Grrl Power #1197 – Succubus wrangler
I don’t know where Heatwave is, but it probably involves some photo shoot on the rim of an active volcano. And while she’s there, I’m sure a few scientists are like “Hey can you swoop down there and fill up a few buckets with lava for us?” and some other guys are like “Hey-yo, could youse be a pal and toss this not at all suspiciously human shaped garbage bag into that bublin’ spicy arrabbiata, AY! Pasta fazool! Amore!” Because those guys all have “Cartoonish Italian Mobsters Tourettes.”
Maxima’s probably been waiting to threaten Dabbler with this particular scheme for a while now. Dabbler’s pretty confident she can convince Heatwave to go along with this or she wouldn’t even pretend to agree with Max’s proposal. A succubus who’s gone a month without getting laid could cause a much worse problem than what Parfait did. It’d be like getting someone to go cold turkey from heroin, although there’d probably less vomiting. As a succubus’s tantric reserves wane, their libido ramps up. It’s just like someone getting hungry if they skip a few meals. Dabbler’s not a literal sophomore succubus like Parfait, she has way more self control, but 30 days would be asking a LOT from her.
In other news, I guess Archon has a devil on retainer?
The August vote incentive is up! Yeah I know it’s late, so hopefully I’ll manage to get some bonus (read: overdue) incentives up as I attempt to catch up.
Oh no! Sydney’s been injured! A Wampa may or may not have been involved, I’ll leave the exact nature of the incident up to you. It’s not relevant to the picture. And before you’re like “Dave, Bandaged Rei is one thing, but floating unconscious in a bacta tank is probably an even narrower fetish.” just check the picture out.
The Patreon version has nudes and variants, and a comic that reveals something interesting about the orbs.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
I do remember that VDSD pinup of Brook where she’s using a ladle (that’s that those cauldrons are called) full of molten steel as a hot tub, so a photo shoot like that makes sense. Though it would be difficult to bathe in lava or liquid metal, what with it being as dense as it is, it’d be quite hard for a person to sink into it.
As for the Devil on retainer? I’m betting Arianna and Hench Wench could draft up a contract between them that would make Asmodeus, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles and Mammon genuflect themselves and chant “We’re not worthy!”
remember they have legions of lawyers. none of them can practice or argue anymore. (all things expire eventually), but they can write fine print all day long.
Unless you put in the person first and then pour in the molten metal.
I remember that her hair was blown upwards from the rising hot air, that was a detail I liked.
Um, fairly sure a ladle is the giant spoon used to serve the bubbling broth into bowls
Hench Wench is still on the Wanted list (she did a Plisken and Escaped from New York)
I have not seen the VDSD pinup in question, but from the description above, I imagine it is a foundry ladle like this one: https://5.imimg.com/data5/NG/QS/IZ/SELLER-801183/foundry-ladle-500×500.jpg
Indeed.
Thought that that was a Smelting Bucket
What is VDSD, and do you have a link to the pinup?
It’s still on the Patreon in the NSFW section. I don’t know if it’s for free anyplace else. You might try the Rule 34 web site.
Dave has a lot of these in his DA gallery (I think sign-in is required) – https://www.deviantart.com/davebarrack/gallery
Valentine’s Day Sex Drive vote incentives from various web artists. Promotes their web comics, and allows for a great deal of fan service. Next year is a 20th anniversary. I *think* it was started by the creator of Sarah Zero,
https://sarahzero.com/ but I could be wrong.
That was… a trip. Is there any kind of summary online of all the… cultural context behind it? Or is it locked behind the Something Awful forum archives?
Summary of what?
If you mean the VDSD thing, fairly sure it’s just a yearly thing artists do showcasing their characters
Believe the guy who does “Spying with Lana” does a similar thing in Summer where artists ‘swap’ characters and draw someone elses character
I meant the comic. I was trying to figure out if it was some weird performance art thing, or if it was just some loser going to a bizarre amount of effort to complain about being mocked on the internet for being a loser. I briefly tried to look into it, and just found people linking threads on Something Awful that aren’t publicly accessible.
Not sure if actually read, or even looked at, Sarah Zero
Poor Dabbler.
I would think that 30 days would be excessive for a succubus.
Health threatening, not just an inconvenience.
She wouldn’t be able to function on the team after a few days.
If she goes and hangs out at Club Oontz near the bathrooms, she should be able to pick up subsistence-level meals to keep going through the month. Panel 2 – https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-312-succudigression/comment-page-2/
Are we figuring that this is the Succubus equivalent of 45/45 with bread and water?
Banquet ™ Succubus Slaw. It will allow you to survive but take away your will to live.
Poor is the soul Dabbler puts her hand on after the 30 days…
Weaponized booty call
Oh yes; we’ve seen what happens when she’s really hungry.
Have they succeeded in getting the – well – err – stains out of that couch in the lounge room or did they just give it a decent burial aka burn it?
It’s pretty funny how scared Dabbler is of Max. I mean of course anyone would be scared of Max, but Dabbler is a spce and multi-dimension traveling, magic, adventurer, implied to be one of the few people on the planet capable of stalemating Max in combat and she’s still so obviously terrified when Max is angry.
I think Dabbler just enjoys the intensity and roleplays along. She knows Maxima won’t just beat her up. It’s more likely that Dabbler would e.g. get banned from ARC if she misbehaved too much, which means no more contact with these sexy supers forever.
Yeah dabbler isn’t scared about the fight, thats why max had to find new ways to threaten her, shes scared about going cold turkey for a month.
“Afraid” is probably the wrong word, as we already know Max is one of the very few people who can fight Maxto a standstill.
I suspect this is more that she respects Max, and genuinely wants to maintain a good relationship with her. Well, that and her occasional case of hubris leading her to bite off more than she can chew.
Remember, she actually views Max as a potential mate. And in “reproduction”, not just a quick meal, or even dinner club. That kind of colors the relationship from her end.
And she is right to be scared of pushing Max too far.
We know that Max is faster than a bullet. At the low end that is1000 m/s. If Max is 10cm away from her she can touch Dabbler in less than 0.0001 seconds. And the acceleration has to be near instantaneous or it would not be useful for catching bullets.
We also know she is incredibly strong and for all intents and purposes invulnerable. And she one-shotted a Fell battleship, something which normally requires a not so small fleet. This puts her, powerwise, on comparable footing with interstellar nations. Whatever was in the geode water, was on the same scale as Sydney’s orbs.
However, none of that is why she is … nervous here. Max asked Dabbler if she would be able to back up her words with a binding oath that she could not wiggle out of and that if she broke her boasting promise would carry a penalty that would really sting.
In other words Max called Dabbler’s bluff, and from the reaction it was more bluff than substance. Thus the nervousness and fear from the side of Dabbler.
Fun fact: the average speed of a 230 grain .45 acp round is 830 fps.
Dabbler’s had a number of scenes lately where she suddenly gets nervous about her own capabilities–not something we saw much at all of during the earliest part of the series.
On one hand explanations are needed. On the other hand someone needs to inform the rest of the team the issues of Lust Aurora and not well trained succubus may sort of accidentally caused a major/minor incident(s).
Best to have that person be a third party and ensure that we do not get a repeat. The first time is a mistake. The second time there will be consequences.
As I said earlier but it seems to not have gotten any traction but I don’t understand why. The whole aura problem needs to be addressed and planned/trained/strategized for. Whether it is sex (Parfait), anger (Vehemence) or something new, these auras have exposed a vulnerability that could incapacitate the entire team. Sydney and Max are proof that it is possible to resist the effects. To not develop a plan to counter such an event would akin to be dereliction of duty.
Agreed. And those on duty should really be held accountable for not raising an alarm; we know the aura could be resisted, so there is no excuse for guards and the like. The whole facility was completely vulnerable to attack.
Later we find two intertwined cat burglars slash ninjas, between gear and position they can only call for help. They spent a week getting there only to get caught just above ground zero. One wonders how Arc spooks handled it.
Most of the guards a unSuper ‘normies’, how are they going to resist when even a trained Witch couldn’t?
The issue is that the aura changes your feelings internally and therefore is not recognized as an attack. Sydney was able to resist because she was aware she was being influenced.
Then again, a guard on duty should be expected to do their best to resist their horniness anyway.
Unlikely to happen on camera. Between Dabbler, alien contacts, and other mystics on earth, they can likely come up with something that’d screen the HQ (even if it’s insanely expensive).
But we’re most likely only ever to hear about it as a throw-away line as someone tries that tactic to attack the HQ and Max smugly points out that doesn’t work anymore.
Of course, unless they have to farm the dungeon for components to make the shield. If that’s needed, we might see the consultation on camera and see the dungeon farming activities.
There’s been lots of mentions about the Aura issue, quite a few have been “it’s a major failing that there hasn’t been work on a defence”
Which assumes that a) there hasn’t been
b) a defence is possible
I don’t think anybody’s denied that the impact of Auras is a problem but we don’t know how practical it is to develop ways to resist them, they’re still usable in realms that have centuries of exposure to them…
Sydney’s first time mistake of conducting an unauthorized summoning on-base will likely get a slap on the wrist. Dabbler & “Tom” will be expected to discipline Parfait. Others, even guards on duty, will be seen as taken by surprise, much as Math & Jabberwocky were in this first incident. Future training in distinguishing auric influence is far more important than first-time punishment, hence the debriefing conference (npi). Details haven’t been presented on every character’s lust-aura recognition experience, other than establishing a rough scale: From Math/Jabb’s = 1, to Sydney/Maxima = 10. My speculation is that lust and anger auras would not produce comparable experiences without frequent incidents, so the anger aura prepared no-one for the lust aura. It goes to show just how responsible and well-behaved Dabbler has been up to now.
“Unauthorized,” what? She had the relevant technical specialist check it over before proceeding. It was effectively a magical taxi ride for someone they’d fought alongside before, not a tactical nuclear strike. How far up the chain does that sort of thing need to go?
Gwen just ensured that the summoning would work, she is not authorised to permit a summoning on base, which is why she asked if the Higher Ups knew about and Sydney waved it away
I think it’s less Sydney waved it away and more Sydney and Gwen misunderstood what they were being told
Gwen asked if “Max knows about this”
I think she meant “If Max knows Sydney is about to summon Parfait”
Sydney thinks she’s asking if Max knows she met Parfait, Dabbler’s sister and answers “Pretty sure, Anvil definitely does”
Gwen thinks that means Anvil is aware of the summoning and has given permission.
Sydney confirmed that Anvil authed it, and assumed that she’d informed Max.
I also think there’s an issue, either with Thom’s guardianship of her or her school training, if she was able to break this quickly in the mortal realm in rather unsexy situations. The topic might have been interesting for her but that really, really shouldn’t have been enough since Succubi KNOW that’s a good hot button and should have drilled it out of her.
I see three scenarios of blame here
A.) Thom is fully responsible right now, as the succubus school goes to an extent and then the guardian/master takes it further, with proper restrictions and an understanding of the limitations of the one they’re watching. There is some evidence of this, as Masters have been shown to have an active hand in the girls training. If Parfait was this easy to break, there probably should be some curfew, check up or chaperone restrictions for any visit Parfait makes to the human world, or really anywhere.
B.) The School is fully responsible, as they told Thom that she was trained up to a certain point in her self control, but failed to actually train it rigorously enough and basically just dropped the ball in her training. It doesn’t matter if Parfait actually cheated or hid things, youths are always going to do that and a school this ‘on the ball’ about their own racial pride and abilities should be way more on the ball about catching that sort of thing. More over, I find it hard to fully blame youths for childish actions. Parfait may not be a kid anymore, but if she failed to get the proper training while she was a kid, it’s not her fault is what I’m saying.
C.) Both hold some responsibility, for the reasons above but sort of mixed a bit.
Whatever the case is, I don’t think anyone is too blame in this room specifically. Dabbler wasn’t aware of Syndey’s ability to summon Parfait, neither was the hearth witch aware of Parfait’s level of control, and Syndey herself was definitely a victim, while Parfait herself, while not a victim, is basically still in a sense a youth with not full control over some inherent factors. It’d be like getting mad at a kid who can’t walk properly, even if the analogy isn’t great for age.
That said, Jiggawatt and Amorphous are definitely not being appropriate right now. Amor should be stating very clearly that she needs to let go and Jiggawatt shouldn’t be waiting for someone to state very clearly that they need to let go, given the situation came from influence outside their control. She’s basically taking advantage of the situation for physical comfort and he’s not taking her current physical contact seriously enough for someone who unintentionally cheated. The aura isn’t up anymore and, unless there is some ‘lingering effects’ which, thus far, have not been explained in the comic (or really ever shown, Syndey regularly goes from 160 to 0 whenever she breaks a violence aura with her shield), then this is just crude behavior for Amorphous and Jiggawatt to continue. (This is assuming that what they are saying can be taken at face value, that neither were emotionally harmed by this experience and that they don’t regret things. Don’t see any reason not to accept that, at least.)
That sounds literally like cruel and unusual punishment for a succubus. It’s literally starvation.
Yeah, like: “your punishment will be 2 weeks fasting” or “2 days without water”. Kinda cruel for max on that one.
On one hand, yes. On the other, abstinence is not illegal as per us law, so…
You forget that, 1: Dabbler is probably one of THE most powerful succubi adventurers out there, she probably has mana potions and mana regen rings up the wazoo. Actually, the soul plug from being ‘collared’ does most of the work, so probably at best she’d be lethargic or borrow some of whatsthatdemon’s mana.
2: That Succubi can feed just by being in the presence of sexuality, which will make this so much worse for her – so close, yet so far, unable to do the real thing.
She’ll be fine physically, but maybe not spiritually.
Yes, but it’d still be water and stale bread while being surrounded by sumptuous snacks everybody else is getting to have..
Max knows she’ll live.. And bemoan every single minute of it… Proper Penance for a Lippy Succubus…
Oh damn I didn’t even think about that, that is a little fucked up.
Feels more like 45/45 bread & water.
Remember that succubi don’t technically NEED to have sex in order to feed on tantric energy. They can just be nearby while two (or more) humans get it on, just like how Vehemence was able to grow stronger just by calmly observing a bunch of other people battling each other.
Disagree Hard. WAY SUPER FUCKING HARD. Free will is perhaps the single most sacred thing a sapient individual possesses. Anyone fucking with it even slightly deserves to be put through a wood chipper feet first.
This is, of course, an opinion, and you’re welcome to disagree just as strongly. However, this is something of a core value for myself as an American, and culturally we are very much for being able to do whatever we want whenever we fucking want. A large part of why we don’t have universal healthcare is that if we did, then public health would start becoming a public issue, and we’re very much in favor of the right to destroy ourselves if we want to. Is this particular idea very fucking stupid? Yup. Is it going to change anytime soon? Nope. Now imagine the uproar if it was found out for a fact that someone managed to get a subliminal message broadcast during a major sports event.
I would assume that, if the message is “Buy my overpriced energy drink” the reaction would be more on the lines of, well, that’s free market. Don’t mess with free market.
Literally every social interaction you’ve ever had has “fucked with your free will”. The line between a convincing argument, or even just experiencing empathy, and mind control is an entirely arbitrary one. Realistically, probably almost every interaction you’ve ever had with the rest of the world has impinged upon your free will.
That’s a lie?
No amount of social skills can emulate someone reaching into your mind and directly controlling how you think and feel.
You don’t need to reach out into someone’s mind directly.
You just need to get a suffucient amount of impressionable and vocal people riled up enough about [something] to create a sense of “Consensus”.
Social patterning does the rest for you.
This is called “Propaganda”. Ever heard of it?
Worked fine for both sides of the Iron Curtain, and is still SOP when it comes to Social Media, Politics, and Religion.
I think you’re deliberately missing the point here. Let’s take it right down to the brass tacks, shall we?
‘consensus’, ‘propaganda’, peer pressure, these all work on consent. YOU consent to ‘go with it’ with the crowd in a riot, YOU consent to let your opinions be swayed by someone else’s rhetoric. YOU do it, it’s YOUR choice, you can choose (and Surprise!! many people do!!!) not to be swayed by appeals to your emotions, desire for acceptance, and so on.
YOU chose. Pretend all you want that somehow your brain turned off, but that was your choice.
Alternately, Someone reaches in, and physically rewires, rewrites, or alters your hardware so that YOU lose the ability to refuse.
You lose the ability to give or withold your consent.
That is what ‘undermining free will’ really is in this context. You have been coerced to agree.
NOW do you get it? You don’t even get the CHANCE to say ‘this is bullshit, prove it’ or have second thoughts, their will becomes your actions whether you allowed it or not.
You’re defending mental rape, using an appeal to pseudoscience. (get ten psychologists in a room examining the same individual you’re likely to get twelve conflicting diagnoses, ditto for sociologists and ‘social scientists’ examining a group-in both cases, nothing is replicable or falsifiable or even TESTABLE in congruence with the scientific method, ergo, they’re not scientists, they’re Philosophers with a title.)
If your ability to conceptualize ‘no’ is forcibly removed (without your consent) then your consent thereafter becomes MEANINGLESS.
Only you can consent to be manipulated. People do it all the itme, but they consented to allow it. Mind-control powers and mind-altering powers are fictional, though there are mind altering SUBSTANCES, which is why roofies equals Rape.
> ‘consensus’, ‘propaganda’, peer pressure, these all work on consent. YOU consent to ‘go with it’
If that were true, advertising wouldn’t work.
The reason advertising doesn’t work on *everyone* is exactly why that is true.
I think you did a really good job laying out why this bothers so many people. And why the lack of the author addressing it and just sweeping it under the rug with a “Hey, everyone likes to fuck, right?!” is so immersion breaking.
