Remove ads

Pound the Table | An X-Men Self-Insert

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
October Daye said:
Noa's problem with the current standard is that it doesn't take into account the circumstances. It doesn't have the leeway to take mental incapacity into account, for example. And as a more close to home example, it can't account for when some change in, say, a Mutant Master's inherent powers has a negative effect on their ability to control the magics they Mastered.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is a very valid problem to have.

From everything said about it this point, i'm going to guess she's dealing with the worst of the worst. Political feel good law.
 
Last edited:
Cecylene said:
I am beginning to get a sense for where Noa and Xavier and the X-Men will begin to diverge and lead to the opening chapters. I think Noa will start to successfully wedge out the extenuating circumstances, and almost certainly will have to go against Xavier doing one of his patent-pending "mental massages" not directly but she will run into it with some plaintiffs/defendants I think and it will be a whole thing because legally if no one remembers a crime of passion being committed and there's only the evidence that demonstrates it ever happened what then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To be fair, it's also entirely possible that it's just Hank being a grumpy little shit. Which even before the 2000s, he had a bad habit of doing.
 
does the inventor of the high tech equipment count under the MASTER or the MACHINIST designator if they commit a crime? Cause they are Using learned information and thus should know what they are doing, but also using the tech needed to perform at that level

E.G Shocker and Vulture and Doc Ock, all of them invented their own equipment and use it in the process of crime or is this a standardised minimum? I don't know law
 
Last edited:
October Daye said:
"Now, to start things off properly!" I clapped my hands together once. "We're going to begin with a question. Students, faculty, you're all allowed to answer here. So, tell me: what are the two parts of a crime?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is a very weird and disjointed lesson IMHO. Especially when it is aimed at people who are not there to study the law. Why are they there in the first place? It is not clear what the point or goal of the lesson is, and what she is trying to teach or explain. Most of the time she seems to be throwing out semi-random terms and definitions without tying them to a goal or a specific topic.

While I am sure these are extremely interesting and important definitions, without a plot or a story that they are supposed to convey or directly relate to these ideas should be pretty useless to the students. My guess is that most of them would have been utterly bored in this context. Logan should have bailed after the first five minutes.

IMHO, like with standard presentations or many lessons Noa should have started by stating the name of the seminar, the goal of the talk, and possibly several of the major topics that she was going to discuss. Or, as my "wide-ranging" knowledge of the legal approaches that I gleaned from a couple of movies about court cases, she should have treated the class as if it was a jury in a trial and gave them an initial introduction to what she was trying to explain or achieve.

October Daye said:
Then she fell through the stage. No, not to the floor of the stage. Through.

I couldn't stop the gasp, or the way my free hand came up to my mouth in surprise. A moment later, Katherine rose up through the floor, coughing and spitting a bit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

How much of an SI is Noa that she didn't recognize several of the major X-men characters?
 
Last edited:
ElimGarak said:
How much of an SI is Noa that she didn't recognize several of the major X-men characters?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Unlike many SIs, Noa was not gifted a perfect memory and wasn't a superfan at the time of reincarnation (though she did apparently memorize a bunch of escaped Nazis so it might be more the latter than the former).
Regardless, even if she does vaguely remember Shadowcat as a character, all she has to go on as a descriptor is "Jewish young woman with brown hair named Katherine." Actually you can't even count on the "young woman" part since this story is clearly playing by its own timeline (Franklin and Valeria were born before Galactus arrived) so it was just as likely for Shadowcat to already be a member of Xavier's faculty or alternatively not even be born yet, so that means that she's virtually impossible to identify until she phases through the ground. I suspect that to reduce apophenia, Noa's generally not going to make connections unless they're A-List and/or have distinct features.
 
TheFinalWraith said:
Unlike many SIs, Noa was not gifted a perfect memory and wasn't a superfan at the time of reincarnation (though she did apparently memorize a bunch of escaped Nazis so it might be more the latter than the former).
Regardless, even if she does vaguely remember Shadowcat as a character, all she has to go on as a descriptor is "Jewish young woman with brown hair named Katherine." Actually you can't even count on the "young woman" part since this story is clearly playing by its own timeline (Franklin and Valeria were born before Galactus arrived) so it was just as likely for Shadowcat to already be a member of Xavier's faculty or alternatively not even be born yet, so that means that she's virtually impossible to identify until she phases through the ground. I suspect that to reduce apophenia, Noa's generally not going to make connections unless they're A-List and/or have distinct features.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And even if she did remember that character name, the last time she saw the kid, her powers hadn't manifested.
 
