This comic had charm, but wasn't quite working for us.
What does everyone else think?

I managed to get an interview with Jake a few months back so it's been a while since I've read the comic. I thought it was a fairly cute quirky piece with some nice parody elements. I think if it was made too serious, however, it wouldn't work. The silly mix amongst Jake's perpetually angrier moments reminded me of some amusing indie comics back in the early 2000's. There's a lot left unexplained or glossed over in the comic at this point but if he picks it up again, perhaps that will change.

It was okay. Would be interesting if there were more than, what, 45 pages? It may have potential, but it isn't as developed yet as I would like.

And Hark sounds like Simon Cowell (or however you spell that guy's name).

ie, he sounds very British.

Wait, what? He is? Oh, yeah.

So, he's the token harsh British dude that all those lame reality TV shows have to have if judging is involved because it reinforces the stereotype of the British thinking they're better than everybody? Hence making American's feel better about hating the British in the war movies (even when they're on the same side)? It's a vicious cycle. Really, it is.

I'm just kidding around. Maybe.

Canuovea
So, he's the token harsh British dude that all those lame reality TV shows have to have if judging is involved because it reinforces the stereotype of the British thinking they're better than everybody?

That's because we ARE better than everybody, old chap. *Sips tea*

But yeah, JTEH just confuses me, but it has that bizarre edge to it that made me want to read it. I don't like it, I don't hate it, but I if I was pumped full of a wide array of hallucinogenic drugs, maybe then I would understand it. As it is, I can't say it's a bad comic, as it doesn't really seem to fall short of it's aim, problem is I have no idea what it's aim is huh!?

canuovea, many a true word is spoken in jest!

I am not just an evl harsh reviewer!
I am loveable and zany too! I've got songs and puns!

I just calls it how I sees it!

Stinger9, you really hit the nail on the head. Its not failing, its just not clear what it wants to succeed at!

Heh, I knew they're was something up with that last review! As for Jake the Evil Hare I'm just gonna say this:

Good Art.

Boring Story.

I wanted to hold out until page ten but checked out on like 3 or 4.

Were you guys on an actual phone call for the podcast? Or were you using a voicechat program like Skype or Ventrilo? I noticed you kept mentioning how much time you had left for the call, so I was curious.

It was done as a phone call that was recorded basically, with us both calling to the number for the pod cast.
The podcast was set up in advnce to run for half an hour, so we had to make sure we watched the clock through out.
I liked the short time span though, it meant we had to stay focused (well…more focused then we usually manage!)
Kev can probably give more details on the technical side of things, since he set it up for us.

Byth I noticed you thought we sounded younger than expected. Were you expecting a couple of grumpy old men? Basedon our reviews, that would be understandable…

“That's because we ARE better than everybody, old chap. *Sips tea*” -stinger9

Then I really don't understand Harkovast's problem with how the British are portrayed by Americans… I mean, that they always do think they're better than everyone else. Actually, they're also portrayed as incompetents, but besides that I suppose… Well, I still think Montgomery was incompetent, but this is no place for that. I can see Hark taking issue with that part of their portrayal, it's inaccurate.

Actually, that's the general portrayal of Europeans. And sometimes it is the case (thinking they're better that is)! Especially with those Progressive Nordic Countries. You either love or hate those Progressive Nordic Countries! Always beating everyone out of the top spots for health care, or you know, everything! They don't brag a lot, but you can tell they're smug about it! Okay. I'm just jealous.

Then again, everyone else thinks of the USA as home to gun toting rednecks. (The truth is you find those everywhere! Except, maybe, those Progressive Nordic Countries).

And nobody cares about Canada. Boohoo.

“I am loveable and zany too! I've got songs and puns!

I just calls it how I sees it!”

Yeah, the puns are great stuff. Songs are a little creepy, but hey, I suppose they work.

More seriously though, calling how you see it is exactly what you do, which is fine, so long as you acknowledge that sometimes you aren't an expert on every point of view out there… I just happen to agree with you most of the time!

harkovast
It was done as a phone call that was recorded basically, with us both calling to the number for the pod cast.
The podcast was set up in advnce to run for half an hour, so we had to make sure we watched the clock through out.
I liked the short time span though, it meant we had to stay focused (well…more focused then we usually manage!)
Kev can probably give more details on the technical side of things, since he set it up for us.

Ah, okay. I'm not familiar with podcasts myself, but I knew there were ways to record Skype calls and such. I just wasn't sure which method you were using.