You are aware DaveB hasn’t finished with this, right?
Proof being that he hasn’t switched to somewhere else, like seeing the latest SmugD’s ‘only not illegal because no one knows he is doing it’ bullshit (like bypassing customs to and from Fracture to acquire a few advanced toys to reverse engineer and claim he invented them level of bullshittery)
Excellent points.
In the absence of telepathic powers, torture and threats are the traditional methods of coercion, underlining the gravity of free-will violations. Propaganda and advertising are non-violent, persuasive methods for achieving the same goals, while we have consumer protection laws for people who either failed to or cannot defend themselves against those tactics. The difference between the threat of bad grades and the political indoctrination of schoolchildren is worthy of discussion. And the potential misuse of near-future brain implants calls for caution.
Further, fictional, food for thought (SPOILERS):
The series Babylon 5 assumed psionics allowed a “brain wipe” of the personality to supplant the death penalty.
In X-Men: First Class, Professor Xavier has to be persuaded that the only way to stop a powerful villain is to suppress his ability to think.
In Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, Spock uses a mind meld to interrogate his latest protege, who found hatred of Klingons was logical. Am I the only one who found my hero’s performance of mental rape to be disturbing? I hope not. I suppose the script justified it as a military necessity, but heroic it was not. And Kirk ordered it.
Fun Fact: To those who don’t know, torture just doesn’t work. Not short term torture, not long term torture. The only thing it’s good for is causing pain. That’s it. You won’t get good intel out of it, you won’t be able to alter behavior in a way that’s productive or controlled. All you can do is hurt them. There have been more studies done on this then is honestly reasonable. Hell, even the CIA has plenty of doctrine about how ineffective it is, if some retired agents are to be believed.
Depends what the torture is for.
It does not produce reliable information, however it’s fine for forcing a confession whether somebody is guilty or not
(This includes sleep deprivation and other tactics that police use)
After enough time anybody will do pretty much anything to try and stop the pain, somebody with a strong commitment to a cause might be able to hold out long enough that their information isn’t useful anymore but they still won’t be able to hold out forever
So you might get real information out of the torture or you might get something an innocent person invented to try and stop the pain.
The issue isn’t ‘you might get real information out of the torture or you might get something an innocent person invented to try and stop the pain.’ The issue is found, in every study about the effectiveness of torture, that ‘innocent and guilty parties will both make things up to make the pain stop.’
It’s more accurate to say ‘you might get real information or a fiction from either innocent or guilty people and will never have any reliable way to discern the truth of it until you can verify it first hand anyway, and so often is the information fiction that verifying every story you get is literally less productive then doing a proper investigation.’ I.e. Torture is pointless for information gathering.
You’re not wrong that it depends on what the torture is for.
But a confession is a form of information, and therefore torture still cannot ensure reliability.
For an example of torture accurately producing the desired effect, see Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back. Vader tortures Han Solo to lure Luke to Cloud City. It works, despite Yoda & Obi Wan’s warnings.
There is a catagory of information that is hard to find but fast to verify.
It’s the fundamental requirement for encryption that this is true (And quite a lot of math has failed to prove that it’s true).
Unless it’s verifiable information.
For example, torturing to give up the code to the safe – the victim will know that the pain will only stop if they give the correct number, because if it’s not, they’ll find out when they try it and come back at you. Or asking for the location of the rebel camp – the Empire can drop stormtroopers, and if they don’t find the rebels or at least a recently abandoned camp, they will get back and torture you more asking for the real location.
Agreed. This is why the Enchantment school of magic in D&D is by far the most evil school. Necromancy doesn’t even come close. Mind control and brainwashing are slavery on ultra steroids. Memory wipes and the like are akin to murder- if you wipe someone’s mind, that person is gone. Pop culture treats this subject far too casually.
Though I disagree with the American healthcare part; there are lots of reasons we don’t have universal healthcare, and free agency is only one of them.
In The Dresden Files, ‘jedi mind trick’ stuff is grounds for termination. A lot of untrained sorcerers end up getting killed for doing that stuff, thinking it is harmless and then finding out it is anything but.
But D&D enchantment/charms? They specifically do NOT have lingering mental effects, you snap right back to who you were, aware of what was done to you, and likely very annoyed.
Are they better than physical torture, killing people, manhandling them? (after all, the main use of the spells is to avoid physical conflicts/injuries/wounding).
CAN they be very evil? Yes. IMO, Conjuration/Summoning (let’s just call it ‘bring in the slaves’), Necromancy (making the slaves!), and Enchantment/Charm (Come, be my slaves!) are the Tyrant’s Triad of magic.
Regarding Conjuration/summoning: A standard summoning spell just calls forth a sort-of-real copy. They go ‘poof’ when killed, but can somehow be the same one when re-summoned. They appear to be more simulacrum than real entities as far as I can tell, it’s not like you summon one that was just sitting down to a snack or a creature in its PJs or something.
Longer-term conjuring rituals are more like ‘find me a *blank* that is available’, possibly with negotiations from there depending on the exact ritual.
Necromancy is a weird one. If it wasn’t for the fueling un-life with negative energy and the resulting issues thereof, mindless skeletons are no different than creating constructs. Slave applies to a creature that has a will, skeletons are automatons with an F’ed up power source. Sentient undead is where you cross the line into slavery. Also, that school technically applies to some spells with positive/curative effects.
Enchantment/charm is conditional. In direct battle, I consider domination no different than paralyzation or just trying to kill someone. The sort of pain that Acid and Fire can cause is pretty damn traumatizing. Outside of life-or-death situations, it gets trickier, but using a charm to dominate spell to capture a wanted criminal and walk them to a jail is no more evil than paralyzing them, tying them up, and carrying them there. Context matters.
Yeah, my go-to test is, “Would it be acceptable to use physical force to create this outcome?” If yes, then non-lasting mind-control is acceptable, and in some cases will be preferred.
Lasting mind control, where the target has their mind actually altered in a way that lasts beyond the actual domination, is a much, much more fraught arena. An example of this was Parfait’s ‘offer’ to fix Sydney’s body-image issues. Even though it came from a benevolent impulse, Dabbs stepped in super-fast to put a kibosh on it, because she knows the human reaction to such an intrusion would be extreme.
Regarding the use of mindless corpses, recall that there are places and people who have issues with harvesting or using bodies of the deceased without prior permission. Afterall, the family’s of the deceased you decided to dig up for parts probably have some prwtty strong opinions on how their dearly departed relative shouldn’t have their remains go through the indignity of being sent off to do free manual labor because someone knows how to rig up an animsting force to them.
…yeah, I’ve probably done more thinking on the ethics of reanimating remsins than is healthy. Given, there are people who do agree to be organ donors or otherwise allow their remsins to be used in one manner or another, so it’s not out of the quwstion that one could ethically source their undead workforce, just that it would likely involve alot of paperwork and advance planning.
There’s a lot of ethics problems with any form of automation in societies that don’t have guaranteed work/home/food/healthcare for people. Every job that goes to a factory line is ten+ jobs without. Every job a machine can do can be hundreds of people who don’t get a job. Necromancy can have plenty of mundane ethics issues too, is what I’m saying!
Also enchantment in any D&D game I run is expressly ‘just as bad if not worse’ then Necromancy, depending on how the setting handles Necromancy. Some settings I’ve run have Necromancy as being multiple branches doing something similar but largely labeled the same by people who don’t know better. The shaman priest who uses the bones of his ancestors, animated by their spirits, who serve and consent to protect their bloodline is not the same as the kind binding skeletons with the raw hate of an unhallowed plane that wants to devour all life.
But enchanters? If you’re messing with minds, the risk involved is simply too great to allow very often. A charm lasting ten minutes can still cause a war (along with other way more mundane atrocities). Sure, magic can achieve that in any number of ways, but enchanting is usually just ‘way too easy’ a path for it to work.
Definitely agree on the mundane ethical problems of automations regarding undead labor. Part of the idea of how a society could ethically manage such stems back to the idea of granting consent for such in the first place, via the idea that doing so would hopefully grant compensation in a fair society. An old farmer could enter a contract to be reanimated and continue working the land with the legal bindings that the produce and labor their remains generate still are to be attributed to their farm and family, perhaps minus whatever cost there is incurred for the use of necromancy to enact such. Security workers would enter similar contracts that should they fall in the line of duty, they my be reanimated to fulfill their term, while the revenue they would be owed is forwarded to their next of kin. I’m aware these are likely broad simplifications and I’m all too aware there is potential for abuse as with many legal attempts to moderate things (for example, if criminals can be made to serve out their sentence as undead shoild they expire before serving it, some people in power may try to make prieon sentences ridiculously long for even minor offenses to reap huge workforce benefits).
Enchantment definitely has the issues people mention here, though I worry that people may be overlooking that some Enchantment magic is not all that subtle. Sleep for example, you could certainly agree the loss of free will and such, but we as a society honestly make common use of sedatives for those who have trouble sleeping and in the case of a violent individual you would be hard pressed to say that the spell is somehow less moral and causes more collateral damage than beating the person senseless to neutralize them (Vehemence). Bless and Heroism are also Enchantment spells, and while I am sure that they are more effective with consent, I imagine few people complain about being psychologically bolstered to be more competent or less afraid (come to think of it, that potion Seneca was given had a side-effect of making her super energetic and confrontational. Given the main purpose was healing, but is that change to her personality considered unethical?). Zone of Truth paired with Command (ask the person a question, then Command: Answer) could be seen as pretty harsh as well, but if speaking the truth is harmful, there are likely bigger issues at play in a situation. Though honestly it’s hard to find relatively benign uses for higher level Enchantments (all the previously mentioned ones are level 2 tops), as the Power Words are among those ranks. I guess just TLDR: Obvious Enchantment magic does exist and can provide legitimately beneficial uses to a society, though such tend to be on the lower power side..
I’m thinking of a joke I thought was memorable:
A man gets a gash in his leg, and needs stitches.
He goes to an American doctor, and the doctor says, “Sure, I can do that today. That’ll be $10,000.”
He goes to a British doctor, and the doctor says, “Yes, I can do that. Sign up for an appointment and we’ll see you in six months.”
He goes to a Canadian doctor, and the doctor says, “Here’s the address of the nearest assisted suicide center.”
As it turns out, jokes like those were circulated by American insurance companies. I’m not remotely kidding about that; after the pandemic started, a retired health insurance executive came out and admitted that the entire industry had been LYING about the quality of Canadian healthcare for decades, to safeguard their profits. He was feeling guilty because the death toll from the newest disease was forcing him to come to terms with just how much blood was on his hands.
Oh, that one begs to have names named!
I’ve affordable healthcare , I’m not Bristish nor Canadian , nor American even if I share official langage with the second .
And 5 weeks of paid vacations …
So many lies like this designed to make people settle for crap. The Tories are actively destroying the NHS in order to give the UK America’s worst-in-show industrial medical profit system. Every advanced economy gives better outcomes for less money than the US and medical bankruptcy isn’t a thing. But we are stupid sheep who believe it can never be better
Medicare is very bad about that, My wife and I are on that and are disabled, her breathing meds alone at over $600 a month, and that’s not counting her oxygen, and my diabetic supplies are over $300. Add in the co-pays on my cancer 2 years ago and her needing a hip replaced this year, we’re drowning in debt. What’s worse, they only saved 1/3 of my only kidney, so I’m looking at the costs of dialysis in the near future. It’s highly unlikely any transplant doc will agree to give me one, due to the cancer. “throwing good after bad” is the excuse… Even if one is donated to me…
Mmmm, for humans and it wasn’t always considered “the most sacred thing”. In fact, according to at least a couple major world religions and modern neuroscience things like consciousness, the unitary self, and free will are largely illusory. Not saying I don’t believe they are very important, but the conceptual snapshot we inhabit isn’t even universal for humans
Yeah, but no. Like, three things wrong here.
America is not an individualistic nation, it’s a democracy. The voice of the majority is, at least ideally, what should matter. Your version of America is a version that is basically the very base concept of conservative, someone who believes in personal freedoms above all else and less government intervention. That kind of thinking is a minority in the country (despite political parties suggesting otherwise). It also tends to ignore the fact that there are other political idealogies that also believe in the ability of self destruction and can prove that it’d actually still be cheaper than our current system to MAKE that self destruction everyone’s problem. Know why on that? Because it’s already everyone’s problem. Drug addicts cost the state more money now then it would if the government controlled the health care, for very, very obvious reasons. (If we controlled healthcare, we would control the production and cost of medicine, making them significantly cheaper, for one. There are plenty of others if your curious!)
That leads into point two. A big reason America doesn’t have healthcare is because pharmaceutical companies lobby politicians and bribe them. Plain and simple. Look up dark money if you’re curious! And how the supreme court made it legal and also has been taking bribes for several decades, just not in the form of direct cash! Medicare for all was on the table well over five decades ago and talked about more openly by sitting politicians than it is now. The reason it’s not anymore is because we have a system that allows politicians to accept bribes, full stop. How do I know this?
Because, when not phrased in a trick gotcha question or with politically couched terms, the basic question of ‘would you like to never pay for a medical bill in your life ever again or worry about it’ is an overwhelming amount, anywhere from 70-88% if I recall correctly. So in our ideal America, that should mean that’s the law of the land. The issue is that corrupt politicians on both sides phrase it very poorly intentionally to keep it from ever being considered seriously.
A lot of the current arguments, for instance, are cost. As if we haven’t given so much money to an military industrial complex bloated on its own fat and giving us a third of the value other countries are getting, at best. (Seriously, we bought dozens of new jets that cost billions each that were supposed to replace all current jets. Turns out that in testing they were a jack of all, master of none, and couldn’t replace any of them. But we still had to pay! And that’s just one of the goof ups and not even the largest.) As if we weren’t also literally GIVING money to multi-billion dollar corporations. Do you now how many multimillion or billion dollar corporations not only didn’t pay taxes, but got tax money back, in the last year? The answer isn’t none and that’s a problem, because politicians will pretend that non-millionaire taxes have to go up to pay for medical care for everyone, or that any taxes have to go up at all. If we just cleaned up our corrupt MIC and made it government controlled research and development, instead of third party, we’d be way better off.
In lieu of continuing, I would ask that you instead do a bit more research before openly stating things that are factually incorrect on multiple levels. There’s enough misinformation out there that spreading it, even in ignorance, helps no one and hurts plenty.
It would be an exceptionally good thing if it were possible to preternaturally grab hold of someone’s will and alter it in the way you so fear. If only to prevent such destructive individuals as yourself from ruining life for the rest of us.
I think it’s akin to being kept alive by an IV, but never allowed to eat food.
That’s not actually that unpleasant, actually, since you don’t actually get hungry as long as your blood sugar is being kept up.
I had a bad case of gastroenteritis back in the 90’s, couldn’t even drink water for a week without throwing it back up, just sucked on ice chips, and I was really only hungry the first day.
Of course, I wasn’t stuck in a five star restaurant watching other people eating my favorite meals…
Don’t worry. The threat alone just adds spice to Dabbler’s fantasies.
ha, this 8th frame looks like commentators looking at other commentators who don’t see a problem with this whole aura
I suspect there’s not many commenters at all who think that this isn’t something that should be taken seriously ‘going forward’, just that this particular incident ‘right now’ is more like an ‘accident with collateral damage’ than the “assault” that some people would love to frame it as.
People don’t seem to think about the kind of implications that come from that word, and it seems like they’re willingly disregarding the evidence they saw with their own two eyes and the dozens and dozens of pages of context we have about the succubus condition in order to form a witch hunting mob to burn Parfait on a pyre because she did the equivalent of sneezing and getting the whole building sick.
In the real world there are no “lust auras”, just analogies that can hardly be treated the same.
And Parfait would be human, not a succubus, and probably be charged with sexual assault, but only against Sydney, not the entire building full of people.
At trial, the defense would object that Sydney knew that Parfait was liable to behave that way, yet she still invited her into her private room. I don’t know if she’d be convicted, all I can be sure of in these times is that Parfait would be found guilty if she were a man.
*Does not apply if the man is wealthy, a celebrity, or the victim is poor or a woman of color. Does not apply in heavily conservative districts. Some judges may effectively overturn a conviction by giving the assaulter a slap on the wrist as punishment, even if this violates sentencing guidelines.
I agree that “judge shopping” is a thing that is done.
So is getting the best legal protection that money can buy. Or not.
I have issues with Dabbler, but in this situation, in this circumstance, Parfait is innocent. If anything, I’d put more blame on Syndey for this one. She is aware of how sexualized succubi make everything (Dabbler is a constant reminder of that), so she could have put it together that a girls’ night might naturally involve some girl-on-girl. I think her experiences with Frix, who is experienced with interspecies relationships, gave her a lot of very unearned confidence hanging around with aliens.
Nice to see Dabbler doesn’t get to constantly skate by on “I’m an alien”. Getting really sick of her sex pest stuff getting a pass.
I’d agree, but for Dabbler, if she doesn’t do the “sex pest stuff” she’ll quite simply die. The energy she gets from that is part of her diet, like Vitamin C is for humans, sure we can live for a while without it, but many bad things happen to our bodies without it. Look up “rickets” on sailing ships if you like.
Scurvy, but yes. Rickets is vitamin D deficiency and is more of a problem for children in high-latitude regions than for sailors.
Yes you’re right, but it’s the same concept. But, during one of Dab’s “sexy school teacher” explanations, she did say that succubi doesn’t have to actually gain that energy by interaction, just being close enough to pick up on it from other people doing it.
