Beat me to it...by quite a bit. I'm not sure if that's what they called it way back when, but my uncle served as the chief mechanic for that bird during the Nixon years.

And makes a second date, very unlikely.. If you want something that lasts try honest with your bed-partner ... yourself. One-nighters are just empty calories or worst

*burned too many times by one-nighters*
PBH

They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions for a reason. Things would be easier if the church could accept not everyone shared their principles, but then a lot of people regardless of their faith, (or lack thereof) seem to have some considerable difficulties in grasping that little fact.


True, but honesty only works in reasonable moderation and some one-night stands are enjoyed by both sides.

Honesty is only good in moderation? Well, between other people maybe.
To yourself, one must be true. Denial and self delusion can leads one to Hell.

One-night-stands are cheap, and shallow, and can leave you something nasty. Drunks are only look attractive to other drunks.

Lovers will make love
Friends can have sex
Strangers just fuck.

Now, friends with benefits is better, honest, and you don't need to be drunk or drinking to do it. You get more respect from your friends when you respect yourself.

PBH

Hey, we're totally not burning heritics at the stake any more; and I think you've go to admitt that shows growth.

But I think the world in general needs to start to realize that WE also have valid points. "life" is getting cheaper. Heck the orign story of Jack, both directly and in hints, is really about a society that discounted the value of life until their abused progeny took it a step further. The principal, as a principal, is valid and correct. Life is sacred. The application of the principal? Well in that respect the church, and everyone else, needs to keep soul searching. I don't think most people deep down inside are comfortable with the direction we're going. Not saying we're right, just that we're not wrong either.

But straying back to the topic, while most people outside of the church just see the official position, people inside the church see the way that position is selectively applied due to practical concerns (really we're not crazy.. most of us... I promise). And as applied to charity work? I can tell you from first hand experience with the Saint Vincent De Paul society that we don't twist arms beyond not actively supporting.

One final note, and my problem with "Superman" the ideal of charity is not that the giver be raised up. Charity is not supposed to be about recognition. the ideal of charity is for the beneficiary to not even be aware of who their benefactor is. That risks obligation, which is the athema of charity. Superman is buying the affection of those around him, and thats not really "charity". Its not a bad thing, it is good works, but not "Charity".

Dave's comment about gratitude being important is true. You want to know the person recieveing benefit is grateful. But the truly charitable heart doesn't burden its beneficiary with the knowledge of who they should be grateful to.

"Hey guys, we dont abuse non belivers quite as much anymore, thats good, right? Right? I mean, no hard feelings?"

Right, I'll get on that

It occurred to me that even Superman had a Lex Luthor: an adversary who actually ends up opposing him out of jealousy that Superman can do what he cannot, because Superman does not do everything exactly the way they would, and/or because that adversary can only concieve of Superman actually using his superpowers (whether they enable him to easily do something that is hard, or whether by tremendous effort they enable him to overcome something which is hard) in a selfish way for personal gain like they themselves would be tempted to. Hence why Tiger Woods used the fame he developed from his talent of golf to be promiscuous, for instance.

Sometimes this actually is true, but though that is the danger of acting in such a way that one plays at being Superman or plays at being God (like Jack himself did, for that matter), it is still worthwhile to remember that "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing/The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." One can avoid a bad failure by not acting but one can also end up avoiding success -- good, selfless success -- if one does not act as well, and even though it is also true that "no good deed goes unpunished" due to how every Lex Luthor will insist upon seeing each of any Superman's actions as only being to benefit Superman himself. After all, remember that when Superman selflessly saved Lex Luthor's life (Luthor being his friend at the time), all Lex Luthor did was to falsely complain that Superman had somehow deliberately wrecked his laboratory and made him bald on purpose -- thus how Lex Luthor has been his foe forever since then.

Enough !!! The sins of the church are not the sins of God. And should not be on this thread anyway. Superman could and has fallen into the trap of just how much "help" he should deliver. If he helps out at every accident or crime. Why pay/have the police? or the firemen? Would the people be less careful, if they knew that someone was watching over them ? Would Ms Lane and Jimmy be so wreckless, if Superman wasn't around?

Working behind the scenes, like in this arc, he gets other people working to help others. These little rescues encourage others to help out where and what they can.

"Well, I am not Superman, but this guy help me out with my car, so the least I can do is help watch your kids."

Also this way he is less likely to attract an Lex. Having the little people in the world stopping Lex's little plots in small ways, would be more maddening for Lex, because he couldn't blame one all powerful Super man.

This is the last seen comic,(or Is it the next?) I can't wait to see what this girl does when she see these grateful people.

PBH

I was talking about specifically about honesty beteen people. Such moderation would usually take the form of tact. There's a big difference between simply being honest and being needlessly crude just to be ''completely'' honest. A fact trolls always conveniently fail to grasp.

(Oh, and just to be clear; I'm not suggesting you're a troll, it's just a example to point out some of the different forms honesty may take.)

As for being honest with yourself; I agree that's very important, but I do like to point out that nearly everyone is slightly deluded about themselves and usually that's relatively harmless. Major delusions may indeed lead you towards damnation but when it comes to the little stuff... Well, expressions like the cold, hard truth exist for a reason.


Now that's something we can completely agree on.


Yeah, you've definitely come a long way since the Council of Troubles was abolished.

Just to continue my current running theme...

Things you should never do while driving: Closing your eyes!

Not a huge comic book fan but a friend passed me this graphic novel :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Tomorrow_(comic)

The one key scenes for me are one in which a dying man asks Superman if he can cure cancer, and Superman explains that he doesn't know and wouldn't if he could.

Remember, no good deed goes unpunished.

