Libera te Tutemet

While the implications of the Landry act are kinda infuriating on a human right violation level what I'm trying to figure out is what her powers are I'm guessing her shard has basically given her administrative access or something
 
I got pretty much all of that from the chapter itself without the author note and was more than willing to roll with it. Not just that but actually happy that you put a name to a law that could very very plausibly exist in our world much less the shit hole that is earth bet. I am sad that it got so much pushback that you needed to explain it out of story, but I think that now that you have more people will be able to accept your reasoning.

What I didn't get, but maybe should have, is that Taylor was aged up during her original appearance.
 
Last edited:
I got pretty much all of that from the chapter itself without the author note and was more than willing to roll with it. Not just that but actually happy that you put a name to a law that could very very plausibly exist in our world much less the shit hole that is earth bet. I am sad that it got so much pushback that you needed to explain it out of story, but I think that now that you have more people will be able to accept your reasoning.

What I didn't get, but maybe should have, is that Taylor was aged up during her original appearance.

There's actually a good reason for that. She certainly isn't aged up on a whim. But I really don't want to explain it just yet as I should be able to explain it in the next chapter
 
Aww, damn it. I almost hate stumbling across *story (I have no idea how my phone's autocorrect got "fun first" from story, but I'm still a derp for not catching it) at the start, because I inevitably get hooked just in time to run out of story.
 
Last edited:
There's actually a good reason for that. She certainly isn't aged up on a whim. But I really don't want to explain it just yet as I should be able to explain it in the next chapter

Oh I know you are doing a thing and that's fine. I don't need to know the why yet.

What I meant is that I never realized during her initial appearance that she was ever even supposed to have been aged up, and probably was intended to have realized that she was, in order for the story to flow and make sense. You probably described her as older but I just did not read her as older for whatever reason and obviously needed a larger clue bat during that scene.
 
To the people reacting to a fictional US government with "the government would never-"
They would.
They absolutely would.

Just look at what the nonfictional government does (or considered doing) that we've found out about.
The Tuskegee experiments, MKUltra, Project Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, etc etc etc etc etc.
There's a reason Wikipedia has to have whole pages separate of the main CIA article just for "controversies", "human rights violations", and IIRC "involvement in regime change".

The government would.
If given the chance, the government will.
And, most likely, the government already has but we won't know for 50+ years.
 
If you don't think there was a payout I have some nice warm land out in the middle of Anartica to sell you. Also, I cannot think of a single thing crime that would get the public to accept any suspension of Constitutional rights. So the crime must be imaginable.
I'm not saying there wasn't a payout, court of public opinion woulda demanded that. Im saying that the cia was able to do that with enough legality that some rights had to be added back on in order for them to no longer be capable of doing so, as said by author, meaning before that went public, in the original version of that law, with what info we have to work with so far, we know they were able to.

Also, "Also, I cannot think of a single thing crime that would get the public to accept any suspension of Constitutional rights." this is earth Bet, with people like heartbreaker and jack fucking slash walking around. People absolutely would cut all human rights for people like them for example. So it's not mind boggling.
 
People absolutely would cut all human rights for people like them for example.
The real-life US public accepted a hedge-trimmer being taken to their human rights over a group that killed fewer of them in their entire history than some of their home-grown industries manage in a slow month. It's remarkably easy to by cynical, on this particular issue.
 
To the people reacting to a fictional US government with "the government would never-"
I never said they would never do that. I just said they wouldn't get the populous to accept a law to do that stuff legally. I have no doubt they would do that stuff, but to me, they wouldn't wait for laws to pass to do so, or even try to get a law to pass to allow them to do so.
Also, "Also, I cannot think of a single thing crime that would get the public to accept any suspension of Constitutional rights." this is earth Bet, with people like heartbreaker and jack fucking slash walking around.
There is a difference between wanting the government to kill those monsters and wanting legal torture.
 
I never said they would never do that. I just said they wouldn't get the populous to accept a law to do that stuff legally.
They already did. Between acts of congress and supreme court decisions, the US Government has been legally stripping rights for nearly a century and a half, and torturing for nearly as long.

Further details are left as an exercise for the interested student.
 
They already did. Between acts of congress and supreme court decisions, the US Government has been legally stripping rights for nearly a century and a half, and torturing for nearly as long.

Further details are left as an exercise for the interested student.
Difference between torturing in the dark reaches of the government without the knowledge of the populous, and passing a law to legally allow torture without the populous going berserk on the government. If it was just the CIA doing CIA shit? I could see that. But not one where they just say it's allowed and legal? Nah, not something I could see passing.
 
Last edited:
If it was just the CIA doing CIA shit? I could see that. But not one where they just say it's allowed and legal? Nah, not something I could see passing.
The sheer amount of protest against the laws that revoked the Bybee memos - which were relied on to say that waterboarding terrorists was legal - says to me that the US population, in the right circumstances, would regard laws against torture as "woke nonsense" that they wanted no part of.
 
I never said they would never do that. I just said they wouldn't get the populous to accept a law to do that stuff legally. I have no doubt they would do that stuff, but to me, they wouldn't wait for laws to pass to do so, or even try to get a law to pass to allow them to do so.

There is a difference between wanting the government to kill those monsters and wanting legal torture.
There's a significant difference between tolerating out of sight out of mind torture for people like jack slash + HB and actively wanting it. Also, some people would absolutely politically support those people being tortured. Heartbreaker was a mass brainwashing rapist and jack slash led the nine for decades, as they depopulated town after town with occasional city hits. Think bin Laden fresh off 9/11 levels of American public hatred, for slash atleast.
 
Back
Top