No, she won’t. She has more than enough people willing to have sex with her to feed her tantric energy without making sexual advances toward people who have explicitly told her no in the past. She’s never sexually assaulted someone that we know of (though I wouldn’t put it past her, I’m sure she’d cover her actions with “I’m an alien”), but I can remember at least a few times she’s sexually harassed Maxima. That’s what being a sex pest is, sexual harassment or assault.
Dabbler has learned that kind of behavure is NOT allowed on earth, she mostly teases anyone that gets into face about it, mainly Max/Sydney. Dabs did fight Max when they first met, and that to a stand still. Dabs loves how much energy she can get from supers, and doesn’t want to be deported, mostly. Max is a potential bottomless pit of energy, Dabs keeps hoping she can chance Max’s mind about it…
So, she’s learned that behaviour isn’t acceptable, but keeps doing it because she is reasonably certain nobody will deport her while she’s still useful and there’s a chance she could get something out of it that she really wants. That doesn’t paint a better picture of her, or make her less of a sex pest.
A “sex pest” is like the guy in the office that keeps hitting on every woman in that office, it’s called sexual harassment. Those guys are not after fun time, it’s just the act of conquest that drives them. In Dabbler’s case, it’s the need to feed, plus she loves to tease Max since she’s “so prude” by Dab’s standards. And she focus on just the people that over-react. It’s more of a gag with her, “tell me how it was!” about them hooking up with Cora, while Hiro and Math just walked away.
I’m just going to quote myself regarding the “she has to feed” bit: “She has more than enough people willing to have sex with her to feed her tantric energy without making sexual advances toward people who have explicitly told her no in the past.”
As for the rest? The only difference between the guy and the office and Dabbler is motivation. Would it be okay for the guy to constantly flirt with every woman in the office, even after being asked to stop, if he thought their reactions were funny? I don’t believe so, and so I don’t let that excuse slide for Dabbler, either.
You are right. Change Parfait’s gender and it will not be so fun lookin.
If they were human, this would be sexual assault with maybe drunkenness (the best human equivalent of the whole lust aura thing I can think of) being taken into account during sentencing. She isn’t human, though. Parfait messed up, and she recognised that and tried to fix it before things went too far, but she’s on an alien (to her) planet and doesn’t have the skills and discipline of an older, more experienced succubus like Dabbler, so her attempt failed as she succumbed.
Does that mean she isn’t going to be punished? I hope not! She messed up! If this situation were, somehow, translated into a contemporary setting it would have to involve the accidental drugging of a lot of people. That isn’t something you just to with just, “Opps, my bad.” Every panel since then she seems (in every panel so far) aware of how bad the situation is, and this is partly Syndey’s fault, so the punishment should be mitigated somewhat. Personally, I’d want to turn it into a teaching moment.
…I am pleased with this outcome.
I take issue with everyone (‘specially Max) accepting that this wasn’t a form of “hard” mind control considering Mr. A seems to insinuate he wouldn’t have slept with someone else if it weren’t for the aura, though. To me, that sounds like mind control/instigating him in a way he wouldn’t normally act. Could that also be compared to being drunk/roofied/under the influence, then? Whatever the case may be, I think it’s safe to say that consent cannot be given under a succubus aura, as the recipient is not in their normal, base line state of mind. I do think Heatwave experiencing it herself is the right way to go, I just don’t like that Max ‘n crew aren’t treating this like they were just gassed by some kind of horny drug strong enough to make them disregard personal relationships.
I’m not saying it’s easy to do, but from personal experience it is absolutely possible to turn advances from others down while under the influence and horny.
This just makes me think someone spiked their water with with a drug that cuts out your normal inhibitions (like spiking a drink with more alcohol), A drug that boosts horniness and libido (like viagra and some experimental drugs for women) and then added a nice dose of oxytocin time released throughout to make it all a positive bonding experience.
As I said last page this smacks strongly of “Brave New World” control through pleasure stimulation and conditioning. And we know how that worked out for that protagonist. If this resolves with very little turmoil I will be disappointed.
Hm, yeah I rescind my contentment on the storyline. I’m trying too hard not to be a whine-butt. That said, too much feels off about the whole thing. Everyone saying they’re fine with it is one thing, but brushing under the rug what the crux of the aura “is” and what it did is wrong. By that I mean unless Dave is intentionally for some reason writing the characters as not fully understanding what happened for some sort of development. (Just trying to cover my bases here.)
When your lifelong tactic is avoidance rather than resistance, it’s a big deal, especially if avoidance always worked until now.
Just speaking towards the non-cheat, not the aura itself.
Telling me I should learn to say no; when leaving the room or being obtuse when a hot, life-ruining train wreck hits on me, when avoidance has worked so far? Unreasonable.
First panel,what did Max mean by “standard regs have to apply going forward”?!?
No fraternisationing
Military fraternisation regs.
Mostly “Don’t sleep with your subordinates.”
This stuff comes up in civilian life as well. I worked for many years at a large state run facility in a small community. We probably employed close to 10% of the town’s population. It was a fairly regular occurrence that someone had to move to a different program or a new supervisory line due to changing relationships. I can sympathize with Max in this regard. On the one hand there were some couples that you would never know they were in a relationship unless you knew them both outside of work and then there were the ones that were chaotic little train wrecks. Policy was that you weren’t supposed to date within your supervisory chain but there were work groups where supervisory lines got blurred. At one point the superintendent had to directly tell a physician that he was not to date any more nurses. He wasn’t in their supervisory chain but it just caused too much chaos. Max and the administration of ARC are in a tough position. They have a relatively small population of high value individuals who also happen to be young and attractive. It’s going to be a management issue on a regular basis even without the occasional influence of a succubus. Max doesn’t really have enough depth in her team to have people resigning commissions for the sake of relationships but she has to maintain some semblance of discipline.
And the obvious solution is to give Hiro the second team already.
Won’t cover polycules fully, but will let couples stay out of each others chains of command.
The US military setup regulations about officers having a relationship with lower rank. In WWII when the WACs (women) and the like were introduced to the military, there was many reasons it was implemented because of the issues caused by bad breakups, overly protective orders, and the fact that some of the brass was ordering those women to have sex, not a good thing. Today an officer would have to decide if that person they were going to do anything (lower ranking) with they would have to resign their commission. SG-1’s O’Neil and Carter are a VERY good example in Sci-Fi. I don’t mean just casual sex, but a long term relationships as well. Plus it is SOP to not assign a couple to the same unit, or family of any kind, During WWII 4 sons, the only children of parents, were assigned on board a ship, and when the ship was sank, all 4 were killed.
The Five Fighting Sullivans! An interesting but tragic story. And a decent rock song by Caroline’s Spine.
There was another song made back in ’45 (I think) but I can’t find it now. It could of been 5 which is just as bad.
For a long time my father was watching the WWII on the History channel, and I seen the part where they talked about it and what was done to prevent that tragedy from happening again.
UCMJ(military law) prohibits officers from “dallying”, or even just hanging out socially, with enlisted personnel. There’s a similar prohibition on fraternization between enlisted in the same chain of command.
Fingers crossed the direction here isn’t “oh, wow, that’s pretty intense, I definitely understand why you cheated on me now”, cuz that’d really put a lot of the consent issues here that were brushed off at odds with itself.
Unless you’re planning to go down the rabbithole where chaos unleashes, anyway, when everyone in the area realize their fundamental ability to consent has been genuinely compromised. It’s the excuse Mr. Amorpheus needs it to be, but it would immediately and obviously contradict the agency of everyone else.
The only happy ending is that Heatwave doesn’t actually mind sharing in the first place, but I vaguely remember her nearly assaulting someone for Harem’s prank in the ambulance way back.
I was trying to get this across but you said it better.
I think Dave wants a consequence free sexy mcguffin along the lines of a magic chinese aphrodisiac without the pitfalls of consent and is waffling trying to will it into being. At the end of the day though unless consent’s given before any such thing changes your state of mind there’s no such thing. Even if all the aura does is get you extremely in the mood, that’s at best like exposing someone to “awesome date experience in a bottle”, which doesn’t really explain why Mr. A just cheated on Heatwave if that’s all the aura is. I’m kinda hoping he just comes clean says he made a mistake and Heatwave forgives/peaceably ends things.
This literally could have all just happened at some party.
No Aura required.
This is just the most morally ambiguous horny situation he could have written.
I’d feel significantly better if they went over the people that were in a room with someone they were attracted to and managed to resist it. So far it’s just people that succumbed. Except maybe Sidney but she had the advantage of seeing the event go off, knowing something was happening, and liking big doggie guys.
Having been really drunk several times and an equally drunk woman I had tried to date decid to use me to cheat on her boyfriend, I know what resisting that can be like. Women get MAD when you turn them down too. Whew.
If the true answer is anyone who cheated is just a cheater and would have cheated anyway, then I’m not sure what the aura actually does.
Don’t forget that DaveB. has cautioned in his blog that negative consequences will happen before this story arc ends.
I think that later on basic training for not only ARC but the entire military will include exposure to a variety of auras, just like they do for tear gas and live fire.
They aren’t planning on doing it to everyone, just let Heatwave experience the same ramped up lust libido that everyone affected did
Again, Morph isn’t expecting her to forgive him, just maybe understand
Since it’s been brought up as a threat, it seems reasonable that ‘Dabbler has to go abstinent’ happens, even if it’s not to the 30 day point.
I can’t remember, but wasn’t there a ‘being in the area where tantric energy being generated’ does help fill up the reserves? That probably won’t help entirely, but that should mean it’s survivable. Dabbler would probably still be miserable at day 29. And likely completely useless for much of anything a bit before that.
I do wonder if Dabbler was originally planning on going the route Maxima ended up blocking here.
So… Considering how Heatwave reacted to Harem… How deep-fried is Jiggs?
Well damn, now I want to see Dabbler fail and have to go the month without :p
The penalty is for doing anything mind controly, not for “failing”.
Yes, so doing something mind controly is her failing :)
God man even when shes right high and mighty maxima is annoying, still its fun to learn more about the typical demon highschool experience.
Her plan was to mind control, which is why she reacted the way she did. I wouldn’t say Maxima was being high and mighty here, she was making sure the one under her command wasn’t being forced into sex.
Hey Dave? I love the comic, but Tourettes doesn’t really have anything to do with funny accents or cussing. It’s a hurtful stereotype, even if you aren’t directly doing the low hanging fruit of coprolalia. And before anyone wants to come at me for white knighting, I actually have Tourette’s.
What Tourette’s mostly means is a lifetime of carefully managing stress so that your body doesn’t suddenly start repeating gestures or noises in ways that make it impossible to mask, and quite possibly damage job interviews by being obviously neurodivergent. And possibly pain from repetitive motion injuries accrued from tics that you had no choice about engaging in.
I have to say, as someone with ADHD strong enough to screw with his life: both OCD and Tourettes fall under the category of “Oh, but it could be so much worse.”
You have my sympathies. While ADHD doesn’t usually manipulate my actions so directly, I have experienced just a touch of that “watching myself do stuff that I am trying to not do” and it sucks hard.
Don’t forget the part where people find out about the tics and decide its funny. Or worse yet, get all self-righteous and decide to “toughen you up. “For your own good,” obviously.
I was on the fence about this storyline. This comic moved me explicitly into the uncomfortable category. If this is something that Amorphous (and Jiggawatt?) would never do outside of the effects of the lust aura because it would hurt Heatwave, then that puts the lust aura firmly into the category of unethical to do without consent.
Alternate interpretation:
Heatwave is so possessive because Mr A. has weak self-control in general.
So maybe this is something he would do on his own normally?
By that same logic, Jiggawatt has the same weak self control, so does Seneca since she decided to sleep with a woman without being attracted to them before, so does Hero, he was attempting to have a relationship with Max and now she knows he will sleep with other people while trying to date her.
By your logic, that the two of them are lying when they say, on this page, that they wouldn’t cheat on there friend and make her mad, then every one effected could be lying about wanting to or not wanting to have sex.
> Jiggawatt has the same weak self control
And?
> so does Seneca since she decided to sleep with a woman without being attracted to them before
Discovering something about yourself != not having the thing before.
Again, all the Lust Aura did was ramp up the libido and remove inhibitions, it did not mind control people into doing something they wouldn’t
Well, obviously it is something they wouldn’t normally do, but it’s not something they didn’t want to do
Those who cheated simply have to face the consequences of their actions, and Morph (and Jiggs) aren’t going to hide from it, he (they?) just want Heatwave to understand what the Aura made them feel
Mr. Amorphous: It’s just I did actually cheat on her.
Mr. Amorphous: And it’s not like I regret what we did? I mean, well, I do, but not because… but… only because…
This is a man who wants to feel regret for what he just did but can’t because, if the aura works like the spell Dabbler used he is being compelled to not feel that. Look at that second line he is asking a question about if he feels regret it’s not a statement, he is fighting the control that is forcing him to come up with acceptance for something he didn’t want.
And the answer they come up with is, we should use this spell that compromised his wish to not cheat on his girlfriend, on that same girlfriend. So 46 wrongs make a right?
Mr. A’s second line is him trying not to insult Jiggawatt.
He regrets sleeping with her, because it means he cheated on Brooke.
But he doesn’t want to imply that what happened was unpleasant in any way.
Mr A /could/ have just asked no one mention that Brooke was cuckholded by him and their mutual friend, but he’s willing to own that he literally fucked up.
Exposing Heatwave to the aura is an attempt at kindness as much as damage control, to put the betrayal by her friends in context — they were weak against something that is incomparable unless she too has experienced it rather than just weak against normal human horniness — not to make her bang someone so she can’t complain about what happened.
An effect that interferes with your self control is unquestionably unethical when done without consent. People have desires they don’t act on ALL THE TIME. The “Oh it’s fine that I roofied these two into having sex because on some level they wanted to do it” argument not only doesn’t hold water, it CAN’T. “Oh it’s fine because they were magicked to feel fine about it afterwards even though they absolutely never would have chosen to do it on their own.”
Hell no.
Which is why they are only going to do it IF Heatwave consents
I’m currently playing a cleric of justice in a DnD game. “Bestow Curse: Honesty Tourettes” just made my list.
how about just : Bestow Curse: Lucky Duck:
whenever the player rolls a nat 17 or above, their character becomes more of a duck, nat 4 and down, less of a duck. (Nat 1, instant fowl up) *giggles*
You know, this raises (to me) a question. Dabbler takes a lot of guff from Max, to stay in a position that doesn’t really seem to suit her nature. Why? She could just as easily work for the Twillight council, or Deus if she wanted to stay on Earth, or take off with her hot blue girlfriend if she didn’t. Never minding her own ability to planeshift. So what incentivizes her to stay in ARC?
Dabbles likes being at a conflux tech & magic, thinks supers are fascinating both academically & nutritionally, and is essentially a rogue adventurer. Her hanging around makes perfect sense.
The better question is, “what brought her herein the first place?”
I’d have trouble digging up an episode to document it, but my recollection is that she wants to have kids with Max, (Succubus reproduction being kind of complicated.) which is a pretty strong motive for putting up with guff.
Again, maybe I’m paranoid but my “BS explanation sense” is tingling.
Is Heatwave, IE an outside party, going to be the “in a few comics” and we’re going to be shown through her that everything totally wasn’t what it looked like?
My money is on “in a few comics” is over now, that Dave’s going to clap the dust off his hands, think “there, that’s resolved” and move on to the next plot point.
He was obviously taken by surprise by the reaction to this, misjudged the depth of it at first with his “pearl-clutching” jibe, and probably doesn’t really have a way to fix it.
I’m also curious how the “the aura doesn’t make you do things you don’t want to do” crowd explains Jiggawatt and Mr. Amorphous. So, he wanted to cheat?
> So, he wanted to cheat?
Do you know the normal, here-in-reality rate of cheating husbands?
A lot of people want to have consequence-free sex with people they find attractive. What holds them back is the realization that there are actually consequences. The lust aura appears to have inhibited their ability to consider those long-term consequences, while amplifying their short-term desires.
*sigh* nope, Heatwave didn’t even get there before it was handwaved away.
Personally don’t see how difficult it would be to explain to Heatwave what happened, and to let her experience the Aura herself (either along or with Morph)
And if she says ‘No’, Dabbles will leave it be: she is big on pushing buttons, but she is even bigger on getting full consent (asking if they are sure is not violating consent or manipulating or any other bullshit)
The hell are you talking about?
She care about consent to outright sex but otherwise she doesn’t give a damn and considers us weird repressed prudes.
How are you going to get her permission to whammy her? You are talking to one of the most intelligent, if distractable, people on the planet. When it comes to out-smarting one of the more dim bulbs on the team, it should work out fine.
I made this point about Heatwave last comic, She’s both beautiful and powerful, but not the brightest bulb. Read https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-91-firecat-v-multicat/ and the following page to understand why he’s asking this, I’d hate to see the level of damage a fight between her and Jiggawatt would cause. Plus, the fact it would end those two love ladies friendship, letting Brook feel the aura, I’m sure it will convince her.
Ok, mostly…
It’s so strange to me that people are reading this as confirmation of mind control or inhibitions editing. It still feels like it reads as “makes the target super horny” and any inhibitions are just overcome because of how horny they got, but it didn’t make them do anything they wouldn’t do if they naturally got this horny.
To me, this just reads as Mr. A was just a big horny day away from cheating with Jiggawatt, not that it made him do something he wouldn’t do.
So tell me how horny would you need to be to grope someone at work?
How horny would you need to be to ignore the possibility of being arrested and getting people killed by leaving your station? (The person in the security booth)
How horny would you need to be to take your clothes off at work, and then, after being told by the person in front of you they weren’t interested, you then removed their clothes and had sex with them? (Jaberwokky assaulted Math)
Now if we accept that people can be clinically depressed and that causes them to react in ways they would not if their emotions were not driving their actions, being clinically horny would affect their ability to make rational decisions in the same way. And anyone who could force that effect on anyone else would at the least have Emotion control and the ability to stop people from making unbiased decisions
> So tell me how horny would you need to be to grope someone at work?
