So I'm gonna assume Prowl is talking to either Black Arachnia (she had a recent release via Takara) or Tarantulas given the webbing. Either or just pleases me because it means we're one step closer to Megatron, yeeeeeeesssss.
Cybertronians would inevitably have different laws of war to humans - if nothing else, they'd obviously have different ideas about perfidy given that disguising themselves as neutral third parties is one of the most iconic things about how they operate. But whatever laws they do have should be followed.
True, but given that the 'Cons act in the worst fashions of the nazis (racially motivated extermination programs) and terrorists (operations launched intended to hurt civilians and cause blow back against civilians), it's hard to feel too much anger or contempt for Prowl for cutting corners, who's simply trying to end all that, even at the cost of his own society.
And frankly, for me at least, what annoys the most is how it's Prowl, and only Prowl, who gets dumped on for making morally questionable decisions during the war. The rest of High Command get to look like saints, even though Prowl's MO is widely known amongst all of them.
In a recent mini, the Dinobots were described as guns, unleashed so that the heroes could stay heroes.
In the terms of the narrative, the same is true of Prowl, only the writers don't seem to recognize it. Prowl was treated as paranoid when he said 'You think that because the war is over, we can stop fighting'.
Second issue of Robots in Disguise? The 'Cons tried to kill the Autobot leader in a manner that would have directed the blow back at the civilians. Prowl's worst actions don't scratch the average of actions of the 'Cons.
The difference is that the other Autobots (usually) recognize when they're making mistakes, and are trying to be better, or at least make up for their mistakes. It's shown with Impactor and Guzzle to some extent, along with a really good scene with Springer and Roadbuster this issue. Prowl's problem isn't just the morally questionable actions he takes, but his refusal to admit his mistakes, or the consequences of his actions.
However, issue 3 of Sins puts an interesting angle on Prowls behaviour. Much like back in Mike Costas run, and the start of of RiD, Prowl's reached the point before where his conscience realizes he's crossing too many lines. The problem is, he eventually backslides. He justifies it to himself again, or he pins the responsibility on someone else... He tries to do good, but he loses his way. As someone that had problems with the way he was portrayed after Dark Cybertron, it's an addition to his character that I think really helps.
True, Prowl often has his head up his ass, but, and this is my biggest problem, is that the Autobots keep coming back to him for assistance despite knowing his nature.
When Prime went back to Earth after Dark Cybertron, he should have benched Prowl the second he unleashed Devastator
For all the complaints about Prowl, the Autobots kept him in charge. Even after the writers lodge odd charges against them (Ultra Magnus holding Prowl responsible for Overlord and Tyrest).
The degree to which Prowl, and only Prowl, is held responsible is grating, because really the Autobots should have kicked him to the curb long before the Combiner Wars, and really, as the scapegoat, the examples of his extremism shouldn't be *him proven 100% right*
There is some rules the 'Cons have agreed to follow. Stuff like "don't give Cybertronian tech to outsiders."- which both sides agreed to for their own reasons.
I was a little disappointed that the whale wasn't Orcanoch... that disappointment vanished immediately once I learned it was Tidal Wave. I want all of these guys as toys, but especially him.
Tidal Wave's dirty mouth in this issue both delights and bewilders me. Delights me because some immature part of my brain breaks into giggles over robot cursing. Bewilders me because how do conception-based insults even work for these guys? It's obvious what the word is standing in for, but the context behind it is entirely different.
Well, if you think it about it, the phrase it's standing in for is just as arbitrary in its usage as an insult. I mean, isn't f*cking normally a good thing? It's like using, "Go eat a nice meal!" as an insult.
"Get f*cked" could still carry a potentially negative connotation, though, if you think about it-- someone suffering sexual violence or discomfort or the implication that they're not good for anything else, possibly shaming certain behaviors depending on other modifiers (see also, "stick it up your *ss"). "Go f*ck yourself" potentially lines up with shaming masturbatory habits. And even if we take it as arbitrary, there's a host of legitimate imagery that could accompany "go have sex" as an insult/statement. In contrast, how would one "go get forged"? You can't even really argue that the harshness of the word is what makes it at insult as you might with f*ck since forging is what the conception process is actually called and so there's no reason for it to be a swear word on its own. "Go get constructed" would actually make more sense in that case since cold construction is seen as crude and lesser.
(Apologies for the paragraph, I've been thinking about this more than I rightly should.)
Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.
Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-30 04:07 pm (UTC)And then there's who Mesothulas is now (consider all the spidery stuff).
no subject
Date: 2016-02-03 05:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-30 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-30 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-30 07:47 pm (UTC)The other's in another.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-30 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 12:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 05:11 pm (UTC)And frankly, for me at least, what annoys the most is how it's Prowl, and only Prowl, who gets dumped on for making morally questionable decisions during the war. The rest of High Command get to look like saints, even though Prowl's MO is widely known amongst all of them.
In a recent mini, the Dinobots were described as guns, unleashed so that the heroes could stay heroes.
In the terms of the narrative, the same is true of Prowl, only the writers don't seem to recognize it. Prowl was treated as paranoid when he said 'You think that because the war is over, we can stop fighting'.
Second issue of Robots in Disguise? The 'Cons tried to kill the Autobot leader in a manner that would have directed the blow back at the civilians. Prowl's worst actions don't scratch the average of actions of the 'Cons.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 07:13 pm (UTC)However, issue 3 of Sins puts an interesting angle on Prowls behaviour. Much like back in Mike Costas run, and the start of of RiD, Prowl's reached the point before where his conscience realizes he's crossing too many lines. The problem is, he eventually backslides. He justifies it to himself again, or he pins the responsibility on someone else... He tries to do good, but he loses his way. As someone that had problems with the way he was portrayed after Dark Cybertron, it's an addition to his character that I think really helps.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-01 01:50 am (UTC)When Prime went back to Earth after Dark Cybertron, he should have benched Prowl the second he unleashed Devastator
For all the complaints about Prowl, the Autobots kept him in charge. Even after the writers lodge odd charges against them (Ultra Magnus holding Prowl responsible for Overlord and Tyrest).
The degree to which Prowl, and only Prowl, is held responsible is grating, because really the Autobots should have kicked him to the curb long before the Combiner Wars, and really, as the scapegoat, the examples of his extremism shouldn't be *him proven 100% right*
no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-08 12:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-02 05:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 04:45 pm (UTC)(Apologies for the paragraph, I've been thinking about this more than I rightly should.)