October Daye said:
On the topic of that other tea drinker, though, that was a surprise. The woman of visibly Asian descent (though I couldn't even begin to guess at specifics) held even something so mundane as a cardboard-handled paper teacup with all the poise and grace I would have expected from an 1800's aristocrat. Little paper charger plate down at her waist, cup held by the handle, pinky in (which surprised me), and taking tiny sips, returning cup to plate in between.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
LMAO
Has Betsy already bodyjacked Kwannon? Guess these two can't catch a break even in AUs.
 
October Daye said:
"Being a Mutate means that your powers came from an outside source.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

October Daye said:
"Mutant. Most of us here know this already, but mutants are born, not made.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So no Squirrel-Girl retcon where Mutant only refers to the X-gene(s) and some people just inexplicably have powers anyway?

And I guess Inhumans would be Mutates under this definition because their powers require an outside trigger despite the genetics involved?
 
I suspect the law simply wasn't written with inhumans in mind but they would eb a fuzzy place between the two catagories I think. Given that almost all inhumans either live in their own state or would be in the USA through a diplomatic visa i don't think how to treat them in the legal system has come up much.
 
October Daye said:
One: yes, this is exclusive to the use of powers or superhero-level tech to cause harm. If Reed Richards shot someone with a normal gun, he'd get the normal standard that tends to accompany such an offense. I won't state which that is, because it can depend (yes, really) on the facts.

But if he used the wooden gun… then he gets the negligence standard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It also seems like this is going to generate some pretty interesting case law about what exactly is meant by using your powers in a crime.

Like, for instance, if you're a bullet proof mutant who is otherwise normal and decides to carry a gun for some reason, your power could well be argued to fundimentally change your mental relationship with the use of that gun. You are after all in complete safety while employing it. But on the other hand, this also opens up the possibility that just having powers is going to open you up to a lower standard of proof.

(I'm probably misphrasing all this as I have no legal training)
 
I'm surprised there aren't more comments about how absolutely savage Noa is to the poor kids voluntarily attending her lecture. Let the kids have their fun, Noa, the popped collars never hurt anyone. Unless that's what she saw when Galactus attacked? A surly teen with a popped collar?

Warmachine375 said:
Bigger question: will Deadpool know Noa is an SI when she eventually encounters the Merc with a Mouth?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Jumping up and down like an excited schoolgirl, the first thing out of his mouth is, "Hi, God, I'm thrilled to meet you!" and two minutes later he's drawing iron to the terror of onlookers as he repeatedly asserts, "God is a five foot tall Jewish woman with a tail! Isn't it obvious?!"
 
Mildly cursed question but would Thor and Aliens like Captain Mar-Vell count as Mutants under the law?
 
Vaermina said:
From everything said about it this point, i'm going to guess she's dealing with the worst of the worst. Political feel good law
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
LilyWitch said:
I suspect the law simply wasn't written with inhumans in mind but they would eb a fuzzy place between the two catagories I think. Given that almost all inhumans either live in their own state or would be in the USA through a diplomatic visa i don't think how to treat them in the legal system has come up much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This doesn't really seem to even reach a law yet. From what the lecture said, this was basically the Ninth Circuit Calvin-balling some sort of standard for dealing with all these new fangled superhumans. So it's all super fuzzy, and likely to need either a Supreme Court ruling or Congress to actually put something solid down.
 
Ketrus said:
Jumping up and down like an excited schoolgirl, the first thing out of his mouth is, "Hi, God, I'm thrilled to meet you!" and two minutes later he's drawing iron to the terror of onlookers as he repeatedly asserts, "God is a five foot tall Jewish woman with a tail! Isn't it obvious?!"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Now I am imagining a Monty Python scene in my head.

Noa: "For the last time, I am not the Messiah!"

Deadpool and his growing fanclub: "She is the Messiah!"

Trunko said:
I look forward rather to Franklin Richards, the most powerful mutant ever...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
SSJ Franklin: "You see, you're not dealing with the average Mutant anymore."

Lord Doom: "Doom feel like we've been here before. Have we been here before?"
 
horngeek said:
A question of clarification- the whole reason you say Mutant and Mutate are different to Master or Mechanist is because they don't necessarily know all the ins and outs of their powers because sometimes they change-



Yeah, this has me scratching my head as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

my interpretation is that, for certain crimes to reach conviction, you have to show a corresponding mental state. so... if you would normally convict only if it could be shown that your intent was purposeful, a Machinist could be convicted if they were shown to be negligent, a far lower standard and thus easier to achieve.

i am sure someone will (or has) chimed in to confirm.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top