How to tell us you’re a man without…
> you then removed their clothes and had sex with them?
Yes, people get raped in office environments.
>Jaberwokky assaulted Math
Ummm… It’s been pretty much established in this particular post-haze debrief, that the ones not needing, nor actually noticing, the Lust Aura were Math and Jabberwocky…
Very much mutual, even if their foreplay tends to be a tad… Rough… for your tastes, it seems.
If you can’t even pick up on that bit of Captain Obvious, how much else did you misinterpret in your …argumentation..?
Please see my response to Lippoe below.
>So tell me how horny would you need to be to grope someone at work?
Someone at random? Or just someone at all? As far as I can tell I could never get so horny that I would force myself on anyone, but I’m also 100% confident I could become so horny that if there was a willing partner I’d fool arounda t work.
>How horny would you need to be to take your clothes off at work, and then, after being told by the person in front of you they weren’t interested, you then removed their clothes and had sex with them? (Jaberwokky assaulted Math)
I’m not actually sure Jaber did assault anyone in that scene but we have really different reads on that if you read it that way. I’d also never cross that line but that doesn’t mean there are lines I would never cross if I was 100% not horny that I would if I was extremely horny. If I wasn’t horny I wouldn’t do almost ANYTHING sexual under almost any circumstances, I’m not in the mood. The idea of licking someone makes me want to gag when I’m not horny. When I am horny, suddenly it’s in my top 3 things I want to do. Just because I wouldn’t force myself on someone doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t make decisions I otherwise wouldn’t make if I was turned off.
I’m even honest enough to say that I can easily see a combination of circumstances in which horny would absolutely be the tipping factor on me cheating on a partner. I think it’d have to be exceptional and there’d ALSO have to be other issues, but I would be absolutely lying if I didn’t say I could make a decision I’d regret if I was horny.
Different people have different beliefs about human nature, but they generally assume that other people share their beliefs. We’re seeing those differences play out in the comments.
Some people believe that no matter how horny they got, it wouldn’t cause them to have sex with someone they otherwise wouldn’t, so they assume the lust aura must do something else as well. Other people see it as you’ve described it.
Basically depends on where you see relationships and sexual behavior sitting in your mental model.
>Some people believe that no matter how horny they got, it wouldn’t cause them to have sex with someone they otherwise wouldn’t, so they assume the lust aura must do something else as well. Other people see it as you’ve described it.
The really interesting thing to me is that I wouldn’t have sex with anyone if I wasn’t horny. If I’m not in the mood for sex, I’m not in the mood. Being horny is a requirement for the list of people I want to have sex with to be more than no one. It’s a strange line for me since it’s so obviously a part of my own experience of life. Even though I’m almost always horny and thus there’s almost always someone I’d be willing to have sex with, I can also feel, in real time sometimes, how the list of people I’d be okay with shifts the hornier or the less horny I get. The list of actions I’m willing to take to try and get laid shifting with how horny I am. When I’m in the middle of gaming, the idea of licking a person or paying money for a super boost on tinder sound like horrible ideas. When I’m horny both sound AMAZING.
Exactly. Your own experience is so obvious and integral to you that you have a hard time understanding someone else’s, and they feel the same about yours. For some other people, that list doesn’t really change, and how horny they are only affects how much effort they will put into making it happen, or how receptive they will be to someone on that list trying to make it happen.
Good lord, Maxima’s face in the last two panels is just perfect. That’s a face that would make anyone comply from the sheer force of will, determination, and “F around and Find Out” energy.
What about all the video footage from security, Arc light, and Arc dark?
Imagine turnover.
“Hmmm video not reviewed last night.,.welp let me get a coffee first.”
Ten minutes later, coffee spews and shorts a monitor….
“How am I supposed to write this up?”
*Rolls eyes* Okay that last beat was funny, but I’m still more than ready to put this storyline in the past tense.
Wait, if the Lust Aura doesn’t make you do anything you don’t want to then what’s the point of putting Heatwave under it?
Mr. Amorphous would have cheated all on his own anyways. No need to make Heatwave “understand” that he can’t be trusted to be horny and within the vicinity of other women.
Sometimes I want to punch someone in the face, but I don’t because I have self control. A person can look at another person and think “Wow I’d love to get with her/him” but they don’t because they have self control. Just because someone wants to do something doesn’t mean they would actually do it anyway. The lust aura overrides self control.
Cheaters tend to reach for excuses.
Is that why they say that rape isn’t really about the sex?
No, that’s completely unrelated.
The whole point of it not being mind-control is that it *doesn’t* override self-control. Because the ability to control and limit your actions in spite of your desires is a p fundamental part of who you are.
If it does and makes you do things you normally wouldn’t, then this whole situation is fucked.
Because then Mr. Amorphous has legit grounds to just say “Yeah, I was mind-controlled into cheating on you.”
We are generally aware that self-control is limited. We realize that drugs like alcohol inhibit self-control to below what is usually expected. We know that people will do anything to avoid strong enough pain.
Artificially induced strong enough urges can absolutely be expected to override self-control. And if that happens, that’s mind control, or at least mind-influencing.
Amorphous normally wouldn’t cheat on Heatwave. Arianna normally wouldn’t booty call from work.
Heatwave’s reaction to the aura, if she knowingly consents to be subjected to it, would reveal more about it. Mr. A’s betting that she’ll respond that it would be difficult or impossible to resist, and that she’ll forgive him for cheating on her while under the effects of it. This outcome looks better for him, but worse for “lust aura isn’t mind control”. However, if she feels that she can resist it, then it suggests that Mr. A simply has low self-control, which looks worse for him, but better for “lust aura isn’t mind control”.
I think DaveB’s trying to thread a needle here, and it’s not going to work for very many people, because everyone has different ideas about mental influences and integrity and what they would and wouldn’t do in various circumstances.
I will say that people tend to internalize their own successes, externalize their own failures — and more importantly, reverse that for other people. When people succeed, they take credit for it, but when they fail, they often blame outside circumstances. But when other people fail, they were at fault, and when they succeed, it’s just that they got lucky.
If someone succumbs to mental influence, is it because the effect was strong, or because the person was weak? If different people have different thresholds, who’s to blame for the failures?
This is why most people, me included, were really going out on a limb by defending what Dabbler usually does as NOT mind control.
In every scene before this, it was just people finding her really attractive or being lightly entranced by some hypno-boobs that were 90% played for laughs or using temporary Charm Person in the middle of combat.
But played more seriously, any instance of someone reaching into your mind to supplant your emotions/thoughts with what they want is a sub-version of your will, even if “light”.
The only difference was before that it only extended so far as getting a boner or some blushing; not exactly overpowering sensations.
And you can argue the tactical usefulness of such abilities in combat but now the story has really stepped in it with this event cuz it went so much farther *and* tried to portray it as a light-hearted thing in a decidedly not necessary situation.
Yeah, this isn’t so much threading the needle as using quantum mechanics to have the thread be in two utterly unrelated spaces simultaneously.
Honestly, I think DaveB’s biggest weakness as a writer is that he doesn’t do a great job of writing opposing points of view to his own, whatever they may be. Now, I’ll be fair–this may be one of the most difficult parts of writing a balanced narrative. Getting into the mindset of someone who disagrees with you vehemently, while still being portrayed as rational in their views, is difficult. But it becomes very obvious when some of these discussions come up.
(A non-sex-related example: I’ve known many journalists. In any press conference ( https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-758-dabblers-non-terrestrial-origin-revealed/ ) where someone gave the response “Governments keep secrets, get over it”, I can bloody well guarantee that not a single reporter would’ve responded with, “Fair point”. Instead, headlines the next day should’ve been along the lines of, “ARCHON spokesalien justifies the Pentagon Papers, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Tuskegee Malaria Experiments, among others”. And that’s on the sane side of the news. The conspiracy theorists would’ve taken that as proof-positive that aliens in skinsuits actually are in charge of the government. But, because Dave wanted to just glide over the whole government conspiracy angle, a one-liner from Dabbler gets to win the day.)
I think that’s actually something he tries to do, but is limited by his own perspective. The different characters are supposed to have different viewpoints, but they all come from his mind. We can only imagine so much, and it’s going to depend on our exposure to different viewpoints. Most people live in little bubbles.
I don’t read the comic expecting it to reflect reality, or to agree with everything in it. I don’t argue in the comments expecting to convince anyone of anything. I’m just hoping to observe how other people’s minds work, to get a window into their world. Sometimes it’s educational, and sometimes it’s very, very exasperating.
Yeah, that’s another example, but I wanted a non-sex-related one specifically. Max in that scene basically misses a very key element–namely, that ‘whore’ in English has a connotation not only of servitude, but also of objectification in a very literal sense, in which the woman’s pleasure in the act is generally considered unnecessary at best, and an actual impediment at worst.
All Max needs to do to win that conversation retroactively is take Dabbler to a brothel, with the requirement that she keep her lust aura as chained in as possible. Dabbs tries to ‘feed’ on what should be a cornucopia, only to find that the women are the equivalent of wax fruit, and the guys… well, yeah, there’s lust there, but there’s also a lot of emotions that’d be more to Vehemence’s taste.
I linked that page not for the comic page itself, but for the author blurb below, where he talks about trying to write different perspectives. I think there’s at least one other where he talks about Sydney’s perspective, and how it relates to his own.
Any character, even when they’re not acting as an author’s mouthpiece, is going to reflect the author’s knowledge and understanding of a perspective. Even if it’s a perspective they oppose, their presentation of it is still going to be limited to their own beliefs and understanding of that perspective. Some people just have a broader variety to draw upon.
> Dabbs tries to ‘feed’ on what should be a cornucopia, only to find that the women are the equivalent of wax fruit
And that would probably get Dabs really upset. Because I bet you that where she’s from, that absolutely wouldn’t be the case.
He’s not expecting her to forgive, he just wants her to understand
“Forgive” is pretty vague, but regardless, understanding certainly helps with forgiveness. I think he’s certainly hoping for at least “not get melted into a puddle”.
What part the explanation requires her to feel the aura herself to get the explanation?
The aura got him horn and so he cheated on her.
Maxima… it’s only fair if you’ll be the one to recharge Dabbler if you’re going to No Nut November her. :P
Then Dabbles is going to make sure she screws up and lose the bet, because she has been trying to get Maxi to sleep with her for months!
Well, considering the penalty Max is going to give if Dabbler effs it up (in a manner of speaking) then I think it’s safe to say that she’s going to go to some pretty great lengths to handle it “by the (text) book.”
I am growing increasingly uncomfortable about this storyline. Rapidly approaching the “I’m going to stop reading until this arc is finished and then pretend it never happened” level.
And to think, No Nut November is almost upon us. That does beg the question, do Succubus become weaker during NNN and since we’re almost halfway through the October would Dabbler’s abstinence extend (Heh!) through November if she doesn’t keep her end of the bargain l?
> do Succubus become weaker during NNN
No, because NNN is all about edging, not abstinence.
Parfait doesn’t look too good. Is she tired out from overexerting herself?
I keep thinking there is a lingering effect of the aura, because everyone is just too happy with what happened. I would have waited until everyone went home, sleep alone, etc, before doing the meeting.
I think we need to know something more about Parfait’s aura. Sydney was able to say no and realize what she was doing was not something she would normally want. She was super horny but she could still think. I bet the same is valid to the others, so it was not complete mind-rape. They COULD have stopped themselves if they really wanted it.
Good question. IMO, Parfait is now projecting regret & embarrassment about her rookie mistake in front of her elder sister. (And horror at how monstrous Maxima can be!) I think so many other commenters are underestimating just how powerful the uncontrolled lust aura of an inexperienced, newly-collared succubus could be in the Grrl-verse. Comparing that aura to mind control is a weak analogy. Pick your favorite wild animal species that has an annual mating season, something human beings don’t experience. Then let that lust aura loose, and suddenly it is MATING SEASON for every sexually reproducing species within a 1km. radius. The only advantage humans have is they can ponder their urges while feeling them. Spring it on people scattered in one’s, two’s, and three’s and they won’t notice that everyone in the building has been affected. Humans are far too self-centered for that.
Sydney recognized the problem quickly because she was right there at ground zero, talking to Parfait about succubus pleasure. Maxima wasn’t far behind because Dabbler simply told her what was up. Math & Jabberwocky had been building up to this for a while, and hardly needed the aura to push them over the edge. Anal-retentive Arianna was alone in her office and immediately texted her significant other. Everyone else did what seemed to make sense at the time, but no-one but Maxima, Sydney, and Dabbler knew they were under an influence far more powerful than simple alcohol-lowered inhibitions. Their military and ARCHON training never prepared them to recognize an auric influence of lust or any other type.
I’m surprised that Mr. Amorphous isnt a little more upset about all this, but I’m too distracted by DaveB saying ” AY! Pasta fazool! Amore!” because it’s just hilarious in my head. I’m imagining DaveB with a moustache like when Peter Griffin grew a moustache and figured that means he can speak italian now. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4fw3umsnwY
Yeah, this and all the conversations it’s sparking are a pretty good example of why this consent business really should have been steered clear of the whole time. This is a lighthearted, fun comic and there’s really no way to do consent ethics in a lighthearted, fun way even though it’s abundantly clear Dave is doing his damndest. The thing is, the whole “look, everyone had fun, there’s no hard feelings, nobody got violated and there’s no harm done” vibe is utterly shattered by the fact that actually there was some harm done that would have never been done without the spell. Now we have this situation where people are trying to repair potential damage to a relationship by showing that they hadn’t made the choice to have sex with each other, that they were influenced by an outside force.
Now people have made and will make the argument that getting people really horny all of a sudden isn’t mind control or a violation of consent. The salient issue here is that if Jiggawatt and Amorphous are telling the truth, the aura made them horny enough to take an action they would never willingly do, which is to harm somebody they both care about. Amorphous is convinced that once Heatwave experiences it, she’ll realize that he was not to blame. But if he was not to blame, then the aura was to blame. If the aura is to blame, the consent issue is ripped wide open again. If Heatwave experiences this and feels like it’s perfectly resistible, that’s basically the best way this can go to not continue to be a clusterfuck but it would of course mean that Amorphous cheated and Jiggawatt went along with it of their own volition. That would of course, be a lot more manageable a drama than “oh man, this alien accidentally *did* date rape all of us and violate our autonomy even though most of us ended up being cool with it”.
TLDR, being super horny is not actually an excuse for cheating. Being supernaturally horny beyond the power to resist is and if Mr. Amorphous is right and it isn’t his fault, the lust aura did violate consent in a major way.
TLDR; some people felt urges yet resisted acting on those urges, while others chose to do things they wanted to do. There doesn’t seem to be anything deeper to see here.
Go back and reread; one person tried to resist the urges and was sexually assaulted, another didn’t know what was happening but attempted to turn down a half naked woman and was sexually assaulted and raped.
Why does everyone seem to ignore this reaction? Math told Jaberwokky no and she striped him. That is rape, penetration never need to occur and he had still been raped, De jure.
There were three women who were, as far as we know, alone in their room and decided to take care of themselves, but the vast majority seem to have been in the style of Jaberwokky and Math, whoever was closest when they became horny became their partner. Even if that partner was not someone they would normally be attracted to, see Seneca and Peggy, Jiggawatt and Amorphous.
If there had not been the scene with Jaberwokky and Math, and one scene with one attractive character looking at another attractive character and deciding to not hook up with them, perhaps with the line “I’ll be in my bunk” to show they are attracted but are choosing to not engage for some reason, you might have a leg to stand on but, as this is presented and the only other example of someone being whammed with something similar to this we were told the spell is specifically designed to prevent regret, everyone in this meeting that was effected by the aura is suspect.
> Math told Jaberwokky no and she striped him.
No. Math told Jabber that getting naked wouldn’t distract him from the fight.
And those two have been fucking already.
> Even if that partner was not someone they would normally be attracted to, see Seneca and Peggy, Jiggawatt and Amorphous.
Seneca being bi and not knowing it is fine. People go 40+ years in denial about this stuff.
As for Mr A. People cheat without magic roofies all the time. And cheaters always reach for the closest excuse after they’re caught.
*No. Math told Jabber that getting naked wouldn’t distract him from the fight.*
Which is him not engaging with her in a sexual way, therefor he is not consenting to her sexual advance, anything she does afterword is with her knowledge he dose not agree to it.
*And those two have been fucking already.*
No the closest they have been is Math suggesting a threesome with Detla, and the girls not joining him, perhaps hiding his clothes. https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-986-smoosh-is-in-the-air/
Jaberwokky has been shown to be chasing Dabbler sense she joined ARC. Which is another reason why they haven’t been fucking already, she is a recent graduate and Math is an officer so regulations would keep them from fucking.
Finally please see my response to Lippoe.
*Seneca being bi and not knowing it is fine. People go 40+ years in denial about this stuff.*
So? I said normaly, you know if she wasn’t being affected by a lust aura designed to overcome their normal desire.
*As for Mr A. People cheat without magic roofies all the time. And cheaters always reach for the closest excuse after they’re caught.*
You can’t have it both ways, he can’t be under Magic Roofies and be a cheater, one requires choice while the other takes your ability to choose away. If he is a cheater then everyone else was able to choose their partner and should be punished based on their decisions to break rules and/or laws, if it’s magic roofies no one can be held accountable for their action because they were being influenced to , in the words of Harem “Wow, I really like having sex! I should definitely have a lot more sex.”
