I like to imagine Gerry and Gertrude having this weird dynamic of “says highly sus shit but is innocent” and “says innocent sounding shit but is highly sus.”
Like they’d both get detained and interrogated after being spotted near a building that blew up shortly after they left, and the questioning would be like:
Police: We had some questions regarding a potential domestic terrorism incident.
Gertrude, clutching her chest: Oh, good lord. I hope Gerard is okay.
(Meanwhile, in the next room.)
Police: We had some questions regarding a potential domestic terrorism incident.
Gerry: Funny word, terrorism. You know in 1848 Vera Zasulich stood trial for shooting the governor of Petersburg for his oppressive poilicies. But here’s the thing: she’d shot him, yes. But then she threw down her weapons and left him wounded instead of finishing the job. When asked why at her trial, she said “I’m a terrorist, not a murderer” and the whole courtroom fucking applauded her.
Can you imagine that? Cheering someone on for calling themselves a terrorist? What has happened that has made us turn against the word? What does it even mean? “Someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal.” But isn’t every political goal achieved with the threat of violence? Don’t we all obey the law purely because of the threat of imprisonment if we disobey? Isn’t that, in itself, a form of violence?
If you think about it like that, then you can understand why people might cheer on a woman who outright called herself a terrorist, a hundred years ago. If the government is going to be using violence on you to achieve its goal, then why the fuck wouldn’t you cheer on someone who used violence right back, to get them to fucking stop?
And then, of course, Gertrude is the one who fucking blew up the building and Gerry had nothing to do with it.