being blind. Forgiveness, in such cases, should come with strict conditions, if not outright reluctance.

I'm all in favour of Mayfly getting another chance - and let's be fair, so far she's justified putting that faith in her.

That's not the point. What Mayfly did after being with the heroes is one thing. The way she got there - and how easy she had it - is another, and my point.

[Juron Pilo]

It was a stupid gamble on their part. It paid off anyways. Your complaint is only really valid now as a complaint about the story progression, and not really about their actions. In an in-world sense, you can't really argue that Nadia's later actions rendered everything moot.

[Valdulan]

It was a stupid gamble on their part. It paid off anyways. Your complaint is only really valid now as a complaint about the story progression, and not really about their actions. In an in-world sense, you can't really argue that Nadia's later actions rendered everything moot.

I can, and I do. Nadia's a criminal. She has committed crimes and has not paid for them. Her actions are not related to those crimes at all and are thus completely irrelevant.

When someone shoots somebody dead, and then saves another person, the first person is still dead. When someone steals something for someone, and gives something to someone else, the theft has still happened. Wrongs are wrongs.

[Kasaii]

It was a stupid gamble on their part. It paid off anyways. Your complaint is only really valid now as a complaint about the story progression, and not really about their actions. In an in-world sense, you can't really argue that Nadia's later actions rendered everything moot.

I can, and I do. Nadia's a criminal. She has committed crimes and has not paid for them. Her actions are not related to those crimes at all and are thus completely irrelevant.

When someone shoots somebody dead, and then saves another person, the first person is still dead. When someone steals something for someone, and gives something to someone else, the theft has still happened. Wrongs are wrongs.

What you are likely to see in the coming weeks is less likely to be expanded information on distrust that the heroes had for Nadia, and more expanded information on why they did trust her. Not so much a "back in time" thing as a "what's going on" thing.

On which note, sincerest apologies for this week. Family is in town, along with a first week at work, and the two things collided. Next week should be better.

[Juron Pilo]

So, what, commit a crime and your marked for life unless your punished for it? Isn't that putting punishment ahead of its intended goal? The loss is sad, but the past is the past. That murdered person dead, that saved person saved. She's clearly turned her ways and is doing good for now. Theres no reason to throw that away just to fufill a grudge. Theres such a thing as self imposed repentance and all that. People are complex and sometimes conceal hidden positive qualities.

[Valdulan]

But they shouldn't get away nigh-scott free when caught. Punishment should still be applied.

On an unrelated note, its good to see some new activity in the board!

[Tinkerbell]

Valdulan, it really does sound like you're talking about 'revenge of society' stuff here; superhero mythology has always been full of the difference between justice and revenge. No amount of punishment visited on Nadia is going to change what she's done, and it might in fact turn her bitter and drive her back in the wrong direction.

A person saved may not change the fact that a person died, but nor would locking up or executing the person doing the killing before they could do the saving.

Tink

[Valdulan]

I'm more talking about the Laws of Society. I am not a romantic at all, I,m just a realist. That truly may be a flaw, but thats the way it is.

Whatever the punisment might or might not do. If we don't follow the laws we set down ourselves, the laws become pointless. We need a minimum rather than the void we've seen. Being lenient is fine, but there is such a thing as being overly lenient.

And, Tinkerbell, it seems like you're saying that a killer shouldn't be punished because he might be saving someone in the future. Its no argument: I'll take the chance, because the life has been taken.

[ArkKMS]

Interesting, how both sides take this issue. It is true that Nadia has done some redemable acts, but its sets a dangours precedent in how they deal with criminals.
Which brings us to the argurment of which is better, the potensial for good, like Mayfly has shown, or the following of the laws to a more exact extent to avoid setting the precedent?

[Valdulan]

Interesting, how both sides take this issue. It is true that Nadia has done some redemable acts, but its sets a dangours precedent in how they deal with criminals.
Which brings us to the argurment of which is better, the potensial for good, like Mayfly has shown, or the following of the laws to a more exact extent to avoid setting the precedent?

Its implied that this might have happened with Judgement: he was trusted rather blindly, and then seems to have turned against the heroes' code. Or so does Amber's father implies.

[Kasaii]

Interesting, how both sides take this issue. It is true that Nadia has done some redemable acts, but its sets a dangours precedent in how they deal with criminals.
Which brings us to the argurment of which is better, the potensial for good, like Mayfly has shown, or the following of the laws to a more exact extent to avoid setting the precedent?

Its implied that this might have happened with Judgement: he was trusted rather blindly, and then seems to have turned against the heroes' code. Or so does Amber's father implies.

The ramifications of blind trust are certainly going to be explored as the comic continues.

However, if this pisses you off, I can't wait until you see the comparison with the treatment that actual supervillains get when they get arrested.
Not that this'll come up for a few months yet, at the rate I'm crawling along. My first plot draft had it happening in December, but other plotlines intervened.

[Tinkerbell]

And, Tinkerbell, it seems like you're saying that a killer shouldn't be punished because he might be saving someone in the future. Its no argument: I'll take the chance, because the life has been taken.

Sorry, I put this over wrong. What I meant was that if someone seriously demonstrates intention to redeem themselves by doing good, they should be given the chance (and yes, there should have been better controls on the situation than there were; the only way I can rationalise it is that the Champions were relying on Lucky's luck or something else that lame).

The basic spirit of law is the protection of the innocent. The nature of wrongdoing is so subjective once you get any more precise than that that there are really situations where an individual should receive treatment not in accordance with strict applications of the laws. Justice and the law don't always say the same thing.

Tink