> anything she does afterword is with her knowledge he dose not agree to it.
Consent does not have to be verbal.
> he can’t be under Magic Roofies and be a cheater
Everyone else was perfectly able to control themselves. I’m absolutely comfy with this not being a magic roofie and Mr A being a cheating cheater who cheated.
“Everyone else was perfectly able to control themselves. I’m absolutely comfy with this not being a magic roofie and Mr A being a cheating cheater who cheated.”
I definitely did not read it this way. In fact, I think if that was the case Maxima would not have been holding the meeting. I read at the aura lust removing people’s ability to control. As another poster told me, Sydney and Maxima were able to resist the aura because they knew there was an aura lust involved. But the others, being unaware of that, had no deffense. That is why i am so irritated with everyone in this comic being so cool with that. I mean, I understand professionals supers would think it could be a hazard of their job, but being so happy and cool still seems too suspicious for me. I would expect at least some awkwardness.
Math is a civilian consultant, like Dabbler, not an officer.
Math did not tell Jabberwokky no. Math has, at the slightest inclination, stripped naked in the bushes for Jabberwokky. :)
What Math did was say that he wasn’t going to fall for her showing her boobs to win a spar match like he did when he lost against her in the restaurant rumble. He never said no to sex. Ever.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-1190-looooove-arc/
Math: “Oh no! You’re not etting me with THAT trick again!”
Jabberwokky has sex with Math, tearing off his clothes and her own clothes.
Math: “Oh hey, I was wrong. That TOTALLY worked.”
Please see my response to Lippoe.
Math did not tell Jabberwokky no in any way, shape or form. He thought it was a trick and the moment he realized it wasn’t he gave full and explicit consent.
That’s not what consent is, Consent isn’t, you didn’t tell me no. CONSENT IS, YOU TOLD ME YES.
Jaberwokky did not have Math’s consent when she raped him. After the rape, while he was under the influence of the lust aura he allowed her to continue. But you can’t give consent after the fact.
“CONSENT IS, YOU TOLD ME YES.”
Actually no. That’s not what consent is legally. It doesn’t have to be verbal. There just needs to be evidence of mutual agreement.
Consent can be words OR actions, as long as it creates clear permission. It doesnt need to be the word ‘yes.’ if it’s clear by both parties that they both want to engage in sex. Which both parties did want to where Jabberwokky and Math were involved.
“Jaberwokky did not have Math’s consent when she raped him.”
But she did not rape him. Rape does require an unwilling victim. Just so you understand, the definition of rape (10 US Code sec 920, Art. 120) is ““The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” And, very importantly, the person who was the recipient of the sex (in this case, Math) has to be claiming to be raped. Someone else can’t claim it FOR them except for in cases of statutory rape, since that’s strict liability.
“After the rape, while he was under the influence of the lust aura he allowed her to continue. ”
That’s another thing – Math wasn’t under the influence of the lust aura. At all. He’s just always horny. DaveB even spelled that out in the blurb he wrote. Math’s actions were very much identical to how his actions ALWAYS are, unlike a lot of other people. And apparently he didn’t even notice any sort of difference in his own behavior, unlike most other people at this meeting.
“But you can’t give consent after the fact.”
Actually him consenting after the act is evidence that there was also consent during the act. You’re not able to tell Math that he was raped. Math has to make the claim that he was raped. If he’s not saying he was raped and his actions after the fact are showing that he was consenting during Jabberwokky’s initiation of sex, the implication is that he consented. That’s on top of his actions and statements DURING the sex.
JBW takes off shirt in the middle of sparring.
Math: “Oh no! You’re not getting me with THAT trick again!”
JBW jumps on top of him and tears his clothes off.
Math: “Oh, hey, I was wrong. That totally worked.”
Obviously he was interested in her and was willing to engage. What “totally worked” was her distracting him from the fight with sexuality.
Oh, I was hoping someone would try this excuse. Now I don’t want to be accused of putting words in peoples mouth so please let me know.
ARE YOU SAYING IT’S NOT RAPE IT YOU ENJOY IT?
or
ARE YOU SAYING IT’S NOT RAPE IF YOUR OPPONENT OVERCOMES YOU?
or
ARE YOU SAYING IT’S NOT RAPE IF YOU HAVE TRIED TO HAVE SEX WITH THE PERSON AT ANY TIME IN YOUR PAST?
Please, tell me how saying no, means yes?
Please!
I think I might have to explain to you what consent is.
The legal definition for consent, in particular where an accusation of rape is involved, is a knowing, voluntary, mutual decision to engage in sexual activity. Consent can be words or actions, as long as it creates clear permission. Silence of lack of resistance IN AND OF ITSELF does not demonstrate consent, but other factors, like actions and affirmations after-the-fact do demonstrate consent. Math demonstrated consent by willingly and voluntarily engaging in sexual activity with Jabberwokky (and any other sexy women, including Detla),
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-986-smoosh-is-in-the-air/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-987-dear-pentagramhouse/
and saying that ‘that totally worked.’ as further evidence on TOP of his actions.
“ARE YOU SAYING IT’S NOT RAPE IT YOU ENJOY IT?”
That is not what Lippoe said and you ARE putting words into Lippoe’s mouth.
“ARE YOU SAYING IT’S NOT RAPE IF YOUR OPPONENT OVERCOMES YOU?”
That is not what Lippoe said and you ARE putting words into Lippoe’s mouth.
“ARE YOU SAYING IT’S NOT RAPE IF YOU HAVE TRIED TO HAVE SEX WITH THE PERSON AT ANY TIME IN YOUR PAST?”
That is not what Lippoe said and you ARE putting words into Lippoe’s mouth.
What Lippoe said, quite clearly, is that Math’s actions and words demonstrated willingness and voluntariness. Consent does not have to be a spoken and formalized contract like some colleges have tried to enforce administratively (and fail to be able to enforce legally). Lippoe is literally using the actual definition of consent in a legal situation for rape. Afterwards, it does seem like Math wasn’t even actually affected by the lust aura because, as DaveB described it, ‘he’s always horny.’
So yes, Math consented. The sex between Math and Jabberwokky was voluntary. The sex between Math and Jabberwokky was mutual. The sex between Math and Jabberwokky was knowing, and further shown by Math having a history of WANTING Jabberwokky to have sex with him multiple times in the comic. You can’t even say that he withdrew consent after the fact because even afterwards, he doesnt seem to care or even have noticed there was a lust aura in the building in the first place, and is quite fine with Jabberwokky pairing up with him in the auditorium. The only one who seems to have a problem with it at all is Mr. Amorphous because of how he basically cheated on Heatwave, which is out of character for his normal behavior.
> Mr. Amorphous because of how he basically cheated on Heatwave, which is out of character for his normal behavior.
I’d say we haven’t seen enough of Mr A to know if this is normal behaviour for him.
True but generally we don’t make assumptions that people are cheaters. There’s a presumption of innocence. You assume a person is faithful until there’s some reason to expect they are not, and nothing in their history in the comic in any way leads to the idea that he’s not faithful to her. If anything, his behavior tends to be rather reserved about sex, judging from his past interactions with both Harem and Maxima, when Harem did the prank on Maxima and was demanding dirty talk from Mr. A in the ambulance, and when Maxima quipped ‘Brooke is a lucky girl’ and he refused to comment because he doesnt kiss and tell.
*Consent can be words OR actions, as long as it creates clear permission.*
*Consent can be words or actions, as long as it creates clear permission. Silence of lack of resistance IN AND OF ITSELF does not demonstrate consent,*
*The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.*
You just keep making my case for me. lets break down those six panels.
Panel 1 Jaberwokky slams Math to the floor, It appears that they were sparing beforehand but they could just be passing each other in the hall. However the next panel seems to affirm that they were sparing.
Panel 2 Jabberwokky removes her top, Math responds “Oh no! You’re not getting me with that trick again!” Math has an erection that is pointed out with the indicator lines. His line indicates he is not engaging with her stripping, expecting it to be a combat trick. Therefore he is not giving consent and expects her next action to still be in line with the spar.
Panel 3 Jabberwokky jumps on top of Math. Jaberwokky gives no indication this is a sexual act and we can not see what Math’s reaction is however he would be assuming this is a continuation of their fight. As you said, “lack of resistance IN AND OF ITSELF does not demonstrate consent” therefore we cannot assume he has given consent.
Panel 4 Clothes are removed through ripping and tearing and are thrown into the panel by a tanned hand, by the placement of the thumb and the matching to her skin from earlier panels this is most likely Jabberwokky. This is a violent action and a step up from just removing her clothes so could, if I wanted to be incredibly nitpicky, be seen by Math as her just trying to up the game of embarrassing him to win the spar. But as you and DaveB point out he is incredibly horny so yes he would think of this as a sex act, yet once again we have no indication he did or said anything to give her consent. “lack of resistance IN AND OF ITSELF does not demonstrate consent”
Panel 5 Gutteral Feminine Moan (That covers other, squishier noises)
Math has said nothing, we cannot see him so we have no physical indicator he is a willing participant, up to this point he has not engaged in a sexual act so we cannot assume he has given consent.
*the definition of rape (10 US Code sec 920, Art. 120) is ““The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”*
The only way this is not rape is if those squishier sounds are from her sweat as she rubs him with a body part. But that’s reaching, the Gutteral Feminine Moan is meant to convey penetration, otherwise she would not have needed to remove both of their pants.
Panel 6 Finally we have Math’s second line, “Oh, Hey, I was wrong. That totally worked.” He is acknowledging what just happened. If he had said “You tore my pants” or “You just fucked me” they would have the same effect, an acknowledgement of what just happened. However that line was chosen for the punchline to give the comic a laugh at the end. However acknowledgement of what happened is not consent to what happened, If I tell an arsonist “You lit my house on fire.” while standing on the front lawn with them I am not consenting to my house being burned.
Now we have no idea what happened after the 6th panel so there may have been consensual sex after the rape, and Math may never think he was raped, or if he does may brush it off because everyone was under the effect of the lust aura, but he was raped.
*And, very importantly, the person who was the recipient of the sex (in this case, Math) has to be claiming to be raped. Someone else can’t claim it FOR them except for in cases of statutory rape, since that’s strict liability.*
In order to be charged yes, Math would need to want to press charges for Jaberwokky to be charged with rape. But by the definition in law, which you supplied he was raped.
*Actually him consenting after the act is evidence that there was also consent during the act.*
Bullshit
A man throws a woman into a pool while she screams she doesn’t know how to swim then accepting swimming lessons from him now that she is in the pool did not consent to being thrown in in the first place.
A father calling up his son for stealing the car and demanding the boy be very careful on the drive home because he has never driven on a highway before is not consenting to the theft in the first place.
You can not get retroactive consent.
*and further shown by Math having a history of WANTING Jabberwokky to have sex with him multiple times in the comic.*
Wanting to have sex with someone at an earlier time does not give blanket consent to have sex with them at any later date. Neither does being always horney.
No one is ever just asking to be raped.
*That’s another thing – Math wasn’t under the influence of the lust aura. At all. He’s just always horny.*
*Yes, I know there were already a few comments with the Hulk reference on the page with Math and Jabber getting down, but like, I’m not going to use it too? Yeah, you called it. Some people are asexual, some people are Math. And apparently Jabberwokky. Maybe to a lesser extent. Like all things, it’s a spectrum. If the average person’s sex drive is a 5, Jabber is an 8, Math is around 9.5.*
This isn’t saying he wasn’t affected it is saying his starting sex drive is higher than average and would not notice the change in himself until it is pointed out.
*Succubi can’t really be measured on the human scale. It’s different for them. It’s obviously super high, but it’s also like hunger. They need to eat, and it affects not just their number, but the spectrum itself, and it if gets bad enough, it starts affecting the numbers of people around them. But that brings us back around to discussions of free will.*
A hungry succubus can and does change those numbers, possibly effecting Free Will and if you even can give consent, but those discussions are being held further up the page.
“You just keep making my case for me.”
No, I’m explaining what the legal definition of consent is to show why you’re wrong.
“Panel 1 Jaberwokky slams Math to the floor, It appears that they were sparing beforehand but they could just be passing each other in the hall. However the next panel seems to affirm that they were sparing.”
They were very clearly sparring. They are even in the sparring room. Note the padding on the wall and the mat throughout the floor. That is not a hallway.
“Panel 2 Jabberwokky removes her top, Math responds “Oh no! You’re not getting me with that trick again!”
Yes, this is calling back to the first time they met and fought at the restaurant rumble, when Jabberwokky beat Math in the fight with, as she called it ‘booby style’ – ie, when her top came undone and he got a good look at her breasts, which stunned him long enough for her to knee him in the face and beat him in the fight. He was likely expecting she was trying to do that again in order to win, but he has since inoculated himself from booby style after Maxima ordered him to do nothing but stare at breasts until he wasn’t going to be stunned by them anymore at the after-restaurant fight meeting.
This was NOT a refusal to have sex.
“Math has an erection that is pointed out with the indicator lines.”
If you’re thinking that a guy having an erection after seeing a topless hot woman is rape, then pretty much any guy who’s been on the internet has been raped. :)
“His line indicates he is not engaging with her stripping, expecting it to be a combat trick. Therefore he is not giving consent and expects her next action to still be in line with the spar.”
Again, you are confusing ‘not saying yes’ to ‘saying no.’ Consent is legally not defined as having to say yes. It’s defined as mutual agreement to engage in sex, through words OR actions.
“Panel 3 Jabberwokky jumps on top of Math. Jaberwokky gives no indication this is a sexual act and we can not see what Math’s reaction is however he would be assuming this is a continuation of their fight. ”
Why are you making that assumption? I think once she starts kissing him and rubbing up her naked body against him, he might realize that it’s not a fight anymore and has become foreplay. Math is pretty good at knowing what is and is not fighting. A kumquat would be very good at knowing this was no longer fighting and was now foreplay to sex.
“As you said, “lack of resistance IN AND OF ITSELF does not demonstrate consent” therefore we cannot assume he has given consent.”
I’m finding that you’re neither reading the entirety of my post or the context in which it’s made. Yes, lack of resistance IN AND OF ITSELF does not demonstrate consent. There is more than just a lack of resistance in that comic page though, which adds to the lack of resistance to show it WAS consent – both that he is not verbally objecting at all and, during or right BEFORE the act of sex, he says ‘oh hey that did totally work.’ Which is where the implied consent comes in when taken in context as mutual agreement to engage in sex.
“Math has said nothing, we cannot see him so we have no physical indicator he is a willing participant, up to this point he has not engaged in a sexual act so we cannot assume he has given consent.”
Not sure why you’re saying that his saying nothing means he hasn’t consented when no one is pictured on the panel, and 1-2 panels later he is talking in sentences which show implied verbal consent. Also you have no idea whether those 3 panels are the act of penetration or the foreplay leading up to it, as neither of them are shown on the panel. In fact, none of the people on that page are at the point of ‘penetration’ on the entire page, in case you haven’t noticed.
“The only way this is not rape is if those squishier sounds are from her sweat as she rubs him with a body part. But that’s reaching,”
How do you know that is penetration? And how do you know what Math’s actions are during this in any case, whether it is or is not penetration, since neither of them are shown on the panel? The only thing you can tell is from the last panel, which shows an implied consent verbally by Math.
“otherwise she would not have needed to remove both of their pants.”
Heck, you don’t even know if Math didnt remove his own clothes. He’s very good at doing that extremely quickly, as we’ve seen multiple times in the comic. Also he’s very good at removing people’s bras without them even realizing it. He might be better than Deus at it, but I’m on the fence about that because Deus is usually the best at everything.
“Now we have no idea what happened after the 6th panel so there may have been consensual sex after the rape, and Math may never think he was raped, or if he does may brush it off because everyone was under the effect of the lust aura, but he was raped.”
I seriously am concerne that you don’t understand what rape is, and that you think rape is whenever anyone has sex without a verbal and explicit yes even when both sides agree that it was mutual, as both Jabberwokky and Math are agreeing that it was. As if you know better than the participants in the act.
“In order to be charged yes, Math would need to want to press charges for Jaberwokky to be charged with rape.”
Because, with the exception of statutory rape, there is no rape if the person who was the recipient of sex doesnt say it was rape. If you were able to have the state declare that someone commited non-statutory rape even with no one saying there was rape, then prosecutors would still often try to convict. It’s not the plaintiff that brings forth the criminal case – it’s the state. A criminal case of rape against Math would be ‘State of Texas vs Mathias ‘ – not ‘Jazmine Ng vs Mathias .’ With STATUTORY consent, you don’t need anyone to claim it’s rape or not, because it’s strict liability and the crime is the underage aspect, because when you’re underage you CAN’T give consent legally. That is not the case here.
“But by the definition in law, which you supplied he was raped.”
No. By the definition in law, which I supplied, he was NOT raped. You can’t make that sort of assertion legally without anyone to argue that there was NOT mutual agreement. It heavily favors the presumption of innocence if no one is saying there was rape among the participants.
“> *Actually him consenting after the act is evidence that there was also consent during the act.*
Bullshit”
I’m sorry if you don’t like the law but that is how the law works. It shows that, despite a verbal ‘yes’ being said, there was mutual consent to sex.
“A man throws a woman into a pool while she screams she doesn’t know how to swim then accepting swimming lessons from him now that she is in the pool did not consent to being thrown in in the first place.”
Literally a completely difference scenario that you’re presenting, with a clearer depiction of what’s happening in the scenario than what happened during Math and Jabber’s scenario. Although it’s also not necessarily attempted murder.
“A father calling up his son for stealing the car and demanding the boy be very careful on the drive home because he has never driven on a highway before is not consenting to the theft in the first place.”
