Sad Truth about Greece

Honestly, I still wonder why my country - and several others - shy away from doing away with Greece’s debts and allowing them a restart of their system. It must be obvious to everyone and their blind grandmother that anything else will simply fail. Of course, all the banks who have backed up the debts don’t want that - and we know how important the thoughts of the banks and ‘the economy’ are for our politicians. The cuts (right down to getting money out of your own bank account, if you happen to be a Greek) don’t hit those who are really responsible for it, after all. Who is responsible? The rich who don’t pay taxes. Those live everywhere, but in Greece, they’ve really lived out their dreams.

Look, none of us wants to pay taxes. Nobody wants to hand over some of their hard-earned money (the money someone earned the hard way for them at some point, anyway) to the government, instead of buying the tenth Ferrari.

But the government doesn’t take that money just to fill its own pockets. They pay for social security, public schools and hospitals, public transports, roads, the police force, the army, and oodles of other things. The government keeps the infrastructure of the country working and makes sure people can live in peace.

So, you’re a billionaire and say you have your riches, your private school and hospital, your car, and you also could afford to pay some security company for the protection of your family and your possessions. True, but your car is driving on roads kept in working condition by the government. The teachers in your private school, the nurses (and some doctors) in the private hospital, and the security personnel most likely went to public schools themselves, some of them will most likely also have been to public universities. And no matter how many security guards you pay for, if the whole economy breaks down and riots start, your possessions and family aren’t safe at all.

The problem with rich people don’t paying their taxes is similar to the problem with telling the banks to stuff it and accept defeat. Both are very cosy with politicians. They pay for political campaigns. They offer jobs after the political career or ‘consultant positions’ throughout it. And for that, they can be sure to be on the winning side of new laws and other political decisions. Thus, there’s no real pressure put on Greek billionaires who don’t pay taxes and have moved abroad.

What I would do? I’d tell them to either pay their taxes or be throw out of the country for good. If they ever come back afterwards - even if it’s just the plane touching down in Athens to fill the tank -, they’ll be arrested on the spot and kept in jail until the outstanding taxes have been paid. It’s probably not legal, but it would be effective. How many of those people would want to lose the country they consider their home? Perhaps lose all the property they still own back home (confiscated to get at least some of their debts paid off)? They’d be without citizenship (although they could probably ‘buy’ their way into another). They’d be outed for the criminals they are.

Would it be right on a moral level? I’d say yes. If  they don’t pay for the state they’re part of, even though they can afford to (unlike the people at the other end of that scale who simply have no money to pay taxes from), they don’t deserve to be a part any longer. Community (and a state is nothing else) only works when everyone does something to keep it working. Once upon a time, everyone could put in a few hours of work or, perhaps, donate some of their harvest. But we’ve all grown specialized and so we need the government to organize all the community stuff and pay people to do it.

Most of the rich Greeks would probably pay their outstanding taxes and would continue to pay them later on. I think only a minority would really risk having all their connections with their home country severed.

What the EU is doing, on the other hand, is basically pushing Greece deeper and deeper into misery. Punishing the normal people for something they didn’t do and had no power to prevent. It’s not the rich ones who now ‘pay’ with unemployment and poverty, it’s the normal people and those who were poor to begin with.

What women find attractive

The idea for this article was spawned in a discussion on FB with a guy who, I’m pretty sure, was just trying to troll me. Still, he did help me list once more what I (and quite a few other women, I guess) find attractive in a man.

The picture does serve a purpose, yes. The discussion was about why women should prefer the guy on the left to the guy on the right. For those of you not interested in movies/action movies/comic movies: the guy on the left is Chris Hemsworth playing Marvel’s Thor and the guy on the right is Tom Hiddleston playing Marvel’s Loki. The still was taken from the first “Thor” movie.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Mr. Hemsworth is ugly and I’m sure he’s a nice guy, too, but what guys don’t seem to get is that ‘muscled and blonde’ doesn’t suffice to entice all women. Neither does being a hero.