Canuovea = Montgomery was incompetant? That is a fairly ramdom statement.
He decisively turned around the war in north africa and planned D-Day, so he cant have been that bad.

Monty was a second rate general at best, in North Africa he was going against a first rate general (Rommel), who he (by the end) outnumbered at least 2 to 1 (and his tanks were small enough to not overheat in the desert). Actually, I was under the impression that Monty had been commanding the British forces before the Battle for El Alemain (whatever), this was not so, Monty took over after a bunch of other commanders had done the job of whittling down Rommel's forces. As for D-day, I always chalked that up to a combined effort under Eisenhower (who was the commander and chief of that particular theater, so it makes sense after all). But Operation Market Garden was Monty's operation for sure; and it was a catastrophe. He wasted a large number of paratroopers for absolutely no reason as nothing was achieved. There was also that whole ego feud between Monty and Patton in Italy, which cost lives. Both were egotistical, but Patton proved more competent (if slightly more crazy), and more of a first rate general (but I certainly wouldn't want him in charge of everything!). And no, I'm not basing this off of American war movies!

Now, the British have had their fair share of awesome generals, admirals, etc, but I would never place Montgomery amongst them. The British have also had their share of terrible generals, admirals, etc, and I'd probably place Monty here. What the British do have, and have had for a while, in general, is incredibly good soldiers. It's amazing what a second rate general can do with good soldiers.

There. Now I've gone and done it. I've defended my statement. I shouldn't have made the statement in the first place. What does this have to do with Jake the Evil Hare? What? It's about as random as the plot? Me making a statement like that about good old Monty is like there suddenly being a “Bulk Bogan” character in there?

Whew, managed to keep it almost on topic!

harkovast
Byth I noticed you thought we sounded younger than expected. Were you expecting a couple of grumpy old men?

uhhhh….Yes?

But anyway, the podcast thing was pretty cool.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I kinda fell off the planet for a while, stuck in the middle of nowhere for several months.

Hopefully in the next few weeks I can get back into the swing of things and Jake's story will perhaps make a tad of sense as his second day on the job continues.

I guess it's satire, mostly it's the story of an endlessly pissed off jackrabbit …
here's hoping my story gets better ;) If not, i can always stick to cheap jokes and puns

Canuovea, I think you are being a bit unfair.
The arguement that Monty had Rommel out numbered does not mean his stratedgy was not very good and very important, especially when you consider that all the previous generals had been losing, inspite of numerical advantages.
British wieght of numbers was more due to British forces building up in the area faster, rather than Rommels forces diminishing (as I understand it, anyway!)
Winning a decisive victory is not a meaningless feat just because you have the advantage (The Americans had numerical and logistical advantages in all those island jhoping battles int he pacific, but McArthur was still a great commander for using those advantages effectively.) In fact if you are going to dismiss all victories won while having the advantage, that would mean you would have to discount almost all the American achievements in the war, as the war was turning against the germans when they joined in. That seems a very unfair way to measure things!

Also, you cant just dismiss being in charge of D-Day as not a big deal! By your logic, Patton was also a crap commander, as Isenhower was in charge when Patton was fighting battles. Monty was about as involved in commanding and organising D-Day as one man could be! If he cant claim credit for that, then no commander can claim to have caused any victory.

As for market garden, that was a clear failure. However, most historians would characterise it as out of character for monty (The battle was not well planned, where as previous operations Monty had won had been planed in maticulous detail.)
But one failure does not make him a bad commander when he had so many previous victories.

Also, I dont thnk the rivalry with Patton got troops killed in Italy, I think you are thinking of a different commander there.
The biggest blunder caused by arrogance there was when an American general rushed to capture Rome and in doing so allowed the german forces to escape. I forget the guys name, but he wasn't Monty or Patton.

Now I am not saying Monty was perfect, but he certainly doesn't seem to be incompetant. He won more than he lost.


It's great having your own forum, you can go off topic as much as you want.

The only down side to this discussion, Canuovea, is that it has reminded me how bad British people are made to seem (both morally and interms of competance) in American films. This has (as usual) put me in a bad mood.
Here is a sobering thought-
If you let everyone on DD make movies of their comics, the majority of the American authors would make their villians have English accents.

