I read every comic backwards in order to guarantee that I will always get the joke and can see a clear violation of the NAP in the first (last) frame. I regret to inform you that I shall not be proceeding. If you were charging money for this entertainment item, I would expect remuneration and would promptly scrawl my grievance of "inadequate services rendered" onto a piece of paper, tape it to a flare, and fire it into the sky. Because you are the creator of this comic and have charged nothing for it (gods know why) we have no further need for correspondence. Thank you and good bye.
I read every comic backwards in order to guarantee that I will always get the joke
I read every comic backwards because most of the comics I read are translated from Japanese.
We are not the same.
We don't need crazy revolution, it can be handled through peaceful incrementalism. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards nicer, more inclusive kings.
Yes, King Edward "the Peasant Slayer" VII may be a brutal tyrant, but I hear his son is really nice! We simply have to wait for him to die in a few years and the prince to inherit, and all will be well! We might even get a tithe forgiveness program for literate peasants who've farmed for three years in a destitute village.
you know historically, centralizing power into the hands of an absolute monarch used be considered the "progressive" thing to do. The logic was that a local lord could be much more cruel and abusive than one single ruler far away who is ruling the whole country.
Also concidering how Louis the sun king fucked with all his lordlings by esotericizing court customs and dress styles to flex on everyone is a funny fucking way to centralize power to yourself
If you get a good ruler, they can do a lot of good for their people in a very short amount of time compared to liberal democracies. The tradeoff for that is if you get a bad ruler, well.... it’s a roll of the dice and you crit fail on 3 or lower.
I mean, that’s semantics. Same is true of any centralized authority. You need to delegate and adapt policies to local conditions, allowing people sufficient freedom to benefit you. I’m not saying that monarchy has ever been preferable to egalitarian anarchy or something like that. Just that democracy tends to have a narrower range of outcomes because the risk of incompetence is spread among more people. I suppose I’ve never tried to identify a particular monarch who made more improvements for their people during their reign than the average democratic government has. That would be an interesting problem to try and quantify
The middle ages, broadly speaking, were a period of reaction. Not that the Roman Empire was a great place to be for the average proleterii, but it was a lot nicer than what came after - and the unified proto-states that emerged from the fuedal system were a lot nicer than what came before. Then colonialism starts, and the whole thing becomes fucked for an entirely new reason.
Does a lord even own the land right now if the peasants can just take it away from them?
:gui-better:
