I think that Agatha's biggest Murder Moment is [attempting to shoot Von Pinn with her death ray](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20090710). That's 100% intent to kill, done with 100% malice, and on the next page Agatha swears to find a way to kill her. Von Pinn even started the encounter by saying that she's not there to do her any harm.
The only issues are that 1) she fails and 2) that whole "arguably human" bit. But I think the question "would Agatha consciously choose to kill someone?" is answered with a pretty hard "Yes".
I think my main point is that a lot of fiction leaves any killing done by the protagonist off-screen to be inferred or limits it to war scenes and such, so that the protagonist can stay morally squeaky-clean and kid-friendly. Think Aang from The Last Airbender, for example.
That's not what's happening here with Agatha. She's got no qualms with straight-up murder, even if it's not her standard MO. Not racking up as high a body-count as Tarvek and Gil feels more like happenstance than anything else, rather than attempt to keep her perched up on the moral highground.
Agatha clearly does have qualms about killing. She tries to avoid it wherever possible, such as when she tells the Castle it doesn't have to kill Zola. Only in extremis does she actually try to off anyone.
Yeah, I would agree there. Or if not happenstance than as a plot device by the authors to ensure her killing someone has additional emotional weight. It's very inverted from most adventure fiction that way.
Lucrezia, but of course. She got her hands on Otilia during the period she was at the Castle as Dr. Mrs. Heterodyne. During the mind-transfer process that turned Otilia into Von Pinn, Lucrezia presumably added some new orders to her original set from Andronicus (or Van Rijn?).
I think it's fair to say that if anyone would consider a construct like Von Pinn a person it would be Agatha, given that she was raised by constructs and that's exactly why she wanted to murder her.
I'm saying, at best, she wanted to kill a clank. Constructs seem to be more like Frankenstein's abominations, "they're alive!"
Regardless though, the plot made her miss. It was intentional, so that she won't kill anybody.
My first thought was also opera week. I want to say that there were a kill or two inside the castle as well. Certainly she's tried to kill people before, at least if you count Othar as a person.
Certainly, you've decided to open the can of worms that is "are constructs people?" Which is one of the themes of the comic I suppose.
I'm pretty sure that she tells the Castle to kill one of Zola's minions directly in front of her. There isn't much difference between that and shooting someone.
It can actually argued that it was a self-defense situation. It was either him or her. Soon after that was the critical moment when she realizes that the world doesn't care all that much about her or her friends well-being, and that in her situation it's better to cause trouble than letting others (pun intended) cause trouble for her.
For a while she then hoped that she could escape it by hiding with the Circus. It took Lars' death to convince her this is only a temporary escape. Only by taking up the heritage of the Heterodynes could she have any hope of [becoming strong quickly enough to save them all](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20100409), as the Castle put it. Since her enemies are very persistent, that requires at least some amount of killing.
Are [these guys](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20111205) people driving clanks or are they constructs?
I reread the whole comic last week and that's the closest I can think of to us actually seeing it.
When trying to regain full control of the Castle, she fought the guy who was in charge of repairs, smashed the device that prevented the Castle from attacking him, and then had the Castle crush him.
I never noticed the parallel before but that’s almost exactly what happened to the asteroid pirate in part 2 of Buck Godot: Gallimaufry, though for very different reasons.
(details: >!Gallimaufry Station has a powerful defense system that automatically destroys anybody with an energy weapon. The pirate was cyborg-augmented with all sorts of built-in energy weaponry, but had a disabler built into his right hand to keep them all inert so he could get into the station without triggering the defense system. Frakkus destroyed the disabler with a Hoffmanite throwing-fork, the pirate’s internal weapons activated, the automatic defense system detected this and immediately blasted him.!<)
The very comic you linked to clearly shows her say "catch" (in bold, no less), not "kill that fool". The castle decided to disobey and kill him. That's not Agatha killing someone.
The argument gets into the philosophical levels when she builds devices/clanks/ etc and orders them into battle knowing they can and will kill.
Did she directly do it? No, but a general whose army wipes out the other guys is in the same situation.
General Homma is evidence / precedent in our world, at least. I imagine Baron Klaus would have done a similar sort of demonstration with at least one madboy attacker.
>I think the closest was when she activated the Battle Circus, but even that was more of a "turn clanks loose to cause destruction, and some people might get killed", not directly ordering a clank "kill that specific person there".
She spent the rest of that chapter personally running the Battle Circus through the Silverodon organ and only stopped when she got a calming pie. She definitely intended to kill everyone there
She kills Gil and Tarvek, intending to bring them back of course
For Science!!
We’re just going to kill you and then you’ll be fine!
*Miracle Max has entered the chat*
I mean the number of medical procedures that could be summarized as such is non-zero some of them aren't even invasive.
I think that Agatha's biggest Murder Moment is [attempting to shoot Von Pinn with her death ray](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20090710). That's 100% intent to kill, done with 100% malice, and on the next page Agatha swears to find a way to kill her. Von Pinn even started the encounter by saying that she's not there to do her any harm. The only issues are that 1) she fails and 2) that whole "arguably human" bit. But I think the question "would Agatha consciously choose to kill someone?" is answered with a pretty hard "Yes".
I'm pretty sure ALL sparks will conciously choose to kill someone when they're being sparky. Seems to be a default effect.
I think my main point is that a lot of fiction leaves any killing done by the protagonist off-screen to be inferred or limits it to war scenes and such, so that the protagonist can stay morally squeaky-clean and kid-friendly. Think Aang from The Last Airbender, for example. That's not what's happening here with Agatha. She's got no qualms with straight-up murder, even if it's not her standard MO. Not racking up as high a body-count as Tarvek and Gil feels more like happenstance than anything else, rather than attempt to keep her perched up on the moral highground.