Evil Hare, glad you found it useful, and nice to see you are back and plannign more updates.
Your comic certainly has potential, so I will keep an eye out for how it developes.
Nothing wrong with cheap puns! *salutes a fellow punner*

Also…what are your opinions on WW2 generals and the depiction of the British in American media?

You don't want to get me started on MacArthur. You really don't. I hate that little… ahem Back to Monty.

Monty stopped Rommel at El Alemain (whatever), though Rommel had been stopped before, what was new was the simple amount of difference between the two forces. Regardless of if Monty was there or not the British would have stopped Rommel. A third rate general could have done it. After that defeat Rommel (who had some 30 something decent operational tanks) wanted to pull back but Hitler gave the “No Retreat, No Surrender” order. Monty then annihilated Rommel's remaining forces before Rommel managed to get some percentage out. Monty had lots of tanks, lots of everything, in fact he was literally rolling in American arms and weaponry. Most of Monty's tank divisions reported around 75% casualties. I kid you not when I say I could have done better than that. That is an embarrassing loss of life and material given the numerical and material advantage Monty had.

Winning a decisive victory is good. Winning it with as many losses as Monty had is embarrassing. The point here is that Rommel decisively outclassed Monty. Decisively. Then again I suppose it's fair to say that Rommel outclasses most generals.

A good general can win even without the advantage sometimes. That is the mark of a really good general, but it doesn't mean that if you have the advantage and win then all is well, no you also need to minimize casualties and material expenditure. Throwing troops at a problem does not make a good general (despite the fact that it is necessary sometimes), finding ways to avoid throwing troops at problems often does. I'm thinking of MacArthur a bit here.

Anyway, Rommel had suffered troop and material losses previously to meeting Monty, but you are also right that the British could resupply better and faster. In the end though, Monty will get credit for beating Rommel regardless of whether or not someone else could have. It's history.

D-day was planned extensively and ahead of time. It was not a reaction to a changing battlefield at all. All the generals involved deserve some credit for helping to craft the plan, and also making sure any ridiculous ideas got the ax. Essentially it was a group effort. But to attribute it just to Monty seems a bit out of place. Also, the American's landed on the wrong beach (apparently), but that was probably the American's fault.

As for Monty's role in D-day, I was under the impression that Eisenhower was the brains behind the overall operation. Then again, over here we don't hear a lot about how the British beach landings went and those were probably the ones under Monty's command. My guess is that they went swimmingly but, as I said before, the Americans landed on the wrong beach. I would prefer to credit whoever was responsible for keeping the Germans out of the loop (The Germans thought the allies were landing elsewhere) for the landings that went well. If that was Monty, then so be it, but it probably wasn't.

Market Garden was not just a failure, it was a gargantuan failure. D-day was well planned because it was a group effort, Monty beating Rommel involved massive losses but huge numerical superiority. Market Garden was just badly done. I don't know what he could possibly have been thinking, but he gaffed, and gaffed big. Answer me this, if it was out of character for Monty, why did he do it?

Every other time Monty won he had some kind of advantage, numbers, surprise, etc. This time the Germans had the advantage, readiness and entrenchments. Not only did the Germans have an advantage, but Monty seemingly forgot about the need to supply his troops. Monty just couldn't pull it off. This colossal mistake is a gaffe no first rate general would make.

Still, maybe Monty wasn't awful, maybe he was decent, but he wasn't first rate. Now, Wellington was first rate, if the British had someone like Wellington in WW2 things would have been much more difficult for the Germans.

I was pretty sure that the whole race mentality between Patton and Monty was not healthy. And just because I think Monty wasn't first rate doesn't mean I think he was the worst general there, no, not by far! There were far worse!

I wonder how much of Monty's “competence” was due to his advisors and his soldiers (being just that good! Market Garden was actually going decently, not well, but passably, until lack of supplies…). I need to see if he had the same people around him when planning Market Garden.

As far as British competence goes, let me put it this way, you don't get the largest Empire on the world by being incompetent. Admittedly the tradition of giving nobles preference as officers led to some pretty shoddy commanders, but there were good ones too (see Wellington, Duke of). As for British being villains… well, people tend to carry a grudge when you guys owned almost half the planet. Think of it as those people being sore losers. And more often then not the Bad guys are more awesome than the good guys (see Darth Vader, as opposed to whiney Luke). Maybe it's the accent sometimes?

Byth1
Heh, I knew they're was something up with that last review! As for Jake the Evil Hare I'm just gonna say this:

Good Art.

Boring Story.