I can see what's going to happen now. Later in this Arc, DC Comics Lawyers are going to slap Swifty with a huge copyright infringement lawsuit for he had ignored previous "Cease & Desist" warning letters 'cause he was too busy "saving the world" to pay any attention to said letters.

That is correct. The next update should be one previously unseen.

I also was asked before the apology of Tiger Woods if his apology for his promiscuous infidelity would actually mean anything, to which I answered that "confession is good for the soul" but (actually applying a general rule of mine) that it is actually often better to not make high risk decisions that might end up putting you in a position where you have to apologize like Tiger Woods did.

Connecting this to "Superman Swifty" is the fact that although he is indeed doing good, he is making high risk decisions that can put him in a bad situation in order to do so, which is why some people do indeed choose not to help at all. It is also why so many people would actually be happy to willingly dwell within one of the apartments of Aecas (the Apartment half of "Two for You"). For in one of the apartments of Aecas there is not only enough structure (routine) in addition to there being fewer unknowns and thus fewer risks, but because within the apartment the consequences of failure are much less, almost so much less as that seen in failing at a video game (which Evan is a fan of) -- or at least it is made to appear that way in order to hide the actual dangers of dwelling within those apartments, which Evan found out when he finally tried to leave (Aecas would make a remarkable salesman in real life).

I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I think he sold his soul to the Devil to be able to do what he does.

EBIL EBILLL Oh you are so Evil....Ebil..

What if Swifty has Farrago in his back pocket.

PBH

Or for the car.

*ponders that for a moment*


Damnit! Now you made me have to scrub my brain with soap.

Actually, I've got the page after this one saved as well from the last time around.

(I'll give you a clue; Superman can fly. Remember?)


Ordinary soap's no good for situations like this. You're gonna need this.

Swifty, Are you sweet for Farrago? (HUG swifty)
Or Do you think Central would grant you these super powers? Hmm



That stuff isn't enough , if you have a photographic memory..and it is only 30% effective... which means you have to use it, again and again, You may lose something important (like your home address)

PBH

Hey, You morons, It is just a helicopter" LOL LOL

Honestly, I expected that line to come in SOME time now.

And the twist on the end makes it awesome. XD

(Also, yay! We're now completely up to date!)

I am not too sure about that, since such a Faustian "Deal with the Devil" usually involves a condition which results in an obvious Catch-22, meaning that what a person does is not as obviously good as it would be otherwise.

Aside from how Light Yagami of the Death Note series genuinely wants to transform the world into a better place yet ends up becoming little more than a crazy serial killer who sacrifices his soul through his own Faustian bargain of using a Death Note to kill off all the world's criminals, remember that Jack also genuinely wanted to transform the world into a better place hence he made the Faustian bargain of sacrificing his soul via killing off all the humans via seizing control of the technology used by the scientists that created him -- the result being that he was damned to hell as Wrath and the Grim Reaper, but also like in the case of Light Yagami, his efforts did not actually work as was evidenced by the failures which followed them (the runners of "Those That Run" are similar, but their motives were more self-serving then instead of to help others, hence they are not quite the same).

In short, to me there just does not seem to be enough impression of evil with Superman Swifty to indicate he has made some sort of Faustian bargain, although it should indeed be noted that some of the best Faustian bargains are those which are so subtle that one cannot percieve them. But given that a Faustian bargain usually involves a sacrifice of the soul with connections to death and that no one is dying in connection with the good that Superman Swifty is doing (yes, both Light Yagami and Jack believed their killing was a necessary evil which would indeed bring about a greater good), then I disagree with the idea that Swifty has made some sort of Faustian bargain in order to do so much.

Oh crap, it's Blackout from Transformers! Hide your electrical equipment!

Thats not just any helicopter, its a fucking gunship .... okay, either hes got really high up friends in the military or somebody is going to be court-martialed for taking a multi tens of millions dollar aircraft as a favor to a friend wishing to take somebody he just met on a joyride to see her pretty much already dead father on a ship already coming into port but is still at a distance it'd push the aircraft to the limits of its range while expending thousands of a dollars of fuel. You'd figure they would have thought of using videoconferencing. It'd be a shitload cheaper, it'd still allow a father and his daughter to talk face to face despite the distance between them, you wouldn't be putting millions of tax payers dollars at risk, and you don't get any flac from the higher ups for misappropriating military assets.

It just goes to show Swifty, Like Superman has a long list of favors with the right people for pretty much any situation and given the enthusiasm of the person he called, holds a lot of weight with those who still owe him.

It's Superman and he's packing heat!

Actually, in the original Faustian pact, Faust got exactly what he wanted for as long as the contract was valid. It always struck me as rather silly that the Devil would cheat, since that
A) would make it rather unattractive for other people to enter into a Faustian pact with him and
B) might make it possible to contest the contract.

Just like "The good God is crafty, but not malevolent", I'd say "The Devil is evil, but not mean-spirited".

Alternatively, just like in the real world, Medivac is a public service that the US Navy provides to merchant shipping. And far from organising this, Swifty simply had the brains to remember that. And the ability to get from Anytown USA (corner of Alabama and California) to the relevent Naval Air Station the mission was launched from.

Though for dramatic reasons, it's more likely he knew who to call to get this in motion. (Strange that the captain of the ship didn't know this...) In either case though, the CH-53 will be pushing its maximum range, and will need refueling to get back to land. For this reason the flight crew would probably be extremely reluctant allow any dead weight passengers on board; especially if there's a chance of getting the father to a hospital in time to treat his mysterious injuries.

[edit:] Ignore max range claim. That was based upon a high speed vessel. A more reasonable cargo ship speed would put it much closer to shore. I stand by the other problems though.

