Page 136

Discussion (10) ¬

  1. Sazuroi

    So, they make war essentially because there is no basis for them to communicate over ressource distribution in any other way than just taking the resources from the other side? How delightfully simple. XD

    • Mr. Patenge
      Mr. Patenge

      To be fair to the APD and the Free Market, if you could invent a way to get people to reliably and fairly communicate about resource distribution across cultural barriers, you would have essentially invented world peace. But yes, we can all be very simple some times.

      • Sazuroi

        While wars do normally boil down to conflicts over resource distribution (also a big factor in social conflicts, for that matter), they don’t come pre-cooked, so I doubt it’ll stay this simple.
        In current society, it appears we sideline the cultural question or leave it for politicians to profile themselves with, while trade is conducted based on relatively simple rules, of course with some trickery involved, since there always is when there’s rules.
        Then there’s cultural industries and trade, and attempts to use those for “country identity”-building, so you get a positive image with international consumers (potential customers), and the idea of some kind of global culture resulting from the inception of the internet.
        All this requires some interest in a gain through trade, and be it in maintaining technological parity (either for industrial competition or mutual military deterrence, or what have you). Dhuvalia doesn’t seem to leverage that interest the Free Marketeers certainly hold, probably because of this value divide and thinking such maneuvering to be undignified, but Limb technology at least would have found a way across cultural borders somehow, so there is some mechanism of spreading ideas. Espionage, perhaps? I like espionage stories, so I hope you find time to adress the technology transfer question at some point in the future. It could simply be mimesis (It didn’t take long for everybody to make their own tanks once they showed up in the First World War, since motorized vehicles were already known), but borders are never truly sealed, and there’s all kinds of interesting stories to be made of the many ways in which they can be crossed.

  2. SteelRaven

    War makes savage of us all.

    • CaptEndo

      Or does it simply reveal the savage that was always there beneath the surface?

  3. Killercow

    I like that because Christophe is not “royal” enough, he thinks his wisdom is worthless. And this is the first time we see that he may actually desire the throne for himself…

    • SteelRaven

      Seems more like Christopher is just trying to dodge the question considering it brought up some guilt, regret (and maybe a little PTSD) A very human and humble moment for the man who up to this point, seemed cold.

  4. Jack McCrary
    Jack McCrary

    As someone working to bring peace to a conflict-ridden tribal area, I can honestly say that more conflict arises from the preservation of cultural identity than resource inequalities. Even when there is a resource inequality it can usually be broken down in to “we will take the other side’s resources to prevent them from gaining enough strength to jeopardize our culture. Even in the strip above we see this. The initial argument is framed as resource inequality but ultimately, it is about cultural differences as manifested in cultural differences in resource allocation and a preference for war vs an attempt to come to terms with “savages”. (ie. cultural dilution)

    • Sazuroi

      That is a very interesting insight. I’ve been told (at the university, can’t quite reconstruct the situation, I think in the social sciences department) that while religious or cultural aspects often exist in conflicts, they are about resources in the end (see my comment one page before this), and that a conflict that isn’t about resources never quite crosses the line to an actual war. By this thinking, the Syrian civil war, for example, was about the fact a minority held a larger share of both the money and the power, and that it was a religious minority as well (I think they’re called Alevites) was mainly used to construe a distinct enemy where needed. Groups always have to be “not x” to retain coherence, be against something or someone. So, while cultural aspects may increase the risk for war, and result in some lower-level conflicts by themselves, it is thought only resource distribution issues (or territory) can lead to either a civil or an international war.
      Your observation implies the percieved need for resources itself is founded on cultural autonomy-thinking, at least in part. I wonder how much of this is pressure due to lack of ressources in general bringing a long-standing conflict to blows (my position, or rather the one I carry around to check when possible), and how much “just to be safe” the resource supply won’t be threatened, and with it autonomy.
      Too bad I only noticed the comment today when coming here to check on the new page, since now my reply will likely go under. XD

  5. Hornet

    Hmm.. There are and always will be those who rule. No matter what title you give them or how long their term during the time of their leadership they are the rulers, period.
    But then I’m finding I don’t think much of Dhuvalian theocracy anyway.

Comment ¬