I wanted to hold out until page ten but checked out on like 3 or 4.

Sums up my toughts exactly

BTW I like this new podcast idea.You guy's were so funny and I really didn't have any problem with volume.It looks a bit easier for you guys to get every tought out instead of trying to summarize it in 6 panels.

Canuovea, I can accept that idea that wining El Alemain was some how an easy task that any idiot could have done.
There was a huge amount of planning and misdirection behind the victory.
El Alemain was embarassing? I think you are reaching now! Rommel lost massively more casualties then the British and his army never really recovered.
It was hardly some mass slaguther of the British. In fact Monty pretty accurately predicted how many casualties he expected to take before it started.
One of the biggest things in the battle that gave the Allies the edge was that Rommel was misdirected and tricked so he was not sure where the main attack was coming from until it was too late and his lines were already being over run. This was Monty's doing, and it worked.

You are desperate not to give the guy credit for D-day but he planned it! He was not just plannign British landings, he was in charge of the whole thing! You cant talk about him and dismiss what he achieved in normandy

Getting the advantage of numbers or surprise is a big part of being a great general. A great leader does not just deal in tactics but in the over all stratedgy of the war. The fact Monty could confuse Rommel, set up a situation where he had numerical superiority and use that superiority to deliver a decisive blow that permanently shifted the balance of power in that theatre of war speaks to me of someone of considerable talent.
Certainly there is plenty to criticise about Monty (market garden obviously, being an abrassive undiplomatic git who managed to insult all of his American allies at one time or another, holding racist and homophobic views etc) but he did achieve a great deal and I think acting as if those things were foregone conclusions or simple is not doing the guy justice. I cant say what makes a general “okay” “good” or “great”, as that is a whole other issue.
For example, George Washington lost about as many battles as he won (some of them pretty disasterously!) and the North veitnamese lost pretty much every battle they fought with the Americans. But at the end of the those wars, which sides had the better commanders?
Defining someone as a good or bad commander or a success or failure does not due justice to the complexity of what takes place in war.

Besides, the greatest general ever is clearly Centurion Dominus of the Ivos Empire…everyone knows that!

Well, "Montgomery, seeing his armoured brigades losing tanks at an alarming rate, stopped major attacks until 2 November when he launched Operation Supercharge and achieved a 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) penetration of the line. Rommel immediately counterattacked with what tanks he had available in an attempt to encircle the pocket during 2 November, but the heavy Allied fire stopped the attempt. By this time Panzer Army Africa had only one-third of its initial strength remaining, with only 35 tanks left operational, virtually no fuel or ammunition and with the British in complete command of the air, yet the British armour had been fought to a standstill, having taken murderous losses with some armoured brigades reporting losses of 75%.“ (this is wikipedia though, as that's all I have access too at the moment, so it is questionable to a degree).

That sounds pretty bad. Yes, Rommel lost a lot, but again, Monty was rolling in material, anti-tank guns, manpower, and tanks. And his armoured brigades still took ”murderous“ losses. The Wiki article on the second battle of El Alamien states that the British may have lost as many tanks as Rommel did (about 500), or almost half their force. That's pretty bad, particularly given the numbers (Rommel only had about 500 tanks, and so was outnumbered in Armour 2 to 1. And Monty had about a 3 to 1 advantage in Anti-tank guns).

I do find it impressive that he predicted the amount of casualties though.

It also seems Rommel was on sick leave in Germany or Italy for a good part of the early battle. And his second in Command died of a heart attack, forcing Rommel to return. Sucks to be him.

The supply lines and numbers did Rommel in here I think. And I'm fairly certain that, after reading a description of the battle, Monty was content to just throw troops at the problem (Monty envisioned it as a battle of attrition like the first world war). Monty also failed to properly pursue his opponent immediately afterwards.

But I was wrong to say that it was embarrassing, it was not, it was a victory, but a very very costly victory given the disparity. I wouldn't say it was Pyhrric though, simply because the allies could afford their losses and Rommel could not. Monty also had plenty of time to plan, as he did later with D-day.

Speaking of D-day… D-day had been in the works for two years before Monty arrived. Monty did tweak it, and some of those tweaks were quite effective, but the general idea had been in the works for some time. And, of course, even D-day didn't go perfectly (Americans -> wrong beach where some elite German soldiers were on leave from the Eastern front and were doing live ammo drills at the time, if my sources were correct). Then again, no plan ever works perfectly.

As for Monty getting into a situation where he could bid his time, accumulate troops, etc pre second battle of El Alamein… that situation was not created by Monty, it fell into his hands. In fact, the general sent to command the place had his plane shot down, only after this did Monty take over. Monty took over when the situation was already favourable, though he should be credited for knowing when he had a sufficient number advantage to win. It also should be noted that Monty was not the overall commander of that theater, that was Harold Alexander (though I don't think he directly contributed to El Alamein, but he may have been responsible for the harassing of supply lines for example) so I am unsure how much credit to actually give to Monty here.

As for Rommel being misdirected and tricked… yes. Maybe another general could have done it… but it happened to be Monty, who deserves credit for properly reading the battle. Thought at that time the Axis were already retreating. I wouldn't say it was the biggest thing though… in fact, I'd say supplies and numbers were far bigger. Though it was, admittedly, still important.

I don't care about Monty being an arrogant, undiplomatic, insulting, racist and homophobic git except insofar as it hindered the war effort. And some of it did to a degree.

”acting as if those things were foregone conclusions or simple is not doing the guy justice“

Maybe not. He did do the leg work, and we'll never know if someone else could have done it better, but… At El Alamein Rommel was essentially doomed from the start, unless something major happened, like the Axis taking Stalingrad and then menacing Iran and the Allies' flank. Luckily that didn't happen. D-day; the Allies had the advantage and plenty of time… Market Garden; Monty may have actually ignored information on German deployment in the area. Now, that is the mark of a bad general. He also may have never gotten the information; if so then it isn't totally his fault.

I don't know anything about George Washington or his battles, unfortunately. I hope to remedy that in the near future. As for Vietnam… urgh. That was a mess. I just don't know, though I'd say the North's overall strategy was better… partially because it didn't actually require victory in direct battle.

”Defining someone as a good or bad commander or a success or failure does not due justice to the complexity of what takes place in war.“

I somewhat agree, but using that as an excuse to let someone who failed miserably, or has an image too big for their birches, to get away with it is a bit much. Monty's ability is a very very questionable subject.

”Besides, the greatest general ever is clearly Centurion Dominus of the Ivos Empire…everyone knows that!"

Ooooh… despite the generic name (Dominus? really? Well, the Romans had guys named Maximus, so you get a pass with that!), and calling the equivalent of a Sargent a General (I suppose you would have to be pretty great to win wars with a single centuria (80 men) or even a cohort (six centuries)!), I am intrigued! I also used brackets within brackets, wow.

I also apologize for the essays. I'm just enjoying myself.

The Allies took a lot of casualties in El Alamein, but the Germans and Italians took a lot more, and since the Allies had more troops that seems like a pretty good strategy. It was costly, but it worked and turned the tide permanently agaisnt Rommel.

The decision not to follow up has been questioned, but some have said Monty was right to let Rommel go, as chasing would have been risky and might have caused him more losses that would have made the victory less clear cut. Dunno if that is right or wrong, we cant know how it might have played out.


Monty did not do everything and was not solely responsible for his sucesses (or indeed his failures. Market garden had lots of others who were involved, includng people above monty who aproved the idea.)
But no one ever is!
I get the impression I have at leat softened your impressions of the guy.
All we are saying…is give Monty a chance!

Hahah, yeah, he probably shouldn't be a Centurion….but its such a bad ass title!
Really he should be a general…but come on! Centurion is sooo bad ass and you know it!
Dominus has also personally killed more Nameless then anyone else alive, which is a pretty good accomplishment to boast about!

Yes, the Axis did take more casualties… which often happens when outnumbered. When two guys beat one guy up, it doesn't mean that the one guy has a decent chance (in fact the opposite). Now, I'm not saying that the Allies should have given the Axis a decent chance (NO!), but saying that perhaps the casualties should have been more one sided… then again, who really knows?

Rommel had 30 or so tanks left. It makes sense to follow him… unless weather was really prohibitive, which it may have been. The ironic thing is that the reason Monty waited so long is that he wanted the numbers to take immediate advantage of the situation after he broke through. Earlier on in North Africa neither side had been able to do that. Technically Monty failed at that because he didn't immediately pursue. In fact, the only thing that allowed Monty to finally quash Rommel was Hitler's order preventing a retreat; if it weren't for that Rommel could have fallen back and regrouped before Monty could respond. Once again, Hitler screws the Axis war effort over. Thank goodness for incompetent Dictators.