How would it be stealing if the father isn’t saying he stole it? Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. In your scenario, the father doesn’t seem to be saying he stole it – just to be careful on the drive home. The only evidence that he stole it is you, as an unreliable narrator, saying he stole it. Also yes, you can give retroactive consent. I’m still not sure why you are thinking you can’t.
If I own a diner, then someone eats there and says he can’t pay the bill and I feel sorry for him, I can say ‘it’s okay, it’s on the house.’ Even though at the time when he ate the meal without intending to pay for it, it could have been theft if I had wanted the money afterwards.
You are making the mistake of thinking that since you usually can’t retroactively WITHDRAW consent after the fact, that you can’t retroactively GIVE consent after the fact. Btw, retroactive consent is legally known a ‘deferred consent’ or ‘retrospective’ consent.’
“You can not get retroactive consent.”
Yes, you can. You usually can’t retroactively WITHDRAW consent after giving it (unless no one heard the consent being given in the first place). But you can definitely give deferred consent. I’m not sure what law you’re pointing to which makes you think otherwise.
“Deferred consent” is defined as informed consent or permission to continue after an action has already started without either informed consent or permission. This actually happens rather frequently in medical situations, btw.
“Wanting to have sex with someone at an earlier time does not give blanket consent to have sex with them at any later date. Neither does being always horney.
No one is ever just asking to be raped.”
You are currently doing to me what you did to Lippoe previously – making a strawman argument of something I did not say. I did not say that Math asked to be raped because of his past behavior. I’m saying that you should not assume that Math did not agree to sex with Jabberwokky since his entire history implies that he is very quick to WANT to have sex with any hot women. Or even sometimes average women. I am pointing to his past behavior to explain the likelihood of mutual agreement, not ‘asking to be raped.’ Since what the main problem you have with the scenario is that you think there’s a lack of mutual agreement, which is required for consent (which would mean it’s not rape). So I’m using his past behavior in combination with EVERYTHING ELSE he’s said and done before and AFTER the scenario.
“This isn’t saying he wasn’t affected it is saying his starting sex drive is higher than average and would not notice the change in himself until it is pointed out.”
Actually this is exactly what it’s saying, and exactly what DaveB was saying. And what the comic has said about the aura (as per Decolette’s statement). It’s a nudge, not control. And with Math, he’s way beyond the nudge as his base state of horniness. And during the lust aura, only two people seemed to be acting ‘immune’ to it – Sydney and Math. Sydney, because she knew what was happening already, and Math because the lust aura is likely bringing other people up to the level of horniness that he already is past. DaveB is implying that Math is the almost complete inverse of asexual in his attitude towards lust. Just like his blurb says below the comic in comic #1194: “That’s my secret. I’m always horny.” Which is referencing Bruce Banner in The Avengers in that he’s actually able to control turning into the Hulk whenever he wants so he doesn’t have to ‘get’ angry to become Hulk. He just always is. Same for Math, except with horniness.
“A hungry succubus can and does change those numbers, possibly effecting Free Will and if you even can give consent, but those discussions are being held further up the page.”
Okay now you’re responding to DaveB, not to my post. And clearly DaveB is saying they’re getting to that.
That. Was. Beautiful.
Glad to have you back.
Thank you. Glad to be back. :)
> Also he’s very good at removing people’s bras without them even realizing it. He might be better than Deus at it, but I’m on the fence about that because Deus is usually the best at everything.
I think Math might be faster, but Deus doesn’t damage the bra?
> Because, with the exception of statutory rape, there is no rape if the person who was the recipient of sex doesnt say it was rape.
I’m actually curious how this interacts with people who have suffered sufficient abuse and gaslighting that they will swear that they weren’t raped, but they also absolutely didn’t consent.
Using the term “mind control” as a shorthand for “slavery, abuse, gaslighting, threats and assorted other real-life means of making someone say/do what you want”: What happens if someone is mind-controlled into saying they weren’t raped? (Note that this is a different question to someone being mind-controlled into having sex they don’t want, which I think is pretty clearly rape)
“I think Math might be faster, but Deus doesn’t damage the bra?”
Not that I can see in the scene with Harem and Deus. She’s just surprised he was able to get it off around her arms with one deft move. The bra doesnt seem to have been damaged though.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-605-telecoitus/
(last panel)
“I’m actually curious how this interacts with people who have suffered sufficient abuse and gaslighting that they will swear that they weren’t raped, but they also absolutely didn’t consent.”
You’ll need to give me more specifics for the scenario you’re describing but, like I mentioned in the definition of consent in cases of rape, it requires a knowing, voluntary, mutual decision to engage in sexual activity. If there is abuse, then it’s not voluntary. If there’s gaslighting, it’s not knowing.
With Math and Jabber, it was both voluntary AND knowing. Even after they find out about the lust aura, they’re acting like it had nothing to do with what they did anyway and Math, in particular, is acting like he didn’t even notice any change from his normal day-to-day horniness and willingness to have sex at a moment’s notice.
“they will swear that they weren’t raped, but they also absolutely didn’t consent.”
If someone is swearing they were not raped then it’s very difficult to then claim they didn’t give consent, except if they are underage. In the case of someone who was abused, they would most likely start with a charge of abuse (assault, battery, etc), and let the victim have psychiatric counseling. If, after the counseling, they claim something like a repressed memory, it’s one of the rare instances in which there might be consent withdrawn, because they were not in a mental state to be CAPABLE of saying no even if they wanted to, which would remove the whole ‘voluntary’ aspect of mutual agreement. Very similar to when there’s a case of statutory rape, where the problem is that the underage party is incapable of GIVING consent even if they want to or actively did give consent. Again, this is not the case with Math and Jabberwokky in this scenario. They were clearly capable of saying no. Take Maxima for example. She felt herself suddenly get horny without even knowing what was actually happening, but did not immediately start making out with Dabbler. And Math did not suddenly start having sex with Jabberwokky. At first he thought it was her trying to use booby style martial arts again, although once all the rubbing and moaning started happening he got the idea that she was not in ‘fighting’ mode anymore. I didn’t mention Sydney here because she actively knew that there was a lust aura happening.
“Using the term “mind control” as a shorthand for “slavery, abuse, gaslighting, threats and assorted other real-life means of making someone say/do what you want”: What happens if someone is mind-controlled into saying they weren’t raped?”
Then there is no voluntary aspect of the agreement, and thus the agreement is not mutual. No mutual agreement = no consent. Which would mean it was rape because the person’s claims that it was not raped was not their accurate memories. Similar to when someone has a repressed memory of sexual abuse. Again, not what happened here.
*No, I’m explaining what the legal definition of consent is to show why you’re wrong.*
*Consent can be words OR actions, as long as it creates clear permission.*
*Consent can be words or actions, as long as it creates clear permission. Silence of lack of resistance IN AND OF ITSELF does not demonstrate consent,*
You have yet to show where Math gave clear permission BEFORE THE ACT!
But lets look at the law, what is required in Texas
Texas Penal Code – PENAL § 22.011. Sexual Assault
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-22-011/
(a) A person commits an offense if :
(1) the person intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person’s consent; or
(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;
Now (A) I don’t think Math was sodomized or had anything inserted in his sexual organ, (B)I don’t think Jaberwokky forced her sexual organ into Math’s mouth but it could be she sat on his face, (C) Ding, Jaberwokky most likely forced Math’s sexual organ to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, herself. This is supported in the fifth panel when we see “Gutteral Feminine Moan (That covers other squishier noises)”
Now as to consent, Texas says
(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:
(And that should say only if, Texas believes consent is implied unless one of these circumstances is proven)
(1) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force, violence, or coercion;
Well there we go first one out of the gate. Now some people may focus on the submit part but instead we will be focusing on participate. So does Jaberwokky use violence to compel Math to participate in the sexual assault, yes in the fourth panel Math’s clothes are removed by tearing, we have no evidence that Math assisted in the removal.
*Heck, you don’t even know if Math didnt remove his own clothes. He’s very good at doing that extremely quickly, as we’ve seen multiple times in the comic. Also he’s very good at removing people’s bras without them even realizing it.*
And at no time in the past when he has removed clothing has Math resorted to ripping them off, his answer for how he removed Jaberwokky’s and Detla’s bras with out them noticing or removing their shirts was “Marital arts, baby” Why would he resort to tearing them off instead of his normal high speed removal
So what do we see in the fourth panel? The sounds of ripping and tearing and only Jaberwokky’s hand as clothes are flying through the air.
Now this comic is being written in their time (mostly) so this all takes place pre 2019 when the current Indecent Assault law was enacted, so if Jaberwokky was charged for forcibly removing someones clothes it would be under the Assault With Physical Contact law
Texas Penal Code – PENAL § 22.01. Assault
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-22-01/
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
You and DaveB both say that Math is always horny, so ripping his clothes off would be provocative, it required physical contact, which does include a persons clothing, and she did it intentionally.
So she just used force on Math *participate by the use of physical force,* now we just need contact or penetration by a sexual organ Panel five directly states “Gutteral Feminine Moan (That covers other squishier noises)” Both the Mouth and Vagina produce their own lubricating liquid and when something moves in a lubricating liquid it will create a squishy noise. Therefore Jaberwokky would need to ignore the sexual organ she just assaulted Math to uncover for her to not be guilty of Sexual Assault. If she was going to “Gutteral Feminine Moan (That covers other squishier noises)” without touching or using his sexual organ why did she need to strip Math of his clothes.
*Also you have no idea whether those 3 panels are the act of penetration or the foreplay leading up to it, as neither of them are shown on the panel. In fact, none of the people on that page are at the point of ‘penetration’ on the entire page, in case you haven’t noticed.*
Yes DaveB decided not to show sexual organs in the comic, that has been his modus operandi for the entire comic so I don’t expect him to suddenly show full penetration just on one page. So what do we have, Panel five says “Gutteral Feminine Moan (That covers other squishier noises)” and that’s all. Could she be pleasuring herself digitally? Maybe . Could she be pleasuring Math with her breasts? Maybe. But the preponderance of the evidence, the previous panel where she ripped his clothes off, leads to the conclusion that she touched his sexual organ, if she touched it with her mouth, anus or sexual organ that is by the legal definition, Sexual Assault.
(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to CONTACT or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;
(1) the actor compels the other person to submit or PARTICIPATE by the use of PHYSICAL FORCE, violence, or coercion;
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should REASONABLY BELIEVE that the other will regard the contact as offensive or PROVOCATIVE.
Emphasis mine.
I will try to be more concise on for the rest of my response.
*Yes, this is calling back to the first time they met… This was NOT a refusal to have sex.*
I understand it was a call back, just like his line at the end of the comic was a response to that line, the three moment making a through line so DaveB could have a joke at the end of the page. But him acknowledging what happened is not consent for the thing to have happened. However that is all moot sense Texas is a implied consent state, and I already showed why she didn’t have consent.
*“Math has an erection that is pointed out with the indicator lines.”
If you’re thinking that a guy having an erection after seeing a topless hot woman is rape, then pretty much any guy who’s been on the internet has been raped. :)*
I pointed out what was in the panel because I didn’t want anyone to say I was ignoring what was there. Your response is an argument in bad faith sense I specifically say in my post when the sexual assault happens, panel 5, and say nothing about seeing a topless woman being rape. But there is a smiley face there so I will just take it as a joke that failed.
*Why are you making that assumption? I think once she starts kissing him and rubbing up her naked body against him, he might realize that it’s not a fight anymore and has become foreplay…*
Why wouldn’t he make that assumption? If someone is fighting you, then they take off their shirt and then continue attacking why would your first thought be, they want to have sex with me. However I went over this in my breakdown of the next panel, yes Math would quickly figure out this has changed from fighting to fourplay. But by then she has used force to remove his clothes so she is one action away from sexual assault
*I’m finding that you’re neither reading the entirety of my post or the context in which it’s made…*
I would hope me responding to your objections would show I have read all of it, and it’s context and find it lacking.
*Not sure why you’re saying that his saying nothing means he hasn’t consented…*
Not sure why you’re saying that his saying nothing means he has consented, like you said we can’t see what is happening out of panel, maybe he is nodding his head, maybe he is shaking his head, maybe he found religion fell through a worm hole and was replaced by a perfect copy that is functionally brain dead. Any of those things “could” be happening but we have no evidence for any of them. But again Texas law makes the argument moot.
*How do you know that is penetration?*
I don’t “know” but the preponderance of the evidence implies that it is. See above for my breakdown.
*Because, with the exception of statutory rape, there is no rape if the person who was the recipient of sex doesnt say it was rape.*
No, there are two types of laws Civil laws which are between two or more citizens and criminal laws which are between the state and a citizen or group.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/criminal-justice/criminal-prosecutions
Under Texas law, the county or district attorney has primary jurisdiction to prosecute most criminal offenses.
If the state through it’s officers found sufficient evidence to warrant a case they can and will prosecute a case despite the wishes of any affected parties. That’s why its called breaking the law, the state sets the laws and all punishments for said violations, and is responsible for the enforcement of such.
*If you were able to have the state declare that someone commited non-statutory rape even with no one saying there was rape, then prosecutors would still often try to convict. It’s not the plaintiff that brings forth the criminal case – it’s the state.*
You even say that yourself.
Now prosecuting a Sexual Assault case with out the assistance of the injured party is almost sure to fail because of the implied consent stance of Texas. But if a prosecutor was given a video tape of those 6 panels showing Jaberwokky assaulting Math as we see it I would be supprised if he didn’t at least open an investagation on the assault.
* A criminal case of rape against Math would be ‘State of Texas vs Mathias ‘ – not ‘Jazmine Ng vs Mathias .’ With STATUTORY consent, you don’t need anyone to claim it’s rape or not, because it’s strict liability and the crime is the underage aspect, because when you’re underage you CAN’T give consent legally. That is not the case here.*
HOW THE HECK DID YOU GET TO A CASE AGAINST MATH?
Now if you are trying to say “State of Texas vs Jazmine Ng” yes that is exactly the case a prosecutor would bring. However again without the assistance of Math the investigation probably wouldn’t actually make it to trial. Not to mention the magical aura involved making everything even worse.
*No. By the definition in law, which I supplied, he was NOT raped. You can’t make that sort of assertion legally without anyone to argue that there was NOT mutual agreement. It heavily favors the presumption of innocence if no one is saying there was rape among the participants.*
Presumption of innocence is to protect you during a trial, there is no requirement of that during an investigation, a good investigator thinks everyone is guilty until they have evidence to the contrary, and may still question any evidence they are given until that is supported by further evidence.
It seems to me, again trying to understand what you have written, you don’t think a law has been broken if there is no conviction? I don’t think that is what you mean but with your statements that unless an affected party clams rape there was no rape, that is the conclusion I have to come to. Tell me if one person rapes and kills another person but there is no one who saw it or knew about it, the police find the body and evidence of rape, they can prove that the person was legally of age but did not have the mental capacity to give consent to sex and then they find the murderer. Who has the legal responsibility to prosecute the murderer with that rape?
*Literally a completely difference scenario that you’re presenting*
Yes, it’s called an example you use one thing to represent a different thing and show the parallels in those things
*Although it’s also not necessarily attempted murder.*
But it is assault, possibly battery if she was injured by the struggle and throw. And you still didn’t answer if she consented to being thrown in the pool.
*How would it be stealing if the father isn’t saying he stole it?*
*“A father calling up his son for stealing the car*
I literally had the father calling him about stealing it. You had to invent some sort of unreliable narrator to claim the scenario, I the author created, was not the scenario I wrote down.
*Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property.*
Was the father able to drive the car while it was in the possession of his son? No, he was deprived of the use of it, Theft. You keep saying what is exactly my point but you aren’t applying what you are saying.
*If I own a diner, then someone eats there and says he can’t pay the bill and I feel sorry for him, I can say ‘it’s okay, it’s on the house.’ Even though at the time when he ate the meal without intending to pay for it, it could have been theft if I had wanted the money afterwards.*
No you are absolving him of his transgression of planning on eating at your business without paying. Unless you are trying to say he lost the ability to pay you after he ordered the food, say some one stole his wallet and he informed you the moment he knew. Otherwise he planed to not pay you from the moment he knew he couldn’t. You feeling sorry for him does not stop the fact that he stole from you without you agreeing to it before hand you were still deprived of both the food he ate and the money you lost. One of those you can choose to not recover but you can’t recover the food after he has eaten it.
That same example using Texas consent law would be anyone can walk in and eat your food without paying unless they violate one of the 12 ways that makes it not consent, such as physically forcing you to cook it for them.
*“You can not get retroactive consent.”
Yes, you can. You usually can’t retroactively WITHDRAW consent after giving it (unless no one heard the consent being given in the first place). But you can definitely give deferred consent. I’m not sure what law you’re pointing to which makes you think otherwise.*
Of course you can withdraw consent, if you and I enter into a contract either of us could withdraw from the same contract at anytime. Now doing so will come with whatever penalties are stipulated in the contract and there may be legal repercussions to whoever withdrew from the contract but you can always withdraw consent. Returning to sex if a couple are having sex and the man tries to put something in his partners butt and she doesn’t want that she could leave the man, even if he has not been satisfied by the previous sex. What world are you living in that a person who was ok with one sexual action is forced to continue the sexual action when they no longer want to because their partner is not completed yet?
*“Deferred consent” is defined as informed consent or permission to continue after an action has already started without either informed consent or permission. This actually happens rather frequently in medical situations, btw.*
In medical conditions that require immediate action to save the persons life, and then they will do the bare minimum to stabilize the person and hold off on all other actions until they can get informed consent. How does that have anything to do with “I stuck your penis in me”
*retrospective’ consent.’*
Again almost every search on this term comes up about medical procedures, most of them are questioning whether they could have gotten consent before hand. Again this seems to be something you do in an emergency. How does that apply to sex?