Word problem:

If a cargo ship is traveling west at 6 knots in light seas, and an eastbound hellacoptor is traveling eastwardly at 160 knots in an interception flight path into a northwest wind at 2 knots, how long in minutes will it take the hellacoptor to reach the ship?

Extra credit: Given the above data, what color underwear is the polot wearing?

Extra extra credit: What color underwear am I wearing?

We were promised a happy ending. This is not a happy ending, therefore, your post is invalid.

Dangit, you beat me to it!

Trick question; you didn't specify the distance between the cargo ship and the helicopter.


Trick question; from the data above it's impossible to tell.


Presumably a trick question. Let me guess; you're not wearing underwear?

Problem impossible to answer without knowing speed of currents and whether they are traveling against or parallel to the ships coarse, elevation of the aircraft at take off location, weather, distance between ship and helicopter at take off, and how much weights in the helicopter (above its weight when empty) including fuel as well as the aircrafts max range. (elevation and weight is more for accuracy)

Also I just realized I'm probably wrong about it being a gunship, that cylinder on the side isn't necessarily a Vulcan cannon. It could just be an antenna

BUZZZZZ!!! Incorrect answer. You did not state your answer in the form of a witty response or joke.

D- See me after class.

A happy ending - for whom?

Also, that's not Blackout but Grindor - he's gray.

Actually, if it was a "hellacoptor" and not a helicopter, it could be there instantaneously or too late to make a difference.

(ponderflick)

1. According to the comic strip, the ship is 20 hours from port when Swifty steps in to help. For this answer, I'll assume it was an estimate and is actually a little more than 20 hours out--20 hours plus however long it takes Swifty to get the daughter to the helicopter. Assuming seas/currents/weather will not affect it's westward travel of 6 knots per hour, then it's 120 nautical miles from port.

2. Wind direction is reported as the direction the wind is blowing from. So a northwest wind is really blowing towards the southeast. So the helicopter would not be traveling "into it", but with it as a tailwind at a 45 degree angle to the helicopter. Using a little trigonometry that would be equivalent to a due west tailwind of 1.4 knots. So the helicopter, in effect, appears to be traveling 161.4 knots eastwardly.

3. The speed the helicopter and ship are approaching each other is their combined speeds: 167.4 knots.

As such, they will cover the distance between them in approximately 43 minutes.

That's (120/167.4) * 60 minutes.

Note, that if my final assumption on #1 is incorrect and the ship is really 20 hours out as of when Swifty/the daughter meet, then the distance needs to be adjusted by the time it takes Swifty and the daughter to reach the helicopter. For example, if it takes an hour for them to get to the helicopter launch point, then the copter and ship are 114 nautical miles apart and the time to cover that distance would be just shy of 41 minutes.


Extra Credit 1: That looks like a military helicopter, so it would have to be olive-drab "tighty whities".


Extra Credit 2: Swifty is Superman. Everyone knows Superman wears red "tighty whities" and he wears them outside the rest of his suit.

Inked.

None

I don't think Light or Jack are proper examples of Faustian deals Foxsnake. Don't get me wrong, I see what you mean, but I think you're missing the point here. When you make a traditional deal with a devil, (as opposed to other forms of demonological dealings with infernal entities) you sell your soul. Period. Hence there is no need for the demon to attempt to corrupt you since you'll go to Hell anyway and not living up to the bargain will only discourage others from making similar pacts. Untrustworthiness is bad for business.

The point is that making a deal with a demon isn't a inherently evil act. It's just very, very foolish, since mortals generally don't know the rules and have much more to lose then they are likely to gain. A fine example from Jack would be Arloest, who got exactly what she asked for, but didn't like the price she had to pay.

Bargaining with intelligent and highly malevolent entities isn't to be advised for anyone except possibly a mortal evil genius who has some chance to understand the mindset of a demon. I would generally recomment bringing along a laywer for the duration of the negotiations, although you'll make sure your lawyer really works for you, since quite a few of them are hellspawn themselves.

Oh, and if you ever consider making a deal yourself give me a call and I'll make sure you get a good price. Just because you're a friend. Not because I need to meet my quotas. Nope, not at all. *Innocent kitty eyes.*


You clearly don't know the right kind of girls Moonchylde.

Where did you get this photo for my cousin?

Is everything going okay Dave?

Why?

[Arnold] DOO EET NOW!! [/Arnold]

Because you have a life outside of drawing this comic, Dave ...

More on topic, I would theorize from the most recent update that Swifty quite efficiently sent the woman off on the ship we see here, while he himself went and got the help of Mac in order to get an airlift to the ship her father is on, thus cutting down the distance the aircraft would need to travel via being able to pick up the woman en route. You also need a special endorsement on a pilot's license in order to legally fly helicopters in addition to fixed-wing (airplanes, jets) aircraft, so that limitation of pilots explains why Swifty had to be flexible enough to start the woman towards her father via ship while being efficient enough to find a helicopter pilot as well.

I know theres some board personality thing going on here, and I dont watch the boards consistently enough to be up on all that, but this arc just bugs me.

I'm sorry but this seems less an arc about charity than it is about pride and vanity. "Superman" is doing the right thing, for the WRONG reasons. Droping the money off personally rather than simply wiring it to the bank? The desire for recognition? etc; There's a difference between charity and buying adoration.

Not to be a downer, or worse yet to get bibley but:

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.... [W]hen you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly (Matthew6:1,3-4)

Reader is warned that any simalarity of the above to bible thumpery is strictly coincidental. Quote provided to explain emotional basis of misgivings only. No actual claim to divine insight is intended or implied.

Let me remove my tongue from my cheek for a moment here because you bring up a good point, River. My character, "Swifty" is doing the things he is doing in this story for reasons that will be touched on later in the story so I won't get into that. But talking about his actions so far, while it may be more virtuious to do good deeds without advertising them to those around you, doing so as "Swifty" has thus far in the story in a way shows the people around him that there are actually people out there doing this kind of stuff. And what better way to encourage other people to do good deeds than lead by example? That's not to say that everyone should do what he's doing. He's not a perfect character, he too has flaws. Afterall, how dull would the story be if the main character was without some sort of flaw?

I'm going to reinsert my tongue back into my cheek, but before I do, I'm glad even in this lighthearted story people are seeing things to pick apart and debate. Carry on.

The key problem with which is that people illogically assert that you are micromanaging them through your "leading by example" because you selfishly cannot stand not to have everything except exactly the way that you yourself would have them. But most often those people actually are unfairly projecting their own inflexibility of getting exactly what they want onto others, as has been discussed before -- hence how while most of the world will love Superman there will always be Lex Luthors who illogically hate his guts despite Superman doing the right thing anyway.

The only people who know about Swifty's deeds so far seem to be those Swifty helps. He's not advertising his actions and it seems to me (Being the one writing I suppose my vision is some what blurred) hes trying to keep as few people in the know as possible. He could of wired the money but that would of left a paper trail ect.

Once again I may be blind to something but I think Swifty's character here is far less vain than I am, I want my charitable work (this comic) to be known by as many people as possible.

What he said.

And for fuck's sake, is charity any less charity because it's done for selfish reasons? If the end is the same, then who cares about the means or reasons? Real!Swifty even points out that Comic!Swifty has his own reasons for being Superman.

In my experience, no charity is done out of selflessness. There is always a reason for it, be it "It looks good for my college entrance/internships" or "Because God told me I should to get into Paradise."

It's not bad, but lets not kid ourselves.

Of course that particular form of charity that would be rather pointless if virtually no one was aware of it, (disregaring the fact that you might still enjoy doing it for your own enjoyment even under those conditions).


It's possible, I have on occasion helped people out just because I wanted to help them, but generally speaking I would say you're right. Of course, very few people like to admit they're just concerned about their social status or making another attempt to bribe their way into Heaven.

*Shrug.* Personally, I think the results matter more then the motivations anyway.

Tell this to the Mother Tressa's of the world. Yes, Many give because they enjoy it and care not if they get the fame. And they are the ones that are saved. Swifty/Superman likes to be Thanked

PBH

Everyone likes to be thanked, Prof.

And I suspect he'd do it even if he wasn't thanked.

Saying thank you is polite.

Critical reading failure. I said nothing about fame. Reward, on the other hand....

I agree with you on some level except that bit about the means. If the head honchos of the corporations that robbed their employees -- thus making it almost impossible for their employees to feed their own families -- did it in order to donate to charities that give food and shelter to people in Third World countries -- would you still say "who cares about the means"? I don't think the reasons are that important (though hey, nobody likes a braggart), but the means can be damaging and thus negate the charitable act.



"Because that person needed something and I could provide it" is a reason and has shit-all to do with selfishness or deities and their promised afterlives. At its core, one could argue that giving makes the giver feel good, thus they get something out of it, but that's rather nitpicky.

Appreciation is a major factor here. Mother Teresa was appreciated by many people and in addition believed in a god that would approve of her actions and way of life. What's so different about Swifty/Superman who likes to see the gratitude of those he helps? Do you think Mother Teresa never saw a grateful face?

Welp, animals can't give you a verbal thank you, and not all of them react in the most gracious of manners (both Arty and I have the scratches to prove it). Why do we give so much of our time and resources to cat rescue? WE JUST LIKE DOING IT.

Same for people. I'll help someone out coz' I like doing it. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't do it. Maybe that's selfish on my part, maybe not. I'm not concerned. The reward is the enjoyment, and if the receipt of said reward makes me selfish, then ohhhhh weeeeell.


But generally I'm a meanie fuckface so don't go getting ideas that I'm like, nice or something.

Perhaps I -am- talking about the "nitpicking" reward of "feeling good" as one of those selfish things. I still fail to see why this is a bad thing?

Fun fact: I work with non-releaseable birds of prey, for my own satisfaction of being able to teach people about them and their species in the wild. I do not get paid for this, in fact I had to spend 8 months scrubbing bird shit off of the walls before I could handle them. My reward is being able to work with these awesome animals and I'll be the first to admit that I get a kick out of being able to do so. The lady I work with has been doing this for >20 years, including rehabilitation of releasable injured birds of prey. I suspect somewhere deep in her psyche, she did it because it felt good to do.

Feeling good is selfish (in more ways than one but that gets into some interesting sociobiology stuff) but does that negate my deeds, or hers? Some of you seem to imply that.

I am sure that Swifty would not care about not being Thanked.. But I have know people who were generous as all get out BUT if you forgot to thank them, they were grumpiest/meanest people in the world to you, behind your back.

The Fame: Giving a big check in front of cameras.. Shouting in the street , that You are giving all your lunches to the homeless for Lent. Giving to the Goodwill, and then taking it off your taxes.

Mother Teresa was thanked by the poor and curse by many people (the rich and upper class). Curse for being so good and giving up so much, and showing us the pain of invisible people in India. She shamed many of us, just being Mother Teresa.

PBH

Wouldn't say Swifty is being selfish, more vain specifically with the superman thing and using philanthropy to draw attention to himself (even if only with those he helps). However this page has shown that hes not obsessed with being the center of attention, if he were then he would have gone into the room with her and probably gloated to her dying father how he 'saved the day', hogging valuable last moments between a father and daughter instead of sitting near the edge of the ship in silent contemplation.