That no one can really take complete responsibility for their successes (and failures) in war at the least is a good statement.

I'll agree that Monty wasn't necessarily totally incompetent, but I still think he shouldn't be put in the same class as, say, Rommel, Zhukov, Patton, and possibly Eisenhower and Bradley.

As for Dominus… In Ancient Rome positions were not, or were rarely, permanent (hence why a kurfuffle was made about Ceasar being declared dictator for Life… Even Sulla hadn't done that). Dominus, or domina, was also (I believe, as per the series Rome) how slaves addressed their masters. Interesting, but it also has the ring of a (Patrician) family name (Marius of the Mari, Julius of the Juli, Brutus… Domin(i)us of…). I would suggest tacking some more names onto the fellow. Sulla, for example, was known as Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Felix being a name added on which meant “lucky” as he never lost a battle. Or Nias Pompeii Magnus (A plebian general who sided with the nobles, Caesar's colleague and rival), Magnus meant “the great” and was a similar add on as Felix. Caius Julius Ceasar, Ceasar was part of an added on family name (as some say, maybe, maybe not), but may have meant “Hairy”, which would be funny because he began balding earlier.

Anyway. Some suggestions (I can't tell you how to run your comic!) for naming and rank, regardless how cool Centurion sounds, are: Dominus is fine, you could change it to Dominius so as not to echo the whole “master” thing quite as much while still sounding Roman, but I think it works fine either way. Also perhaps add a “first” name like Nias (young hawk, hawk, or unsophisticated person… probably meant young hawk in Rome, I don't know), Caius/Gaius (rejoice), or whatever. And, for someone so decorated as Dominus, an added on name like Magnus or Felix or something similarly catchy. Nias Dominus Magnus (which echoes Pompeii heavily), for example.

As for job positions… the Romans had plenty of catchy ones. Centurion (for comparison), Praetor (“The commander of an army, usually in the field, or the named commander before mustering the army; and an elected magistratus (magistrate) assigned varied duties (per the historical period)”), Imperator (a general, or leader, etc… could perhaps also refer to the power given to a general to command troops.), Legatus (another commander type, who would command a single legion), Consul (one of two military leaders of Rome, elected… they still existed in the empire, but were obviously less important than the Emperor, who also often carried that title), Pro-consul (military governor of a province, elected for one year), Or tribune, or military tribune (tribune of the plebeians, was an office only open to plebians, and they were sometimes placed in charge of military units and would function as officers). There are probably more, but I can't either find them online or remember them. In fact, it is possible that a man of distinction would have held almost all of these offices during his career.

So, for easier reading I'll repeat. Centurion, Praetor, Imperator, Legatus (or Legate?), Consul, Proconsul, and Tribune. I like Praetor myself, but they're all good. But, hey, the Ivos Empire is only based on Rome, it isn't the same thing.

I hope this is helpful, or at least interesting (barring the likely possibility you've already researched all this stuff anyway).

I like Praetor, I will probably go with that. Sounds a bit like predator (and thus is bad ass…and that's always my main consideration with these things!)

Praetor Dominus.

I was on wikipedia on my lunch break at work looking at roman ranks, thanks for saving me the job of doing that any more!

Though he was was a lower ranker officer originally and took command when all the officers above him had either been killed or run away. (So he was Centurion back in the day.)
He then saved the empire from Darsai invasion, and proceeded to campaign all the way up to the Tsung-Dao lands.
But then the Nameless invasion came and he turned his army against them instead.
The Darsai who had previously cursed him were then celebrating him as their saviour as he inflicted terrible defeats on Nameless legions (which had previously seemed unbeatable in a pitched battle.)

Wow…the webcomic review comic forum has finally become another place for me to explain Harkovast background.
It was only a matter of time really.

Glad I could be of assistance! Praetor is a good choice indeed.

The important lesson to take from this is that you don't mess with the Romans… Or any fantasy group based on them for that matter. Woot!

Well, you did mention it first.

Canuovea Shhhhh! Don't give away my secret agenda to hijack forum threads!
I am trying to do for the webcomic review what I normally do in DD mafia games!

harkovast
Canuovea Shhhhh! Don't give away my secret agenda to hijack forum threads!
I am trying to do for the webcomic review what I normally do in DD mafia games!

Problem is, it's never truly hijacked until you or someone else says "READ HARKOVAST"". It's the standard rule of hijacking!