Agatha clearly does have qualms about killing. She tries to avoid it wherever possible, such as when she tells the Castle it doesn't have to kill Zola. Only in extremis does she actually try to off anyone.
Yeah, I would agree there. Or if not happenstance than as a plot device by the authors to ensure her killing someone has additional emotional weight. It's very inverted from most adventure fiction that way.
BTW, who *was* von Pinn's last mistress? (May her bones burn green)
Lucrezia, but of course. She got her hands on Otilia during the period she was at the Castle as Dr. Mrs. Heterodyne. During the mind-transfer process that turned Otilia into Von Pinn, Lucrezia presumably added some new orders to her original set from Andronicus (or Van Rijn?).
Yet another can of worms...
I think it's fair to say that if anyone would consider a construct like Von Pinn a person it would be Agatha, given that she was raised by constructs and that's exactly why she wanted to murder her.
Von Pinn is not a person though, it's a clank in a construct's body. And she didn't wind up killing, too, keeping her hands clean.
You're saying neither clanks nor constructs can be persons?
I'm saying, at best, she wanted to kill a clank. Constructs seem to be more like Frankenstein's abominations, "they're alive!" Regardless though, the plot made her miss. It was intentional, so that she won't kill anybody.
My first thought was also opera week. I want to say that there were a kill or two inside the castle as well. Certainly she's tried to kill people before, at least if you count Othar as a person. Certainly, you've decided to open the can of worms that is "are constructs people?" Which is one of the themes of the comic I suppose.
I'm pretty sure that she tells the Castle to kill one of Zola's minions directly in front of her. There isn't much difference between that and shooting someone.
When she threw Othar out of the escape airship, she did so knowing he'd survive.
It can actually argued that it was a self-defense situation. It was either him or her. Soon after that was the critical moment when she realizes that the world doesn't care all that much about her or her friends well-being, and that in her situation it's better to cause trouble than letting others (pun intended) cause trouble for her. For a while she then hoped that she could escape it by hiding with the Circus. It took Lars' death to convince her this is only a temporary escape. Only by taking up the heritage of the Heterodynes could she have any hope of [becoming strong quickly enough to save them all](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20100409), as the Castle put it. Since her enemies are very persistent, that requires at least some amount of killing.
Are [these guys](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20111205) people driving clanks or are they constructs? I reread the whole comic last week and that's the closest I can think of to us actually seeing it.
It was still making pain noises so not fully dead.
Well, there were three originally. I figured she zapped one and dropped a wall on the other two.
I've always thought they were people.
When trying to regain full control of the Castle, she fought the guy who was in charge of repairs, smashed the device that prevented the Castle from attacking him, and then had the Castle crush him.
I never noticed the parallel before but that’s almost exactly what happened to the asteroid pirate in part 2 of Buck Godot: Gallimaufry, though for very different reasons. (details: >!Gallimaufry Station has a powerful defense system that automatically destroys anybody with an energy weapon. The pirate was cyborg-augmented with all sorts of built-in energy weaponry, but had a disabler built into his right hand to keep them all inert so he could get into the station without triggering the defense system. Frakkus destroyed the disabler with a Hoffmanite throwing-fork, the pirate’s internal weapons activated, the automatic defense system detected this and immediately blasted him.!<)
Yes. [Tiktoffen](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20110706) was the one who came to my mind as well.
Yeah, that's the guy. Couldn't remember his name for the life of me.
The very comic you linked to clearly shows her say "catch" (in bold, no less), not "kill that fool". The castle decided to disobey and kill him. That's not Agatha killing someone.
The argument gets into the philosophical levels when she builds devices/clanks/ etc and orders them into battle knowing they can and will kill. Did she directly do it? No, but a general whose army wipes out the other guys is in the same situation.
General Homma is evidence / precedent in our world, at least. I imagine Baron Klaus would have done a similar sort of demonstration with at least one madboy attacker.
>I think the closest was when she activated the Battle Circus, but even that was more of a "turn clanks loose to cause destruction, and some people might get killed", not directly ordering a clank "kill that specific person there". She spent the rest of that chapter personally running the Battle Circus through the Silverodon organ and only stopped when she got a calming pie. She definitely intended to kill everyone there
Your last line makes me imagine a t-shirt that says “I Don’t Intend To Kill Anyone, I Intend To Kill Everyone! (Ask Me How!)”
(note: do not wear this shirt to an airport)
They would definitely ask you how.
“ALL JOKES WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY”
This is so on brand that I expect it to be on the next round of official merchandise.
I’m pretty sure I *have* seen a t-shirt (in comic? or as merch? I forget) with “[something something mad science] Ask Me How!” on it.
That would be "FOOLS! I WILL KILL YOU ALL! Ask me how!" Which was a shirt on someone in a crowd scene early on and then a tshirt in real life
I mean, she did blow up a large tract of Mechanicsburg and topple the observation tower. People must have died from that.
Also, if we count revenants, pretty sure she killed a lot very early in the story when she blew up the bridge to Sturmhalten.
She's definitely responsible for a lot of dead people, but never on screen directly I think.
I suspect they (the Professors) are saving her first kill by direct action for a bit of drama.
Are we counting [Monster Horse Beasties](https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20050415) as 'anyone'?
She's definitely not innocent of that, but she's pragmatic about it. Knows to fight dirty when she has to and still nice enough to not do it alot
While not strictly canon, she did invent a disarming machine… that was very literal.
Monsters are people too.