As to selfishness always being bad, I call bullshit. Sometimes you have to take care of yourself before you can help others, and sometimes that can seem selfish but hell even the bible said you should remove the log from your eye before worrying about the sliver in somebody elses. Swifty obviously isn't one of these, but with people who act like this 'superman' they are often severely depressed, lonely, and have low self esteem. Helping others makes them feel good for a time but it doesn't stick, often because they are so down and don't reconise some of the things they are getting back. If they took care of themselves first before helping those others then they'd feel even better about the deeds they were doing and it'd stick longer. Sometimes you just have to be selfish before you can be selfless.

See! I'm not an attention whore all of the time, just most of the time.

And I don't think I've thanked Dave and Katie and such again lately, so here's a thank you to you all.



"You can hog the spotlight from all the people some of the time, and you can hog the spotlight from some of the people all the time, but you should not hog the spotlight from all of the people all of the time."

If you mean the item sticking forward from the chopper's right side, that's Dave's rendition of the in-flight refueling probe that -53s are equipped with.

(Yes, I am an airplane geek, but don't ask me what particular version of the -53 that is. No offense intended to Dave, but his art style doesn't really lend itself to exact aircraft model identification. )

Another reason to "get thanked" or at least make sure folks know "who" has done the good deed for them...is the fact that those folks may have talents or resources that you may need to tap later to help somebody else... The "pay it forward" kind of thing except with a coordinator.

I've quite a network myself...I doubt I could procure a military/CG helio but I could come pretty close to that...and fixed wing would be no problem at all.

You make friends when you help people...and those friends can often (later) help other people...and will...because they are your friends.

Not always...but things do have a way of working out.

Can be summed up with two words,

Reciprocal altruism

Though I'd say that it isn't always necessary to have your altruism acknowledged for it to be reciprocated back to you somehow.

Its just in those cases they tend not to be very directly reciprocated or even known to have been reciprocated by either party.

and extreme example:

Say you send money anonymously to a charity organization helping victims of the Haiti earthquake. One of those victims which benefited from your contribution is a child who later went on to high school and university and helped discover a highly effective treatment to a form of cancer you happened to contract and was treated for the technique he/she helped developed. Neither of you knew each other, but thanks to your help to him/her indirectly, he/she eventually had a means of returning the favor without even realizing it. Again pretty extreme example but another example I had given hit too close to home politically with something going on in the states right now.

Karma can be a wonderful thing... sometimes

So... Swifty's abusing the 'office' of Superman to get a date?


(I'm joking, in case it wasn't obvious. )

I understand what you mean, but that particular example has little to do with reciprocal altruism and far more with the good 'ld butterfly effect, (tiny actions can have great consequences over time). To use your own example lets say I don't give to a charitable organization helping victims of the Haiti earthquake and as a result one of the victims doesn't get to go to high school or university. Now lets assume this student would have been responsible for one of the worst high school massacres in history......

Never said my example was an example of reciprocal altruism, I said that people don't always have to seek acknowledgment for their kind deed to have it reciprocated back to them eventually and I somewhat agree its an example of the butterfly effect. As to the last two sentences.... wat?

Also

:There is one thing
I mean everything has a price
I really hate to repeat myself
But nothing's free

Yes I'm on your side
Sincerely
I'm the only one that cares
Oh I'm on your side
Sincerely

Inspired by re-reading the arc today and Gimme playing on the radio at the same time. Ever since I haven't been able to get the above image out of my head despite there being ZERO possibility that its going to be the other shoe which drops. I mean if Swifty was Satan tricking people into giving up their souls, he would have went about it a different way.

So Swifty's making small talk (and finally giving his name) while the two of them wait to be picked up again. This actually brings to mind the reason why superheroes actually have problems gaining a significant other. This is not simply because the significant other can become an easy hostage for antagonists to use against the superhero, most obviously how Lois Lane was used as a hostage by Zod, Ursa, and Non in Superman II, but because part of being a superhero is being able to respond immediately when the need arises instead of just when it is convenient -- thus how balancing the time out between one's personal and professional life is often too prohibitive for a superhero.

I also did once read that one of the main reasons a wife will leave her husband is because she feels he is spending too much time on his career than upon his personal life with her. At the same time, I am also aware that one of my former coworkers quit on the grounds the work demands upon him were taking too much time away from his family -- never mind that he was only working part time, that management had been flexible beyond the rules in giving him time off despite him giving not enough notice for it, and that of course one cannot afford a personal life is one is not working at a professional life with family in order to pay for it -- hence that gives some more mundane examples about balancing the professional (instead of the superhero) versus the personal life.

Of course Swifty and Connie are just talking here since it would be counterproductively antisocial to not engage in conversation at this time, but this offers a comparison/contrast in how Swifty's ability to do so much for others as "Superman" is both a strength and a weakness. If it needs to be done he can obviously do it since he is so resourceful and so competent, but because he becomes so relied upon he is never given the opportunity to have his own personal life since there is no one he knows he can rely upon in his absence or who can succeed him once he retires in order to have the personal life he has been denied having all this time, perhaps even marrying somebody like Connie and starting a family, or else using the time which has been freed up to finally spend that time with the family and family friends he already has.

It is almost enough to wish that there were no superheroes so that they could actually enjoy having the personal life which they protect for everyone else, or at least so that there would not be the false assumption that they are essentially immortal (the actual Superman has remained around nearly 80 years and even survived dying once). Except then there would be no personal lives for anyone else, thus why we appreciate superheroes so much despite knowing their own lives are bound to be bittersweet.

Using this as a jumping off point:
I can only imagine how much money was spent on this flight in terms of fuel and maintinance cost. ($10k+?) I can't help but cynically notice that it's been spent on someone who (it turns out) didn't need it, and thus not spent on people like the Haiti victims, who actually kinda do need it.

