Exiern
What Are You Willing To Fight For?
<!– Global site tag (gtag.js) – Google Analytics –>
<script async src=”https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=UA-22856846-2″></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());
gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-22856846-2’);
</script>
<!– Global site tag (gtag.js) – Google Analytics –>
<script async src=”https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=UA-22856846-7″></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());
gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-22856846-7’);
</script>
What Are You Willing To Fight For?
We are currently upgrading Exiern.com. Old pages not yet reposted here can be found at Archive.Exiern.com!
Howdy, New Readers! Thanks for reading Exiern!
Written by Scott T. Hicken with art by Studio Katsumi, the comic updates Mondays.
Please check out the Archive to enjoy the earlier adventures of Typh and Peonie!
Exiern contains mature themes and is best for readers 18+.
Exiern Producers
Be a Producer! Your name/title with an optional SFW hyperlink will be posted prominently HERE following the close of the month! You’ll also receive monthly mailings from Exiern’s author, Scott T. Hicken!
Support Us On Patreon
Want to help Exiern run independently, and even increase how often we post a month? Check out our Patreon page for early access and bonus stuff!
Recent Comments
- Quentin on Point Man
- Shan on Point Man
- Stephen Lowry on Point Man
- Quentin on Manifest Destiny
- Shan on Manifest Destiny
when she was a he??
Looks like it. He wore his hair the same way, though. Frankly, I prefer his more reddish color.
@scott: “prove”, not “proof”.
The Deep Logicians. I like that, particularly given what we know about the thinness of the Fifth Wall here.
Also, is Olivia wearing an ecclesiastical collar? Or is that just part of the style of her dress?
@50srefuge It also seems to be before she went bald.
I’m rather proud that Peonie is asking all ththe right questions.
Oh, never mind about the collar question. I see now it’s a choker with some kind of gem.
it confusing me, cause the tomas we seen before the gender bent made him seem kinda oldish…
This is likely years before.
Deep Logician, obviously evil or really bad allergies?
@50sRefugee – no, Proof is correct. A mathematical or logical proof, rather than proving something.
@recklessprudence Huh? “proof” is being used as a verb here. And while “to proof” is a valid verb, it means securing something, like proofing something against water by applying a coat of tar. Or its used in photography, as in making a proof of a negative film. But the act of doing a mathematical proof is proving rather.
Deep Logician…Logic as dark magic? An interesting concept.
@David. No “Proof” is the correct verb in this situation. “Prove” is used in court to provide evidence. “Prove” is used in science when performing an experiment, prior to the results being confirmed. “Proof” is used to confirm something that’s already written down as correct, especially when dealing with a logical formula. This deep logician is double-checking the formula on this girl, aka, he’s “proofing” it.
Now, if he was part of a group of Deep Logicians, and they were having a debate concerning the outcome of this procedure, his actions would “Prove” either one side or the other right, or maybe none of them if he came to some other result.
@TJgalon: Before he tried to remove a curse on a certain genderswapped barbarian (that happened to be chained to an altar in skimpy clothing). You know, back when he was brother Thomas?
I am feeling like this comic should have a speech bubble with the creepy guy saying “Khali-Maaaa!” or whatever it was the guy was saying in temple of doom.
Yeah, you don’t ‘prove read’, you ‘proof read’
Ooo, expositional back-story! Time to get comfy 😀
Princess D-cups ain’t the only one who likes stories 😀
‘Prove’ is the correct verb here.
Must have been when both were young adults, seeing how the “Queen” still had hair.
Proof is funnier
Quentin: no, no it’s not
I love the artwork in those last two panels! Those backgrounds are fantastic and mood-setting!
I use a “proof” to “prove” that a right angle has 90 degrees.
Proof is often a noun but it can be a verb such as when one proofs (aka activates) yeast to make it bloom. A similar usage might apply to logic of the forbidden deep logician type. Although, prove does seem to be a better fit for a verb that acts on the noun “logic”.
TJgalon, that was my first thought but, thinking about it, I think that, like the stories they were told in the North, we see people how they imagine themselves not how they really were.
Technically, “proofing yeast” is testing it to see if it’s any good. AFAIK, you only do this with dry yeast. Yeast cakes, which are moist are presumably assumed to be good.
proof
verb (used with object)
24. to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.
— http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Proof
proof
transitive verb
1 a : to make or take a proof or test of
— http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
Deep Logicians sound like unethical Scientists that believe that if you have a small chance of curing a disease like say cancer then vivisecting a 100 babies is ok because logically many thousands of children die of cancer each year so this is the greatest good.
If everyone was so fixated on ‘ethics’, we wouldn’t have detailed models of anatomy and muscles and a mapping on internal organs, or half the medicines we rely on today
Guesticus- True to a point.. After all, all those can be learned from fresh corpses.
How they work though.. Yeah, we may have give a bit in the ethics department.
I think both terms can be used here.. It WILL change the meaning though..
Proof- establish-check for errors a formula he had created..
Prove- Prove his side of a ‘debate’ about the function of an old known formula.
Omfan a lot of the cures, medical treatments and medicines used today came out of the experiments conducted at Nazi death camps on live prisoners.
Hornet, I think that’s been pretty well debunked. Those “experiments” were conducted in such a sloppy fashion (technically speaking), and the data, such as it was, kept in such a disorganized fashion, that it was essentially useless.
And of course all of it was done more to torture prisoners than to collect valid data anyway. Most “experiments” absolutely no sense except as a way to inflict agony. It was no more scientific that a small boy setting a dog on fire to see how far it could run before dying.
Wouldn’t that depend on the size of the dog and how much exhilarant, if any, you used?
Actually some of the research was usable. With the use of it often not being cited or quietly cited.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3215/did-josef-mengele-produce-any-useful-medical-research
“At around the same time, authors of a draft report for the Environmental Protection Agency cited Nazi data on phosgene from 1943, when doctors exposed 52 prisoners to the gas (used as a chemical weapon in World War I) and timed how long it took them to die. This information was relevant to regulating phosgene use at U.S. plastics and pesticide plants, but 22 EPA scientists wrote a letter objecting, and the cite was deleted.”
Properly, phosgene is the NBC agent. Carbonyl dichloride is the chemical precursor. Same nasty stuff, though.
P=NP?
Forbidden logic?
That’s Illogical. Just build a computer.
If a logician works logic, and a musician works music, and a magician works magic…
does a physician work physic? Does a technician work technic? Does a beautician work beautic?