In previous posts, I’ve discussed how more often than not,
the nations are forced to comply with their bosses’ orders, often at the
expense of going against what they think is right. It would follow then, that
there’s a discrepant irony between what the nations represent (their people),
and who they serve (their bosses).

Despite this direct involvement of the gov’t facilitating nation
action, there are many instances where the nations lack very minimal political
power and influence. In other words, you don’t commonly see the nations facilitating
much gov’t action.

One of the prime examples of this would be how powerless
they are to stop corruption. Nonetheless, they still possess a deep awareness and
recognition of these political issues.

Without further ado, let’s go over some examples, shall we?

The Italy Brothers: 

The Italy brothers experience a lot of troubles back home.
For one thing, they have the mafia and pick-pocketers who routinely steal from
him.

Italy has his car and phone stolen.

The mafia attempts to steal imports that Romano intends to
send to Spain.

As such, the prevalence of being constantly stolen from and
victimized ultimately motivated Romano to learn how to defend himself against
pick-pocketers.

Lastly, we get an explicit recognition from Italy that the
Italian Parliament suffers from transparency and corruption issues.

America:

America’s involvement in his politics is a tricky puzzle,
all right.

He’s incredibly optimistic about the outcome of his
elections…well, at the very least he leads on the façade of believing that
everyone will get along in the end.

England notes that because of how partisan America’s
citizens are, it divides the country.

America responds by saying that the “powerful enthusiasm” of
his citizens is a good thing…

…to which England counters by deeming America to be blithe
about the political division in his country. Basically, England is saying that
America is cheerfully indifferent about how polarized the Republicans and
Democrats are.

What makes me think that America is putting on a façade is
the fact that when he claims that everyone will get along in the end, the image
he pictures is in stark contrast to his statement. It reveals two beaten-up and
worn-down citizens agreeing on the fact that the President isn’t doing his job
well.

Go back to the first panel where America refers to their political
activism as “lively.” When comparing that statement to the fact that America is
implicitly acknowledging how potentially violent his politics can become, it shows a
reluctance on his part to confront the volatile–both verbal and sometimes
physical i.e. rallies or protests–aspects of his elections.

The “United after all” phrase seems like America is trying
to convince himself that the situation in his country isn’t that bad. It’s also
important to consider that this strip is recent, having come out in 2016.

It doesn’t end here, either. As a result of America’s
dividing politics, England expresses concern for the former’s health– a small
reminder that a nation’s health can be affected by the stability or instability
of their political situation.

Of course, America waves off England’s comment, likely not
wanting to admit that even with his super strength, he can grow weaker just
like any other nation can during dire economic recessions or turbulent socio-political
disputes.

What he says next, however, gives a better hint as to how
involved he is in his politics. It’s quite worrisome.

To surmise, means to accept something as true without possessing
the evidence to confirm it. If that’s the case and America’s merely guessing
what his citizens want, it would mean that he’s not directly involved in the campaigning and gathering of public opinion.

Without a decent grasp of what the polls are like before
voting, perhaps America is relying on media reports and/or word of mouth from
other gov’t officials on who the people are leaning toward. Point is, he doesn’t
seem to be directly involved in the process of actively talking to people
during elections.

This doesn’t mean to say that America is completely removed
from his politics. He hails and takes the privilege of voting very seriously.
What I’m trying to get at is that he might have more of a sideline role with
regards to how active and engaged he is during elections.

Russia:

This one is pretty disturbing and unsuprising, but it still
goes to show how little control a nation has over their gov’t.

Bluntly and with a
troubled look on his face, Russia admits that votes [and people] in his country disappear, and
that he doesn’t even know if all of the votes are counted.

France’s Speculation about Germany:

While this is just a speculation on France’s part, it
nevertheless demonstrates the recognition that nations are capable of taking
part in corrupted schemes. As stated above, however, they don’t always have the
discretion to oppose these gov’t orders.

France suspects
that Germany took part in a conspiracy where he knew that letting Greece into the
EU would cause the European economy to crash.

Germany obviously denies this.

It’s the realized possibility that matters here, not the
actuality of it playing out in real life.

That said, while the nations are often used as puppets by
their leaders, that doesn’t mean that they share a similar mindset. Instead,
when presented with issues like corruption, it causes them to experience reciprocal
internal conflict.