Who is to say who's need is greater?

More to the point, would you grudge giving a job to a worthy friend just because there are 5.5 people to every job in the US right now? Would you grudge $10,000 to help a relative be with a loved one in the last hours of their life just because there are homeless people on the streets without enough to eat?

It might not seem important to you. It is important to them. There will always be a greater need in this world, so I say; a need is a need, regardless of who that need belongs to and anyone who undertakes to meet that need is worthy of praise.

Depends on whose in charge and the situation, say with this recent misappropriation of assets with the helicopter, if its military then the base commander of the base the helicopter is from would be the one to decide whose need is greater since he authorizes flights, but regardless.... in peace time even he doesn't have the authority to authorize what was essentially a joyride with a multimillion dollar aircraft and likely would get a lot of flack for it given how much it costs to fly a military helicopter over long distances (Not necessarily in big trouble but he would probably at very very least get a sturn warning not to do it again). Even he has superiors to answer to and usually in peacetime everything comes down to the almighty buck, ie how little of it they can spend. If its coastguard, then the pilot outright wouldn't have the authority at all to use the aircraft for such a purpose given taking a women to see her terminal father, as cold as it sounds is not an emergency which justify the use of an aircraft designed for rescue, not a carter vehicle to drop people off and pick them up even without there being an emergency of any kind on a ship already coming into port in a few hours.



Depends on his qualifications compared to the qualifications of the other 5.5 people I could hire.



Of my tax payers money as well as others. Yes. No offense but in this situation, empathy must give way to logic. $10,000 as little as it is would do a lot to alleviate the suffering of dozens of homeless persons and potentially ensure their survival, then to alleviate the suffering of one person in a situation which cannot be changed for either of them. Many homeless have friends and family too who may or may not be just as devastated by their passing. using your own words, whose to say this ONE persons need is greater then those dozens, and that's even including whose lives those dozens touch or have touched.



Regardless of how important it is to them, the needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the one. To coin STII



Depends on the situation how it was they undertook filling that need. If you forefill the need by spending or giving away money which is not yours to spend then you aren't worthy or praise. If the means in which you forefilled the need could have or was designed to better serve the needs of many perhaps in times of peril then you aren't worthy of praise, especially if your actions lead to suffering or death. What would have happened if while the pilot was taking Swifty and the Girl on their trip the coast guard or military got an SOS from a ship sinking with around a dozen people on board and only one helicopter in range capable of picking up halve that many because the other ones been flown off to nowhere to either settle a debt to a friend or to do it as a favor to a friend? Is the base commander/Duty officer worthy of praise for helping reunite one women with an already terminal father when that situation could occur at any time? No. He would be considered reckless if not outright incompetent.


Regardless, its a comic, and in comics the rules of reality don't apply. Swifty could have taken Air Force One to drop the girl off and while silly it'd have no real consequences for him or anybody unless the author decided there to be some.

But of course Comrade Silver.

If it's military or CG it would be flying anyway. The "costs of rescue" for these guys are BS as if they were not spending those resources "rescuing" they'd be spending those resources "training".

That ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor.........

Sometimes you just gotta anoint Those feet.

How do you BUY the opportunity to share some last moments with a loved one? What price can you place on that? Ten grand is a substantial amount of money, certainly, but such things as rare moments tend to have value beyond words and means. Chartering a chopper ride is extreme, yes. Doing it just to deliver a shopping list is very much a waste and abuse. Doing it to place a loved one near in a life-or-death situation? No, all bets are off. In my view, that's what acquiring and having these capabilities is for.

But let's look at this another way, perhaps.

Let's take a scenario of an office manager. An employee requests leave to go comfort and care for a sick friend who lives alone. There's been a seasonal lull in business, there's no real reason to deny the request except for a company policy mandating that "three people must be in the office at all times during business hours." There's the manager, Ernie the otherwise-competent slacker, and the employee in question. No matter what, the day will come and go without further incident, but the manager doesn't know this at the time.

If the manager denies the request because "I need you here just in case," knowing full well there's no reason for it, the manager is a unfeeling, uncaring, utter bastard (or bitch.)
If the manager grants the request out of the goodness of their heart, they are shameful, unprofessional, and contributing to the rife anarchy that threatens to consume all good things in the world and should be fired and blacklisted as a matter of course for daring to break the carefully designed order of things.
If the manager grants the request in exchange for an extra days of work, performed later, to make up for the time used, they are being unnecessarily lenient, but firm and fair.
If the manager grants the request in exchange for a similar "help me out here" favor, they are being underhanded and contributing to an underworldly office culture of sedition and bribery.
If the manager grants the request solely in exchange for greedy or lustful favors, they are vile specimens of humanity.

That's if you want to cast everything in a negative light, and from a more "objective" perspective, as far as the employee's plight is concerned.

Sometimes it's not so much about the costs involved. Sometimes it's about being more than our own robot overlords.

Even if that's the case, it'd still look pretty bad when it came time to report expenditures for the year and you have this little discrepancy in the report. It'd be along the lines of somebody trying to use up their yearly entitlement by using the company vehicle to offer a bus service to friends and their friends on the companies tab.

Maybe if it was a test flight of a new vechile, a drop off while on route to another assignment return trip to an aircraft carrier or something, I could see them doing it under the radar... though they'd have to be swift (npi)





To clarify, I'm not saying the needs of the individual should be ignored in light of the needs of the majority. Their needs are just as important, but that's why it makes no sense using up significant resources on only the individual which could have been used to benefit not just them but also the majority. In a triage situation it becomes a little more complicated, as you have to focus on whose in the most need before moving onto the next person but even so, you don't use up all your resources on that person in need as there are others who'd need help too. You do your best to stabilize them and then move on. If you were lost in the desert with four friends and all of you were in equal condition besides one of you being thirsty and their only being a liter of water between you, I doubt you'd let your buddy drink the whole bottle of water. I'm sure you'd be looking for ways to maximize everybodies chances while not ignoring his need... well unless you were a murderer or something

Unless one member of the party is part of a historically disadvantaged group, in which case you should give him all the water as reparations.

Yeah riiiiiight. First of all you need to understand that all that politically correct bullshit is just a foolish invention of modern western society and that as soon as you enter a uncivilized area like some filthy godforsaken dessert it's once again perfectly alright to turn on minorities and other isolated or weak members of the pack. Needless to say you should do this as soon as possible before turning on your remaining buddies so you can just keep all of the water yourself. Efficiency.

On a completely unrelated note; does anyone want to come along for a little dessert trip I'm planning?

Sounds delicious!

Indeed! I could go for some cheesecake or a pan of warm brownies.

My argument boils down to a quote by Mother Teresa:

Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat.

Sure you can ensure many persons' survival by logically distributing resources to maximize profit, but the lack of actual human *care* in such an act vs. just reaching out to one person, with all your heart, IMO, it means that both are equally valuable. You cannot say that "its stupid to use up all your resources on someone when there are others who need it more" without first calling into question what your intention is behind that. Is is because you actually *care* about those people or do you care about some vaguely defined principle and ideal that it is the *right* thing to do?

Charity without love, help without benevolence, care without concern, are any of these any less shameful than giving everything you have to reach out to one individual in their time of need?

I am not arguing that we should sacrifice the needs of the many for the needs of a few. What I'm saying is that charity is not about maximizing benefit. Its about being there for people when they need you the most. There is no "stupid" charity unless such "charity" is undertaken without any personal concern towards real *human* needs. And by *human* I submit that we are something more than mouths to feed, minds to educate and things to be clothed and housed.

So again I say; a need is a need, regardless of who that need belongs to and anyone who undertakes to meet that need is worthy of praise

Shoe, drop already!

I'll drop my shoe if it makes your feel better.



Again, its about how you go about it. Charity without love is still charity, as to help without benevolence or care..... tis a self contradiction, if you help anybody you are being benevolent by definition, if you care about somebody it follows you have concern. As to giving everything you have to reach out of one person, it depends on the situation. Is what you have to give yours to give in the first place? Is the person who you give all this to truly deserving (and yes we are fully capiable of making such judgments)? Is there somebody else in the picture with equal or greater needs. If you gave everything had to reach out to a homeless adult on the street while just a little ways down you knew there was a starving child with nobody in the world needing just as much help, you'd be considered a monster by some for not putting the child's needs above the homeless adult, since a children usually can't fend for themselves. Its all case by case, there is no general standard but sometimes I wish there were. It seems today people walk by the homeless, needy, or troubled as if they were invisible or didn't exist. This "I can't help everybody so why even bother" or "Its their own fault" mentality really turns me off.



Is as much Superman's Creed as 'Elementary My Dear Watson' is Sherlock Holmes actual trademark. Like Sherlock Holmes the addition of "The american way" came from the television adaptations and movies, specifically Superman II and was not part of the original concept or even said by him in the comics until that influence. Superman was intended to be an agent of Truth and Justice and Humanity itself, NOT the United States. He was shaped around the Messiah archetype, working to save all humanity, not just one group of it or defending on groups set of ideals. If Superman was in Britain, he'd adapt and defend their ways, not impose somebody elses. If he was in Russia, he'd respect their ways (he couldn't do much more since if he did Superman comics would have been blacklisted ), ect. Superman is undisputedly an American icon, I'm not arguing against that, I just dispute "And the american way" being part of his credo.

Would you prefer he fought for the Canadian way? "Quick! There's backbacon in trouble!"

lol

It's more that it could lead to confusion these days.

"For truth, justice and the American way!"
"You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Make a choice."

Oh god no! Since instead of pummeling the baddies Superman would be apologizing to them and offering to settle there differances over Tim Hortons Coffee, Donuts and a game of NHL 2k10 all the while secretly fighting his own drinking problems between welfare checks

But I loved that discussion in Kill Bill Vol 2 where Bill goes on about Clark Kent being the disguise. Yeah, it's the villan waxing poetinc, but he had a point.

Oh YES....

So could I, so could I.

All I have at home is outdated Tiramasu... and a tin of Prunes that should at least keep me going!

Quoting slightly out of order:
Good so far. Nothing to complain about here.


Oh dear. Some people just don't know when to stop. The hero doth protest to much, methinks.
If nothing else, when trying to sound perfectly sincere, avoid product placement!

I agree, the statement is rather superfluous and somewhat random. It'd be like Swifty blurting out, "Hes not even trying to win the Nobel Peace Prize!", its about as relevant to the conversation. That is unless Swifty is actually giving us glimpse of his mentality and motivations for his good deeds and thus telling us where his mind is.

Ah, slight typo...... Still, it's heartwarming to know you'd trust me enough to eat something I'd made.


Let's just drop it, ok?


I don't see a contradiction. Goverments support charities and that has nothing to do with benevolence and everything with policy and keeping up appearances.

IMO, that's just cynicism speaking. I grew up in a world where "The American Way" meant more than just a cynical tagline for people who just want to show how smart they are or wannabe patriots who just want to enforce their view of the world on others.

America to me is and always will be a special place - sorta like the Great Valley, Eden or Heaven, but more than that because "The American Way" to me has always been a temporal promise unlike anything that the Bible or Koran or whatever has ever made. Its a promise that this world CAN be a better place and WE can make it better.