The guy I argued with (I do enjoy arguing) tried to show Mr. Hemsworth’s good sides by listing Mr. Hiddleston’s bad sides: Loki being scrawny and asymmetrical. First of all, when looking at a front centre picture of Tom Hiddleston’s face, I don’t really spot any visible asymmetry - although I will admit no person is 100% symmetrical. What of being scrawny, then? What the guy doesn’t seem to get about women looking at men is that many of us prefer the ‘runner’s build’ (like Mr. Hiddleston’s) to the more muscled athlete’s build of Mr. Hemsworth (especially the look of him in “Thor: The Dark World” … seriously, what are they serving in Asgard? Only steroids?). I get how and why they look different, since Thor is supposed to be much more of a warrior than Loki (who relies more on magic/intelligence).

Let’s list what I (and probably quite some others) tend to notice about guys at first.

• Eyes. Mr. Hemsworth has very beautiful blue eyes, no doubt, but those of Mr. Hiddleston are a very charming and enchanting green.
• Smile. Both men have a very charming smile, but there’s just a very nice hint of boyish, mischievous charms in Mr. Hiddleston’s. Nice teeth are an addition to that category, but those usually are even and white with young actors.
• Hands. I haven’t paid that much attention to Mr. Hemsworth’s hands so far, but Mr. Hiddleston has long, sensitive fingers - a turn on not just for me.
• Voice. It might surprise men, but women really do have a thing for guys with a strong, deep voice. Both gentlemen have a very nice voice, but Mr. Hiddleston’s catches me a bit more.

As you can see, build doesn’t feature in that first list, although, to a certain degree, height does. Women like men who are taller than them. Since both Mr. Hemsworth and Mr. Hiddleston are quite tall (1,93 m and 1,87 m respectively), there’s no clear winner there, they’re both definitely taller than the average woman (or my own meagre 1,68 m).

Now to the question why quite some women prefer villains to heroes. Some might say it’s a proof of growing up - no longer looking for your Prince Charming. This is my personal theory, there’s no scientific or other proof it’s right.

Let’s be honest, movies, comics, or other stories are infused with our morals. And our morals don’t allow the evil to win. Therefore, as unrealistic as it might seem, the hero will, in the end, always vanquish the villain. However, in reality, things never go that smoothly. Women know that.

In reality, villains would probably win in at least 8 out of 10 cases. They are better organized, they have minions, they have a lot of money, they have supreme technology, they have no qualms about using any means at their disposal, they are utterly ruthless. If you look at news from everywhere, you will realize that is what usually wins you whatever you’re going for.

Yes, their ruthlessness doesn’t really make them good partners (but all alphas are bad partners long-term, that includes quite some heroes as well), but they have the means to support a lover and their children - and to keep them protected, if they consider it in their best interest.

Villains know what they want and they take it. That’s another point. There’s not much of a ‘will they/won’t they’ with villains. If they want, they will. While it might seem charming that an attractive hero is unsure about breaching the topic of sympathy and love to a woman who, obviously, likes him very much, it does grow old quickly. As love interest of a hero, you’re either going for a long (years or even decades in comics is quite possible) waiting time or you end up dead after he has declared his love and his arch-nemesis decides to kill you to strike at the hero.

Since heroes adhere to a moral codex which frowns upon killing the innocent (and if you’re a villain’s love interest, but not villainous yourself, you are an innocent for them), you don’t have to worry about a hero to kill you, because your boyfriend happens to be a villain.

The bad boy whom women want to help is a romantic idea, too. Yes, in reality it’s next to impossible to change someone, so if you go for a relationship, don’t do so thinking you can change the parts of a person you don’t like. But in a story, it’s possible.

Another reason to like Loki, despite him being a villain (in “Thor” and “The Avengers,” he’s more of an anti-hero in “Thor: The Dark World”), is how many facets the writers have worked into him. Villains tend to be more complicated and complex than heroes. There’s not much to being a hero, to doing the right thing, but these days, becoming a villain needs to be justified.