*You are currently doing to me what you did to Lippoe previously – making a strawman argument of something I did not say.*
*So I’m using his past behavior in combination with EVERYTHING ELSE he’s said and done before and AFTER the scenario.*
Sorry let me say it better, No ones past behavior around people that they find attractive puts them in a position where those same attractive people can Sexually Assault them. And consent to rape cannot be given retroactively. Unless it is a medical emergency.
“You have yet to show where Math gave clear permission BEFORE THE ACT!”
I don’t have to for two reasons:
1) You have to prove guilt, not innocence. Crimes are innocent until proven guilty with it being evidence proving that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It doesn’t have to be before the act. It can be deferred consent, which you still don’t seem to understand for some reason.
3) I actually did show that he gave consent since legal consent is a mutual agreement to have sex, not whatever you are thinking consent is.
“But lets look at the law, what is required in Texas”
Not sure why you’d be doing that since they are in federal jurisdiction in the ARCHON HQ, but even in Texas, I’m going to be able to show why you’re wrong. Reading the rest of your post now.
“So does Jaberwokky use violence to compel Math to participate in the sexual assault,”
Incorrect. There was violence in the foreplay. And it was still mutually agreed upon. It’s why BDSM isn’t illegal in Texas.
“You and DaveB both say that Math is always horny,”
Well I say so because DaveB says so, and DaveB is word of god in the grrlpower universe. So…yes?
“so ripping his clothes off would be provocative,”
He doesn’t seem to regard it as provocative based on his reaction immediately afterwards.
“it required physical contact, which does include a persons clothing, and she did it intentionally.”
Yes, when people engage in sex, they take off their clothes. Sometimes they take off each other’s clothes as well. That is how sex generally works.
“So she just used force on Math *participate by the use of physical force,* now we just need contact or penetration by a sexual organ Panel five directly states “Gutteral Feminine Moan (That covers other squishier noises)””
You’re again ignoring that there is mutual agreement. Consent is an absolute defense against an accusation of rape. Of which no one in the scenario (aside from you, outside of the entire universe they are in) has made an accusation. Certainly not Math.
” Both the Mouth and Vagina produce their own lubricating liquid and when something moves in a lubricating liquid it will create a squishy noise. Therefore Jaberwokky would need to ignore the sexual organ”
I’m trying to figure out if you have a superpower to be capable of seeing what’s happening under the panels which no one else can see to have this much specificity.
“she just assaulted Math to uncover for her to not be guilty of Sexual Assault. If she was going to “Gutteral Feminine Moan (That covers other squishier noises)” without touching or using his sexual organ why did she need to strip Math of his clothes.”
She neither assaulted him nor sexually assaulted him since there was mutual agreement (which is consent, even in Texas).
“Texas Penal Code – PENAL § 22.01. Assault”
Not going to copy what the Texas Penal Code is since people can just read that in your post. Instead I’m going to just say that you are, again, incorrect. There still is mutual agreement to engage in the violence, which is also why boxing isnt something in which the two fighters can charge each other with criminal battery for when there’s a boxing match or UFC match or other martial arts training or competition in Texas.
“I don’t “know” but the preponderance of the evidence implies that it is. See above for my breakdown.”
You know how you say later on in your post that there are two types of laws – criminal and civil? Guess what preponderance of the evidence falls under? Civil. Guess what type of charge rape is? Criminal. The criminal requirement for proof of rape is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ – not ‘preponderance of the evidence.’) Now… I realize that perhaps you’ve watched a lot of Boston Legal and Law & Order … but you’re using the terms incorrectly, and coming to an incorrect conclusion.
“No, there are two types of laws Civil laws which are between two or more citizens and criminal laws which are between the state and a citizen or group.”
I am familiar with the difference between civil laws (torts) and criminal laws (crimes). Torts and Criminal law are taught in the first year of law school. I’m not clear on why you think that the prosecutor is going to be able to charge Jabberwokky with rape if there is no one claiming to be a victim of rape, though. Except you, for some reason.
“If the state through it’s officers found sufficient evidence to warrant a case they can and will prosecute a case despite the wishes of any affected parties. That’s why its called breaking the law, the state sets the laws and all punishments for said violations, and is responsible for the enforcement of such.”
I would very much like to see an example of a case in which the prosecutor brought a case of rape against someone when the other person involved in the sexual contact says very firmly that they were not raped, aside from in a statutory rape case or where the person was unconscious/incapable of refusing to engage during the sexual contact. Ever.
Again, even in the Texas Penal Code, consent still means the same thing – mutual agreement, not a ‘you must agree beforehand verbally or on paper.’ It just means mutual agreement to engage in sex.
“HOW THE HECK DID YOU GET TO A CASE AGAINST MATH?”
Sorry, I meant ‘State of Texas vs. Jazmine Ng.’ Obviously. Calm down.
“Now if you are trying to say “State of Texas vs Jazmine Ng” yes that is exactly the case a prosecutor would bring. However again without the assistance of Math the investigation probably wouldn’t actually make it to trial.”
Because it wasn’t rape. And there’s no way to show that it was rape when no one involved says it was rape.
“Presumption of innocence is to protect you during a trial, there is no requirement of that during an investigation, a good investigator thinks everyone is guilty until they have evidence to the contrary, and may still question any evidence they are given until that is supported by further evidence.”
They can THINK what they want, but they won’t be able to do anything about it in the investigation. Heck, I can THINK you are the infamous thief D.B. Cooper. I can’t charge you with that though. They certainly cant CHARGE him with rape without the charge being immediately thrown out.
“It seems to me, again trying to understand what you have written, you don’t think a law has been broken if there is no conviction?”
That is literally how our system of jurisprudence works. If you are not convicted of a crime, then the law for which you are charged has not been broken in the eyes of the law. I do not even see how Jabberwokky would be charged though in the first place. Because no prosecutor in their right mind would have a reason to think that there was a rape when no one is claiming to be raped and both parties are seeming to agree that the sex was consensual if the prosecutor was to ask either of them.
“Tell me if one person rapes and kills another person but there is no one who saw it or knew about it, the police find the body and evidence of rape, they can prove that the person was legally of age but did not have the mental capacity to give consent to sex and then they find the murderer. Who has the legal responsibility to prosecute the murderer with that rape?”
1) You’re doing the unreliable narrator thing again by starting the scenario with a conclusion of rape (and murder).
2) In the event that a person was murdered, and they would likely find that there was physical evidence of rape on the body – vaginal tearing, semen, signs of a struggle, etc – and without the victim to say that there was consent to the sex, you can’t make a claim of consent as a defense. Whereas with Math, you have someone who is saying there was a mutual agreement to the sex. Also the murder afterwards would be a strong argument that there was no consent.
Now… lets change up the scenario to somehow separate the ‘sex’ and the ‘murder.’ Some rich guy brings a girl back to his place and they have sex consensually. And to help out the police, this part is video-taped. Then afterwards it turns out he’s a psychopath and kills her for whatever reason. Then there was a murder, but no rape. He would be charged with the murder.
So either the murder will prove there was also a rape AND murder because of forensic evidence coupled with an inability to show any sort of mutual agreement, or if there was a way to show mutual agreement there would be ‘just’ the crime of murder.
“Yes, it’s called an example you use one thing to represent a different thing and show the parallels in those things”
Except you have to compare similar fact patterns in different scenarios. You are trying to compare different scenarios with different fact patterns. It’s a comparison of apples and oranges.
“But it is assault, possibly battery if she was injured by the struggle and throw.”
Possibly. Not necessarily.
“And you still didn’t answer if she consented to being thrown in the pool.”
Because it’s a different fact pattern than a rape.
“I literally had the father calling him about stealing it. You had to invent some sort of unreliable narrator to claim the scenario, I the author created, was not the scenario I wrote down”
1) Unreliable narrator is a term. I wasn’t inventing anything. You are the ‘unreliable narrator’ because you are starting with the assumption that a crime was committed and prefacing everything on that, when there’s no actual proof in the fact pattern that a crime was committed.
2) If the son stole the car, why did the father not call the police to say that his son stole the car? Why, after the son returns home, would the father not have the police waiting there to arrest the son? And if you say ‘because he did not want his son to be arrested’ it’s because he’s giving consent after the fact for his son to take the car. Much like in the diner example I mentioned afterwards.
“No you are absolving him of his transgression of planning on eating at your business without paying.”
Okay now you’re just being silly. That’s still retroactive consent if I make the food on the house for him after I find he can’t pay, despite his having had both the mens rea and actus reus to steal the food (by eating without paying).
“Of course you can withdraw consent, if you and I enter into a contract either of us could withdraw from the same contract at anytime.”
Not once the contract is signed and consideration is given (contracts require an offer, acceptance, and consideration). You can’t LEGALLY withdraw from it unless the contract is not valid is some way (void, voidable, illegal, ambiguous terms, unconscionable, etc).
“Now doing so will come with whatever penalties are stipulated in the contract”
Then you are not withdrawing from the terms of the contract – you are still bound by the contract’s terms of breaching the contract. If you don’t abide by the terms of BREACHING the contract, a judge will force you to abide by it.
“and there may be legal repercussions to whoever withdrew from the contract but you can always withdraw consent.”
… why do you think there are legal reprecussions? Because the withdrawal was not legal. You were not able to legally withdraw consent.
“Returning to sex if a couple are having sex and the man tries to put something in his partners butt and she doesn’t want that she could leave the man, even if he has not been satisfied by the previous sex.”
In this scenario, the sex is ongoing and once she says no, the sex needs to stop. If the sex does NOT stop at the point where one of the parties says to stop, THEN there is no consent.
This is different than withdrawing consent retroactively, which you cannot do. Again you are not making good ‘parallel scenarios.’
You cannot have sex, finish, then after sex is completed, because you regret having had sex with the person, have that person charged with rape.
“What world are you living in that a person who was ok with one sexual action is forced to continue the sexual action when they no longer want to because their partner is not completed yet?”
And now you’re engaging in strawman arguments again, since your scenario is not what happened or even similar to what happened with Math and Jabberwokky, or any of the laws that I’ve described to you.
“In medical conditions that require immediate action to save the persons life, and then they will do the bare minimum to stabilize the person and hold off on all other actions until they can get informed consent. How does that have anything to do with “I stuck your penis in me””
You were claiming that there is no such thing as retroactive (the legal term being retrospective or deferred) consent. I was showing you that there is, since I know the law and you seem fuzzy on it.
“Again almost every search on this term comes up about medical procedures, most of them are questioning whether they could have gotten consent before hand. Again this seems to be something you do in an emergency. How does that apply to sex?”
Again I’m proving to you that deferred consent is a real thing. And I’m curious that you feel your hour or so of googling is better than my 3 years of law school, two state bar certifications, and federal certification. :) But I wouldnt use that to say I’m right and you’re wrong, since I don’t want to make an argument from authority. Instead, I’m right and you’re wrong because I’ve shown that deferred consent IS applicable in the law. Not to mention, again, that two people saying there was consent afterwards can be used as proof that there was consent during the act.
I’m seeming to repeat myself now.
“Sorry let me say it better, No ones past behavior around people that they find attractive puts them in a position where those same attractive people can Sexually Assault them.”
You haven’t said it better. You’re still making a strawman argument to an assertion that I never made.
“And consent to rape cannot be given retroactively.”
If consent is shown to exist after the fact, the implication is that there was consent during the sexual act. Also, it’s not consent to rape because there was no rape in the first place. You’re making the conclusion first – putting the cart ahead of the horse as it were.
“Unless it is a medical emergency.”
I’m unaware of any law that says rules of evidence like this are only for medical emergencies.
I know you think that was a nice quip at the end, but it really really wasn’t. :)
(three reasons, not two)
So, for some reason there is no option to reply to your post so I am placing my reply to your October 19, 2023, 10:22 pm post here, I don’t want you to think I am trying to duck the discussion.
*And I’m curious that you feel your hour or so of googling is better than my 3 years of law school, two state bar certifications, and federal certification. :) But I wouldnt use that to say I’m right and you’re wrong, since I don’t want to make an argument from authority.*
So while anyone can claim anything on the internet I do believe you have some legal training. You deny everything, admit to nothing, and do not answer questions posed, like a lawyer would.
* I think once she starts kissing him and rubbing up her naked body against him, he might realize that it’s not a fight anymore and has become foreplay.*
*They were very clearly sparring. They are even in the sparring room. Note the padding on the wall and the mat throughout the floor. That is not a hallway.*
*There was violence in the foreplay. And it was still mutually agreed upon.*
Ok, so do you agree that Math and Jaberwokky went to the public sparing room with the original intent to spar and not have sex? Can we agree on that?
Do you agree that while they were sparing a lust aura was released in the building they were in?
Can you then see that in the first five panels Math gives no visual or spoken agreement that he consents to the sparing match changing into violent sex? Do you agree that is what is shown?
So if the original agreement was sparing there was no preexisting “mutual agreement” to have sex in the sparing room. If the original agreement was to have violent sex in the public sparing room then there was “mutual agreement” and the claim of rape could not be called.
However if the original agreement was to have violent sex in the sparing room, why did DaveB spend six panels focusing on this interaction while he was showing the effects of the lust aura?
Now you are right about something, I should not have used the Texas law.
Jaberwokky is a private in a military force on a military base. So we should be using the Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 120.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:10%20section:920%20edition:prelim)
(a) Rape.-Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by-
(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(1) Sexual act.-The term “sexual act” means-
(A) the penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vulva or anus or mouth;
(B) contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, scrotum, or anus; or
(C) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or penis or anus of another by any part of the body or any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(3) Grievous bodily harm.-The term “grievous bodily harm” means serious bodily injury. It includes fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to internal organs, and other severe bodily injuries. It does not include minor injuries such as a black eye or a bloody nose.
(4) Force.-The term “force” means-
(A) the use of a weapon;
(B) the use of such physical strength or violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person; or
(C) inflicting physical harm sufficient to coerce or compel submission by the victim.
(5) Unlawful force.-The term “unlawful force” means an act of force done without legal justification or excuse.
(7) Consent.-
(A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent. Submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear also does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue does not constitute consent.
(B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious. A person cannot consent while under threat or in fear or under the circumstances described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (b)(1).
(C) All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent.
So lets take these from least like to most likely,
(2) using force causing or LIKELY TO CAUSE death or GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM to ANY PERSON;
I will point out there is no allowance for consent on this charge.
(3) Grievous bodily harm.-The term “grievous bodily harm” means serious bodily injury. It includes fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to internal organs, and other severe bodily injuries. It does not include minor injuries such as a black eye or a bloody nose.
This is the weakest argument, in the first panel Jabberwokky slams Math to the ground using one hand, if that amount of force was used on a person not skilled in taking falls it might be able to break or fracture bones, even among trained professionals full contact sparing like that can result in severe bodily injury.
But none of that appears to have happened to Math and trying to prove how hard some one is fighting without frame by frame measurements would be near impossible, without I don’t know cracks in the concrete, which again we don’t have. This would require a master class lawyer to prove in a court-martal
(1) using UNLAWFUL FORCE against that other person;
(5) Unlawful force.-The term “unlawful force” means an act of FORCE done without legal justification or excuse.
We will come back to the excuse allowance
(4) Force.-The term “force” means-
(A) the use of a weapon;
Again this is a weak argument, supers using their powers might be considered using a weapon, it might be it’s own classification, with out having that worlds laws in front of us it would be hard to say. And we have no proof in those panels that she is using her power so I will say this one is unknowable.
However, someone trained in martial arts can be held to a higher standard in some assault cases and if they are used to cause grievous injuries, hands, fists and teeth can be considered deadly weapons (in that case only), just ask Mike Tyson.
So she could be considered armed, her punch strength on the punch machine could be used to prove she has the ability to cause grevious injuries, which could be used to consider her using a weapon But that’s a lot of coulds,
(B) the use of such physical strength or violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person;
This is the most likely scenario, She has enough strength to slam Math to the mat, OVERCOME, she has enough strength to rip off clothes, INJURE, (the force required to rip cargo pants like Math is wearing would cause injuries if used on a person therefor it is SUFFICIENT to injure, it does not say you have to injure just that you use enough strength that would be sufficient to).
So we have her using enough strength to fulfill two requirements, and this is an “or” so it only need one. That only leaves is the force unlawful
(5) Unlawful force.-The term “unlawful force” means an act of FORCE done without legal justification or EXCUSE.
Consent would be an excuse so lets look at that
(7) Consent.-
(A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the CONDUCT AT ISSUE by a competent person.
So Conduct at issue, Act under dispute, What is happening. So yes you can dispute something after the fact but you are disputing something that already happened which means you need to show at the time there was a freely given agreement
An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent.
So far neither of them have shown a lack of consent, but.
Lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent.
Math’s silence and lack of physical reactions do not mean he is giving consent. With out some sort of freely given agreement consent is not assumed. That could be a word or action but we the audience cannot declare that consent is given until that is seen.
Submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear also does not constitute consent.
So if Jaberwokky used force or a threat of force it does not constitute consent, and she did when she Overcame him and when she showed strength sufficient to Injure him.
A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue does not constitute consent.
So just because they may or may not have been dating or sleeping together does not constitute consent. They could have just come out of their rooms having finished a four hour long BDSM party and they still would need to gain “a freely given agreement” to have sex in the sparing room.
(C) All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent.
Surrounding circumstances like if there was a lust aura effecting the entire base.
