1845 Pornish.

Jessica is uncommonly smart. She also tends to assume that everyone else experiences the world the same way she does, when that isn’t the case. This is actually common for intelligent people, and it makes them get frustrated with people who are slower than them. She lives in a future where things happen the way she expects and people react the way she thinks they should because she assumes they underastands that the way she thinks is right. Now, contrast her with Thomas. Thomas lives in a future where people never understand and always do the worst thing. He expects people to do the emotional thing in a given situation & can read people well. They aren’t opposites, but they have very different emotional intelligence. They are generally, however, the optimistic & pessimistic versions of their character types. They both think that their way is best and tend to disregard the will of others, because they think they know better. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Jessica is very open about what she wants, she tends not to hide her goals. Thomas is secretive about what he does because he knows how people generally react to being manipulated. Thomas’s method is easier to do because people don’t drag their feet if they don’t realize they are being led. The problem is that when they find out they are often angry regardless of the outcome. With Jessica she has to bully people along, but they aren’t surprised when they get to the end of the road. Also, people like being led when they agree generally with the leader’s ideas, or even just their style. They’ll act like they don’t if questioned, but the reality is that if it’s easier to be led people will let themselves be led. Which is fine when the person leading is “good”. When they aren’t it can be disastrous. You can observe this all over the world, every day, on the world stage, and on the playground. All of this is a basic brick of what makes up the ebb and flow of human interaction. The grandest scope of it is hard to take in, so we break it down into smaller and smaller bits trying to make sense of it, until we give up from what amounts to exhaustion. If you can, take a moment to set away from yourself and look at an interaction from a dispassionate place. With practice you’ll begin to see the movements and can adjust your own actions in such a manner as to influence events in a way that suits your desires.

29 Comments

It’s always interesting seeing Jess let down the carefully crafted mask of stimuli selected for desired responses and talk shop a little… kinda intriguing how she and Thomas both are so tonally consistent in their moments of openly explaining their methods and when actually using them, albeit with his tone being sardonic and pessimistic while she’s relentlessly upbeat. With some folks I’d expect that kind of discussion of manipulation techniques to get clinical, but these guys do it just as a matter of course.

Please par do me for saying so, but for my reading taste, I’d like it if the text had this punctuation:

[I’m paraphrasing]-

With practice you’ll begin to see the movements, and can adjust your own actions in…such a manner, [as to influence events, in a way that suits your desires].

*shrugs*

“Also, people like being led when they agree generally with the leader’s ideas, or even just their style. They’ll act like they don’t if questioned, but the reality is that if it’s easier to be led people will let themselves be led. Which is fine when the person leading is “good”. When they aren’t it can be disastrous. You can observe this all over the world, every day, on the world stage, and on the playground. All of this is a basic brick of what makes up the ebb and flow of human interaction. The grandest scope of it is hard to take in, so we break it down into smaller and smaller bits trying to make sense of it, until we give up from what amounts to exhaustion.”

Trump supporters in a nutshell.

The other nuts would be down to the bone supporters of Democrats / Republicans in an effectively gamed two party system that isn’t a two party system.

Well put. American national elections are like the WWE: whoever wins, the same people will be making money hand over fist.

Exactly. As Jackie says, everybody does it. Both parties lead their rank and file around by their emotions. The expression is very different between the two, though Trump serves as a great point for considering both.

Trump’s at-times incoherent street brawler language resonates positively with some Republicans and won him the US Presidency in a surprising upset victory.

These same traits also resonate negatively with his Democrat opposition.

In both cases you see huge outpourings of very similar emotion. A lot of tribal fear, anger and contempt directed toward the tribal enemy.

That kind of tribalism just hurts real democracy in my view and sets a hypocritical example towards children who had always been taught to respect one another and work as a team.

Gahhh- Jackie, I can’t tell if you are a better webcomic artist, webcomic storyteller, or philosopher, but which ever is your strong suit, you are: pure genius.

First reading: Wow! I dunno what he said, but that was eloquent.
Second time through: unhhh, I think I’m following this (I hope).
Third reading: Damn, that’s brilliant!

I am justly glad that you live in a house in a suburb, and not in a hollowed out volcano, or a hole in a field of ice crystals, or some Alpine mountain Aerie touting allergy relief; plotting evil machinations against a cruel world, cause damn! You’d be unstoppable.

I still contend that Trump’s words didn’t win him the Presidency. They won him a following, I don’t dispute that, but that didn’t win him the nomination. His following was never a majority in his own party. The infighting in the GOP won him the nomination when the party leadership was more afraid of losing control of the party to the more traditional, Ted Cruz style conservatives than they were of Trump. But once it was a choice between him or Hillary, most Republicans were never going to vote for a Democrat. Especially with the Supreme Court nominations on the line. At least with Trump, they got a 50/50 chance he might do something they liked sometimes. With Hillary it was pretty much a zero percent chance of her doing anything they’d agree with. I personally would say I know far more people who voted against Hillary than really for Trump.

I really love your breakdown of your characters, and it’s pretty damn spot on. But that’s why I respect you as a writer, I suppose.

I very much feel a kinship to Jess; not just in that my paramours and metamours have made a significant amount of money in porn, but also that I’ve found that just telling people awesome things and dragging people along into glory to be the more functional side (and more rewarding… I can do the shadow-king thing, but it’s much more effort and my favorite accomplishment I can’t really tell anyone about…)

I’m glad she has a few people who are sympathetic. I’ve done a lot of research to make sure how she acts makes sense for someone with her sexual makeup.

I like Jess. She’s complex, and I don’t always like how she does stuff, but I always like her. She is always consistent, and always a star, … Like Johnny Starr, she’s always, “Flame On!”

*slams fist on table* Jessica!! My gay self wants BOYS!! lol

Maybe she will include, [John, Reggie, and Thomas], in very-revealing outfits?

(And possibly, she’ll get pics of Wes…too? Maybe he’s a [tasty-looking candy bar], when all the wrappers come off!) :)

Leave a Reply to Jackie Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.