SMBC Comics Forum

Panel 1: Okay Killer, What do you want for your last meal?
Panel 2: The Executioner.

But wait doesn't this create a paradox?

If he eats the executioner, then that person is dead and can't be the executioner -- some other person will have to step in to be the executioner.
Which means that the person he did get is not the executioner and therefore,
should not be the person that he gets. Which means that he lives, and can be the executioner,
which means ...

Not really. After he is eaten, he doesn't continue to exist while not being the executioner anymore. This breaks the loop.
"Anymore" is the keyword here.

The debate is whether "eat the executioner" includes future ones. Since at the time of the last wish, subsequent executioners were not "the" executioner, is he allowed to eat them as well or not?

This is why I support the Deaf penalty.

If the executioner (pictured on the table in the comic) causes his flesh to become poisonous (or otherwise lethal*) to the condemned, then no paradox occurs.

*e.g. by ingesting known allergens

Your are condemned to be force feeded executioners to death.

Eating the executioner, [insert oral sex joke here]. But, on a more serious note, it also doesn't have to be lethal- you can cut off a piece of the executioner (probably a forearm or something, although a clever executioner can stuff a minced cancer tumor into a hollowed out appendix and a call it sausage) without killing them, if you suture the wound back up.

Manny2510 wrote:This is why I support the Deaf penalty.

The what?

gguest wrote:

Manny2510 wrote:This is why I support the Deaf penalty.

The what?

Can you repeat that? I can't hear you.