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.
Aww, damn it. I almost hate stumbling across fun first at the start, because I inevitably get hooked just in time to run out of story.
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
Sry. I'm a streak writer by nature. Good news is this entire week I have off so the hope and dream is a new chapter sometime the next 7 days
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.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.
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.People absolutely would cut all human rights for people like them for example.
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.To the people reacting to a fictional US government with "the government would never-"
There is a difference between wanting the government to kill those monsters and wanting legal torture.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.