America is more than a nation - its an ideal. In that sense, there are more Americans outside the US than there are in it. And not every citizen of the Unites States is an American.

Judge not, lest you be judged. There's a lot more wisdom behind that hackneyed phrase than most people care to think about.

Lets have a go at this:

Go out and take a walk around town. Take a $10 with you.

Whenever you see someone or something that might be in need of a donation, start your line of reason: "Is he/she/it worthy? Are there other people/things that need my money more? Could this money be better spent in a way that would help more people?" Judge them. Go through that entire mental process you just described.

Come back and tell me how much money you have left in your pocket. Then explain to me WHY you made what donations you did and why you did not make the donations you did not.

No judging. You make your on decisions. I won't say anything, but I do believe that writing things down for others to read is a very, very good way of analyzing your own thought processes.

As for care and concern - I ask again: WHAT is it you care about? A person or an image? When you are giving, is it because you care for that person as an individual or because you care about that person as an abstract concept in your brain?

Anyway, Swifty's conversation reminds me of the movie Pay it Forward

This is actually a little too simplisitic: the reward that Superman gets is that this makes him happy through changing his behavior for the better.

Life is to be enjoyed, and part of the way one enjoys the fact one is alive is by helping others so that we are vicariously yet genuinely pleased by the emotion of their genuine happiness -- the easiest example being playing Santa Claus at Christmas for little children. The alternative to this is to become unhappy and angry with life due to the fact that death is always present at the end of it, which makes life not look worthwhile since it will come to an end anyway. But life is worthwhile, because so much can be done for others even with the short time we have with it -- particularly when one can be as competant and as capable as Superman.

One of the cautions with the above, however, is that sometimes a person playing at being "Superman" will do that which they expect will make others happy but which actually does not since Superman is more doing it for himself, such as getting a person something which he or others consider to be quite precious yet which the person recieving the favor or gift cannot honestly value. Thus part of being Superman -- or rather, of being geninely selfless for others -- is knowing what to give through knowing what those others instead of what you genuinely value and by giving it to them (when appropriate, given that some actually value self-destructive behavior), which ironically enough actually makes you a person happier and thus more alive instead of someone who is depressed and thus who is more dead. And that is the reward that Superman gets, given that so many did indeed die (the whole of Krypton) in his past (Batman is actually another good example in that he helps others and is thus more alive due to the fact that his own parents died within his own past).

For god's sake!

There has to be something horrible waiting in the wings!

Actually most people who actually care to think about it realize that its nothing more then abit of rhetorical nonsense and a denial of human nature specifically our natural xenophobic tendencies, we are always judging and sizing up others and we can't help it. Its instinct, its how in the past we kept ourselves safe from our neighbors or whoever who weren't always friendly and we aren't the only species to do it. Mind you its not always a beneficial instinct given its also led to people invading or raiding their neighbors preemptively due to paranoia about them being raided first. Also us judging others is what keeps societies together in the first place. If we didn't judge others, we wouldn't be able to govern ourselves or develop actual governments which is essential for keeping any society together.

Whether you judge or don't judge you will be judged regardless, its inevitable so long as there is people outside yourself or you live in a society. Moreover to deny that you judge is in itself nonsense. We have to judge others in order to function and survive in today's society. Telling somebody not to judge others in any society really is along the lines of saying "Let there be anarchy" which is not exactly praiseworthy or awe inspiring.

Now I think it should have gone something more like this:

Don't judge others by what you believe or do, else you will be judged by others who do not share what you believe or do using the standard you believe or do to show how hypocritical you really are by your own beliefs




I don't need to do your exercise to know my own thought processes, I can tell you right now exactly how I judge people by their needs, I visually examine their clothing, physical condition, hygiene, psychological condition if I have time to talk, how they smell and their stature and if applicable how reasonable their request is given their current condition if they ask for help. Sounds like alot but aside from the psychological condition you can size all that up in about 20-30 seconds. And while it sounds like some work to learn, actually its not. Most people are constantly doing this already subconsciously, again its instinct I'm just aware I'm doing it an have put a little more thought into the process which is already there. On the matter of the money, if I went out with $10 with the intention of giving it away, it'd all be given away; either to people on the street or to a local charity.



In most cases the latter rather then the former since we can't care about somebody we don't know without making alot of assumptions about the person and even so our conception of that person would be an abstract. But to take it further, most of the time we as human beings help others directly is because we empathize with them, we see ourselves in their situation and think of what could be done to alleviate their pain or heartship because we wouldn't want that heartship on ourselves.

Indirectly we may help out of a sense of obligation (moral, religious, whatever), and the reasoning behind that obligation is also an abstract. (Swifty initially is this in the comic, but we also seen him be an example of above as well.)

Most of the rest of the time its a combination of the two, we help others depending on what image we have of them as well as abstracts. We could despise somebody based on our image of them and not care about them in anyway but still have a desire to help them as again we are imagining ourselves in their place.

Only some of the time we help others is it because we actually care about somebody, and almost always its within our own inner circles. Friends, Family, Loved Ones.

There's also a third reason we may help others you've neglected. Instinct. We see a child in the path of an oncoming vehicle they don't see, we may run out to push that child out of the way perhaps without even thinking about them, us in their situation, the morality of it, or whatever as there is literally no time and your brain it telling you to move.

Try fitting that on a sampler...




What if I help to just get the guy out of my face? I don't feel any sense of positive self-worth, I just give the guy $5 so he'll leave me alone?

Smart ass Okay I concede, this would be the exception or the forth reason to help somebody which has nothing to do with image, abstraction, instinct or empathy.