Loki is the younger brother, the adopted one, the one in the shadows, the one who has been lied to all his life. He snaps and slashes back. He tries to take what he considers his right (become king of a realm, if not Asgard, then Midgard/Earth). Women can understand that and identify with it. He doesn’t do evil, because it’s evil (no villain these days does). He doesn’t just do it for the money and the power. He has a definite deficit and thinks ruling Earth will fill it. It won’t, we know that, but it makes him someone to relate to.

Loki has heaps of charm, his silver tongue (and in Norse mythology also an insatiable appetite for sex, but that’s not in Marvel’s universe), his intelligence. He’s a guy you can talk to. A guy who would flatter you in interesting ways, if he wants something from you (be it information, assistance - or plain sex).

That’s why there’s a blog like Loki’s Dirty Whispers (to be fair, there’s also one for Thor). Loki clearly would strive to be the dominant in a relationship, but that’s not necessarily bad. There’s a clear difference between being dominant and being abusive (take heed, Mr. Grey). A relationship with Loki probably would be short, but it would also be rather interesting. Certainly not boring.

So, what do women find attractive in a guy? Eyes, mouth, teeth, hands, voice, height first and foremost. Then they’ll look for the character more than the body - honestly. My mum always wanted a tall, blond guy, she ended up with a short, dark-haired one. Yet, my parents have been happily married for 50 years. Okay, okay, women also look at men’s asses. Enough said.

Back to the Dungeon

When Bullfrog (why, oh why, did they have to be swallowed by EA?) released “Dungeon Keeper,” I was quite in front of the line to buy it. When they released the sequel “Dungeon Keeper 2” later on, I was snatching that one up ASAP as well. I like good games which combine different genres (building, strategy, and a little resource management in the DK games) and I like being evil.

Because that is the main selling point of DK, you see. Instead of playing the hero who enters the dungeon and raids everything (as in basically every RPG), you play the keeper of the dungeon, a floating hand, who is building the dungeon and keeping the workforce happy. Your job is it to overcome other keepers and defeat the heroes to take control of the realms, one after another.

The game comes with great humour and the second part really makes everything better, unlike with many other games over the years. You might lose one of the strongest monsters of the first part (the Horned Reaper, also known as Horny), but for that you gain him as a special creature you can only call at certain points. It’s probably for the best - Horny was an extremely strong monster and made the game too easy.

The principle of DK is easy enough to understand. You start out with nothing but the Dungeon Heart (the source of your powers) and a few Imps (your workers). You have to excavate space out of the soil and turn them into special rooms. The rooms all have a use, of course. You also need to find a portal, so creatures can enter you dungeon.

The Lair will serve as sleeping spot for your creatures (they become unhappy without a sleeping spot in the Lair). The Hatchery offers tasty chickens for your creatures to eat (some creatures will get extremely upset without food). The Library attracts Warlocks who will research your spells and make them better (and the Warlocks are good ranged fighters). The list goes on, of course, but those are the first few rooms you can build in the game.

Certain rooms attract certain creatures. Without a library, no Warlocks. Without a Guard Room, no Dark Elves. Without a Torture Chamber, no Iron Maidens (they’re pretty powerful fighters and good at ‘encouraging’ caught enemies to switch sides). Some rooms also create creatures (Prisons create Skeletons, Graveyards create Vampires) from captured or dead enemies.

You can possess your own creatures, which allows you to lead a group somewhere they can’t or won’t go otherwise. It also allows you to expand your dungeon tiles in a certain direction (by possessing an Imp) or to explore the dungeon in the way you want to (by possessing a suitable creature, preferably a Firefly).

The first half of a typical game is building up first the dungeon (excavating and defining rooms, finding and mining gold), then the army. Training creatures in the Training Room (also available early), having spells researched or optimized in the Library, exploring the surroundings, trying to spot some secrets somewhere.

The second half of a typical game is finding your enemy (or enemies) and smashing them. Strong creatures are better against foes, battle makes them stronger. (The Training Room can only train your creatures to level 4, the Arena later allows training to a higher level, but only in battle your creatures can reach the top level, 10.)

To protect your own Dungeon Heart (if you lose it, you lose the game), you can build several traps and you can create doors to block off small openings (one tile wide). Guard Rooms are usually manned by Dark Elves who will alert you to any kind of intruder and attack them immediately, so it’s a good idea to build them at the border of your territory or in an area where there’s a Hero Gate (those are gates through which heroes will enter you dungeon).

Enemy rooms can be taken over, enemy tiles will be converted into yours by your Imps. You can take over a complete dungeon from a rival Keeper, if you manage to destroy the heart. That will allow you to expand your own dungeon cheaply, since you don’t need to pay for the rooms you take over. Rooms are not attacked, so they won’t be destroyed in the battle for dominance. Sometimes the fortress of the lord of the realm will also have rooms you can take over.

“Dungeon Keeper” and “Dungeon Keeper 2” are available from GOG by now, set up to work on modern machines. I grabbed them from there the moment they were released again. And recently, I’ve gone back to the dungeon, to teach those pesky heroes with their morals a thing or two about angering the Keeper. Although I think, it might be even worse to anger Horny, he has a huge scythe, not just a big hand.

Penny Dreadful

Yesterday, I got my hands on the first season of “Penny Dreadful.” Today, I started watching the episodes and simply couldn’t stop until I had seen all eight of them. They were even better, because they didn’t feel or look like your average ‘turn of the century’ series done at the moment. There’s series like “Ripper Street” which are great on their own, but especially that one never really caught me. “Penny Dreadful” does a lot of things in a different way and that is what makes it so great.

Years ago, when “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” came out (the movie which put Sean Connery off acting), there was a good base to it, but the realisation was bad. The comic series it’s based on, also called “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and done by Alan Moore, is a very good, very tight, and very well structured series. It introduces characters well. It gives the characters a good background and a believable set of traits. It makes the story run well and it takes its time. Which is precisely where the movie failed - badly. Fact is, if you want to bring together a group of characters from several novels (or other backgrounds), you need time to bring them all together. You can’t do a total of three or so minutes for every character as they do in the movie. But you can do a total of almost one episode per character in a series, which is what “Penny Dreadful” does.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a lot of horror stories were written and published, usually in the form of a penny dreadful, a weekly or monthly magazine filled with stories, cheap, printed like a newspaper, available for everyone. They in turn inspired authors to write more of that type, to take those scares to the ‘better’ market. “Dracula” and “Frankenstein” and “The Mysterious Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” bring together the three most important pieces of what Stephen King called the ‘Tarot’ of horror in his book “Danse Macabre.” The vampire, the creature, and the werewolf (because that is, deep down, what the story of Dr. Jekyll and his other self comes down to). Even though the series holds back on the werewolf for a long time, it brings together all three of the archetypes, including the demonic as well.

Then there’s the topic of life, of elongating life. It shows, of course, with Dr. Frankenstein, but also with the vampires (ever-lasting existence), with Dorian Grey (and his deal with the devil to stay young), and with Brona (who is on the verge of death and doesn’t want to die).

“Penny Dreadful” takes it slow with all those topics. It paces itself very well. We are introduced to the characters, to their stories, to their backgrounds. We are introduced to Victorian London (filmed in Dublin), to Victorian society with all its facets (including the dirties sides). We are pushed bit by bit into things, learning slowly what is going on actually.

The ending(s) of the story is(are) surprising enough, proving the old proverb of being careful of what you wish for (to Lord Malcolm). Things get turned upside down in the end, cards get shuffled, fates get dealt anew for most characters. The series leaves us hanging with very important questions: does Isabella desire to be normal, to be rid of everything dark about her? And if she does not, will she become what fate has chosen her to be? But there are similar questions attached to the other characters. What will become of Victor and his first ‘son?’ What will become of Ethan, now that he has shown his dark side in England? What will the master do, now that his bargaining chip is gone? (One question which bothered me during most of the series is where the hell the vampire masters get those masses of slaves from. Another was why all of those develop white hair, especially why all of the woman grow long, flowing, pure-white locks.)

I really enjoyed watching the first season of “Penny Dreadful” and I’m now looking forward to season two which has already been confirmed. I will also watch the episodes again at my leisure. The series is a rare gem and deserves to be treasured.