*You were claiming that there is no such thing as retroactive (the legal term being retrospective or deferred) consent. I was showing you that there is, since I know the law and you seem fuzzy on it.*
“Since I know the law and you seem fuzzy on it.” That certainly seems to be an argument from authority, weren’t you not going to do that? Hypocrisy aside, I actually would like you to use your knowledge of the law. Please find me one case law, or judge ruling, or something similar where “retrospective or deferred consent” was used in a rape or sexual assault case to dismiss the case or gain a verdict of not guilty or have the prosecutor not prosecute. You know the law, you keep saying it is viable in rape cases so give me somewhere in the law where it is stated that it can be used.
*You were claiming that there is no such thing as retroactive (the legal term being retrospective or deferred) consent.*
This is a strawman argument, I never said there was no such thing, I was speaking about rape cases in which you cannot give retroactive consent. This is like your assertion that I thought getting an erection was rape. Or that anywhere I spoke about one of the actors in a sexual act that has consented claiming rape after the act, I am focused on the requirement to have consent before the act happens. Or your claim that the examples I give you don’t mean the words I wrote down. please engage with the context of the words as well as the individual word itself.
“So, for some reason there is no option to reply to your post ”
Because this thread has gone on longer than it reasonably should. :)
“I don’t want you to think I am trying to duck the discussion.”
Farthest thing from my mind. If anything I’m wishing you’d just accept what the law actually is and the applicable definitions, but it’s still a decent argument to have (mostly).
“So while anyone can claim anything on the internet I do believe you have some legal training. You deny everything, admit to nothing, and do not answer questions posed, like a lawyer would.”
Oberon had actually gone through this a while ago which had me winding up posting a picture of my office with my bar certification and degrees on the wall (with my name blocked out since I don’t want crazy people trying to visit me to beat me up at my office over an internet argument from a webcomic. And yes I’m an honest-to-god real attorney, although most of what I’ve ever posted here is stuff that anyone can learn from first year law school or reading a Barbri study guide. I’d be less impressed by an hour of google searching, though.
“Ok, so do you agree that Math and Jaberwokky went to the public sparing room with the original intent to spar and not have sex? Can we agree on that?”
Yes we can agree on that, although there’s likely always a sexual tension between them.
But yes, we can agree they originally went in there for sparring, not sex. But also they went to the quarry for sparring, not sex, and that didn’t stop Math from removing two bras from two women and getting buck naked in two seconds upon the slightest possibility of sex.
“Do you agree that while they were sparing a lust aura was released in the building they were in?”
Yes, we can agree to that as well, although the question was whether it affected Math or not (probably affected Jabberwokky at least a little, given DaveB’s description of their ‘resting lust levels’ of 8.0 for Jabb and 9.5 for Math.). But yes, I can obviously agree that the building had a lust aura over it.
“Can you then see that in the first five panels Math gives no visual or spoken agreement that he consents to the sparing match changing into violent sex? Do you agree that is what is shown?”
Correct. At that point, he had only given implied consent to violence which anyone who spars would be considered to have given.
“So if the original agreement was sparing there was no preexisting “mutual agreement” to have sex in the sparing room.”
Consent (in the form of non-verbal mutual agreement) can be given during sex as well. Sex isnt something you need to have an oral or written contract for in order to not be rape.
“If the original agreement was to have violent sex in the public sparing room then there was “mutual agreement” and the claim of rape could not be called.”
You have a very limited concept of ‘mutual agreement’ in both time and degree, which does not occur in the law or in life. Again, you do not have to have some sort of contractual agreement for a mutual agreement to engage in sex. Nor does it have to be before sex commences if the other person is also voluntarily engaging in sex. Voluntariness is a key part of the ‘mutual agreement’ aspect for consent during sex as a defense against a charge of rape.
“However if the original agreement was to have violent sex in the sparing room, why did DaveB spend six panels focusing on this interaction while he was showing the effects of the lust aura?”
In order to build up to the joke on the last panel with Math’s statement.. Also I’m not sure how you can claim one minute that DaveB’s intent matters, but then ignore what he outright states in the blurb or the pages afterwards about his intent in the scene. It seems like selective attention on your part and ignoring the parts that you don’t like because it would ruin your argument.
“Now you are right about something, I should not have used the Texas law.”
You should use the federal definitions though. Also I believe that I still argued how it wasn’t rape even under Texas law. as well.
“Jaberwokky is a private in a military force on a military base. So we should be using the Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 120.”
It’s still not going to change that you need to use the federal legal definition of consent.
“(2) using force causing or LIKELY TO CAUSE death or GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM to ANY PERSON;
I will point out there is no allowance for consent on this charge.”
That’s not a charge. That’s an element of the charge. The entire charge does give allowance for consent. You’re reading the law very, very, very wrong if you’re thinking each element is the entire charge. Also, consent is what is known as an affirmative defense. It would not need to be in the definition of rape in the first place. It usually is, but it doesn’t have to be. The definition of consent would come under…. the definition for consent. Where I’ve already given what it is under federal law. Heck, you even give it yourself later on in your post.
“The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person.”
And in the federal definitions, which the Military Code is subject to, that consent definition would mean ‘mutual agreement.’ Math freely agreed to sex during the foreplay, given what he said in the last panel. And the next comic confirms this supposition about Math’s mindset on this event.
“However, someone trained in martial arts can be held to a higher standard in some assault cases and if they are used to cause grievous injuries, hands, fists and teeth can be considered deadly weapons (in that case only), just ask Mike Tyson.”
While, in a tort, a person trained in martial arts can be subject to higher scrutiny, their hands are NOT considered lethal weapons. That’s a legal myth. Training in martial arts can only be used to show undue force, not that they were using deadly weapons. And not in a criminal case, which a charge of rape would be.
“So Conduct at issue, Act under dispute, What is happening. So yes you can dispute something after the fact”
Which Math and Jabbs are doing in the next comic if anyone was to be charging Jabb with rape, which no one is doing in the first place (except for you).
“but you are disputing something that already happened which means you need to show at the time there was a freely given agreement”
Again:
1) The last panel’s statement by Math is an implied consent. The next page reinforces what his mindset during the sex to be consensual, which is why the last panel in the spar page is going to be read as implied consent.
2) Again not sure how you are able to tell what happened on the second and third-to-last panels from MATH’S perspective when he’s not actually seen in the page for either of those panels. All you really have to go on is his statement at the last panel, which is implying that he’s not only not fighting it, he’s consenting to the sex and seems very agreeable to it.
“So far neither of them have shown a lack of consent,”
Glad you at least agree on that part.
“Math’s silence”
Math is not silent.
“and lack of physical reactions”
Math does have physical reactions to it.
“With out some sort of freely given agreement consent is not assumed.”
Again, not how criminal law works. You don’t presume guilt. You presume innocence until proof of guilt can be shown. Which you havent been able to show.
“That could be a word or action but we the audience cannot declare that consent is given until that is seen.”
So…. why are you assuming guilt then if we, the audience, cannot tell one way or the other? The only clue we have as to any of this is Math’s reaction in the last panel and the next page, neither of which help your claim at all.
Again, you are not supposed to presume guilt. If you were a prosecutor, you still have to act on the basis of the jury or judge presuming innocence and it’s your job to try to, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove guilt. Nothing you’ve said does that.
“So if Jaberwokky used force or a threat of force it does not constitute consent, and she did when she Overcame him and when she showed strength sufficient to Injure him.”
The slam isnt sex, and is something Math has consent to by sparring with her – he is well trained and used to sparring with, and fighting in non-spar situations, multiple super-empowered beings, and the only one he has not beaten has been Mathias (and Dabbler but she used magical ‘sticky ai.’ That means he’s even fought people like Hiro and Stalwart in spars and beaten them. And we’ve seen that he’s been able to beat Anvil as well in a spar. So I’m not sure why you’re acting like Jabb slamming Math to the ground would be considered non-consensual because it was possibly able to injure Math (despite it NOT injuring him at all apparently in the very next panel)..
“Surrounding circumstances like if there was a lust aura effecting the entire base.”
Another surrounding circumstance would be if Math was even being affected because he’s always horny and wanting sex.
““Since I know the law and you seem fuzzy on it.” That certainly seems to be an argument from authority, weren’t you not going to do that? Hypocrisy aside,”
It’s not hypocrisy, and now I will explain what an argument from authority means.
An argument from authority fallacy (argumentum ab auctoritate) is a form of argument in that the MERE FACT that a figure holds a certain position is used as evidence that the position itself is correct. I am not doing that. After stating that I do happen to have a law degree, two state bar certiications, and federal certification, I then go into detail about the legal reasons WHY you are wrong. If I just rested on my laurels and said ‘I’m a lawyer, and you’re not so you’re wrong,’ that would be an appeal to authority – trying to get you to agree JUST because I’m an attorney. Instead, I’m writing a rather huge explanation on the legal reasoning on why you are wrong.
No hypocrisy needed.
“Please find me one case law, or judge ruling, or something similar where “retrospective or deferred consent” was used in a rape or sexual assault case to dismiss the case or gain a verdict of not guilty or have the prosecutor not prosecute. ”
If a prosecutor decides to not prosecute, then there would be no judicial ruling because it would not go to court in the first place. It would never even go in front of a judge. That’s sort of the point.
“*You were claiming that there is no such thing as retroactive (the legal term being retrospective or deferred) consent.*
This is a strawman argument, I never said there was no such thing, I was speaking about rape cases in which you cannot give retroactive consent. ”
This sentence of yours is a little dizzying to me, because in the same sentence you say that you never said there was no such thing, then say the thing for which you previously said there was no such thing by removing context from the first time you say there was no such thing, since the entire argument is about deferred consent during sex being a reason that there would not be any charge of rape.
(has been Maxima, not has been Mathias btw)
While I’m not really with Richard and certainly don’t think anybody was raped, I would argue that even if one wanted to be as reductive about the situation as you’re being, you are… just objectively wrong. Like, factually. Nobody who didn’t have knowledge of what was going on resisted the urges. Everybody who was in a room with their preferred sex (or a sex they would discover they could prefer) immediately got busy. Everybody who wasn’t immediately did the most sexual thing they could think of to do, be that watch porn and jill off or hornytext their SO. Sydney was the only person in the entire situation who could have been said to show restraint and she not only had knowledge of the event but she was also being actively… I don’t want to say sexually assaulted but she was actively fighting off the sexual advances of somebody who wasn’t her preferred sex. So she didn’t exactly have any opportunities to act on any horny inclinations anyway. So to say that anybody “resisted acting on those urges” can only possibly be viable if you feel like Gwen was showing a lot of restraint by not rushing out of her room and forcing herself upon the first warm body instead of just jilling off. Which to clarify, I feel would be a very silly take on things.
“did the most sexual thing they could think of to do” is REALLY reaching. I’m sure anyone who put their mind to it could think of something they’d consider more sexual than “visit a website who’s fairly long URL you’ve personally memorized” (or “stayed at home alone with an aide”)… such as searching for something you don’t have memorized, looking to “special” items or entertaining other parties, whether by seeking them out, making herself discoverable or simply *leaving the door open*. Now, some or all of those things, may, in fact not be more sexual to her(some may be downright unappealing), but surely more could be expected of “the most sexual thing she could think of” than something clearly routine. In and of itself, her approach could merely be a clinical approach to the issue that arose.
While the comment could be considered reductive(and yes, I’d say it is), you’re not doing counter-arguments any favors by vastly overselling it. She did what she was comfortable doing while absurdly horny, not went to the extremes.
As for your initial statements though, yes this is clearly an issue deeper than just “it’s this” and DaveB seems to be trying to not “catch 22” this. Hopefully any interaction between Heatwave, Amorphous and Dabber will clarify things in a helpful way and not muddy things or leave disappointment for most of the audience.
I don’t really see your point, here. Or rather, I do but I guess I just don’t understand your perspective. So, my argument was that nobody refrained from doing sexual things which I think you agree with. But you’re taking issue with my statement that they “did the most sexual thing they could think of” because it’s “vastly overselling” and your counterpoints are… why didn’t Gwen search for new porn instead of watching familiar porn? Like, you said other stuff too like she could have left the door open so people could discover her but even that is like… I dunno, the point is that the aura makes you horny. She immediately set up to get herself off because she was affected by, and not resisting the aura. Yes, she could have been more *elaborate* about it as you point out but that’s not necessarily more sexual, it’s just *more*. I think that going to a familiar porn video that gets the job done and then doing the job asap probably is the first thing one thinks of when they get super horny all of a sudden and yes, is the most sexual thing they can think of because they are horny and alone. I feel like your argument is just splitting hairs and arguing unnecessary detail especially since it sorta seems like you agree with me anyway. I dunno, I just don’t see what a discussion of “is it hornier to go to familiar porn or search for new porn” really adds to this conversation. I don’t think we’re really disagreeing on anything really worth the fight, here.
My point was that you were misrepresenting the aura. It makes you horny, yes. It might lower your inhibitions as well. People worry it might alter you mind, perhaps even permanently, a very fair concern, even if I feel it to be an assumption at best.
What the aura doesn’t do(or at least has not been stated or shown to do), is what you described.
Camming isn’t, to my knowledge, difficult or complex to start assuming she has any decent tech– and being in the Archon tech section, I’d be surprised if she didn’t. She also has magic and magic horny-mail is basically established(or magic internet) Getting up an *walking* out her room to look for someone to proposition, either specific or not, is pretty straightforward.
The aura may’ve encouraged very *basic* reactions, but anything “most” it did not.
The reason I brought it up, was because your reply was, in essence, calling someone out for misrepresenting the situation, then doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. I do agree with you objecting to the post, and to your analysis of the pitfalls of the scenario, but it was worth noting that the extreme suggested, it was not.
“don’t want to say sexually assaulted” wtf are you on Sydney is the only one who actually was sexually assaulted
On one hand, I’d say the comic has a lot of tonal whiplash, in terms of sex and violence both. On the other, tone is a matter of perspective. I’m guessing that for the author, this all comfortably fits in the same space in his head. The comic is lighthearted, but he wants to take a hard look at a lot of comic tropes, deconstruct them, subvert them, and play around with them. Sometimes he plays it straight, and tries to justify them.
It’s just a look inside someone else’s head, and that can be uncomfortable. We’re seeing DaveB’s understanding of how sex and relationships work, and for some people it’s going to feel correct, and for other people it’s going to feel very wrong. Everyone intuitively thinks their own feelings and beliefs are universal, and it just isn’t so.
My question,
What about the non-beautiful non-superheroes that are in the same building?
Remember there are three restaurants in the same building as ARC, the 24-7 Luftwaffles, waffle and beerhouse, Cupps, the Hooters like coffee and sandwich shop and Fusion the pan-Asian? spicy food family friendly restaurant. I would have expected all three of them would have been open at 11:45 when all this started and being at the location where Supers work they would be constantly busy.
So what happened down there? Were the Cupps girls all happy that they were suddenly horny and surrounded by drunk horny men all their fathers ages? Was the family of four happy when the LEAGLY OF AGE young waitress climbed under the table and began to give the LEAGLY OF AGE young boy his first hummer in front of his mother? Did the two men in German costumes compare their wienerschnitzels in front of their guests while staying in character?
This is the problem with this aura, it is an attack on civilians but there appears to be no superhero response, and the internet of Grrl Power is going to be just as divided as the comment sections of the last several comics. And when the supers come out and say on TV it’s all ok because it was just sex between people that never would have thought about having sex with each other, they will loose every bit of government funding and have them up on charges in no time.
Look you want to have mind control / dubious consent / just super horny free love between beautiful people that’s fine. Heck those are my search parameters on Pornhub, but right now the supers shouldn’t be locked in a room away from the civilians that have no clue what just happened to them while they were visiting the home of the superheroes. The same home that was attacked just a few days ago.
Fairly sure this was after hours, when all the civilians would have gone home
Either that, or that is where Ari is: the non-super PR lady talking to the non-super staff
So Lufwaffles is specifically said as being a 24 – 7 restaurant similar to IHOP or Waffle House. There is always at least one customer in IHOP. Plus its a bar and those make some of their best money around midnight.
Cupps is a Hooters knock off and Hooters closes at midnight, you would have the last stragglers and the creepy guys that want to talk to the waitress after hours.
Fusion you might be right on, every Asian restaurant in my area I found closes by 11 at the latest, so even the staff should be gone by 11:45.
But even if most of the building is closed it’s still the only place you know you can see Superheroes, you don’t think there would be tons of people around for the chance to catch one of them flying in or heck maybe come eat at the resturant like the Mighty Halo did once?
“So Lufwaffles is specifically said as being a 24 – 7 restaurant similar to IHOP or Waffle House.”
Achtung! You vill be horny!
Aside from Lufwaffles, I’m pretty sure it was so late that no one else would be open. It’s late enough that Anvil was in bed.
Anvil’s clock said 11:47
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-1190-looooove-arc/
Good catch. 11:47pm does mean no other places would be open.
What?
Try reading what I wrote, Cupps is a Hooters knock off, Hooters is open until midnight, so it Twin Peaks a real life Hooters knock off, so it would probably be open as well, and as I said you would have the last customers and the guys that try to talk to the waitress after work.
And I admitted that Fusion would probably have closed at 11 which is the latest I can find Asian restaurants in my area closing
Oh not sure if you get a email about these but I was unable to reply directly to your comment above so I had to reply to mine.
No idea why you’re arguing with me here.
I agreed with you about Luftwaffles.
“Cupps is a Hooters knock off and Hooters closes at midnight, you would have the last stragglers and the creepy guys that want to talk to the waitress after hours.”
You’re making an assumption here that they’re open until midnight just because Hooters is. And sorry that I’m not aware of Hooter’s business hours, but when I googled most places said they were open until 11pm, and a few listings were at 11:30pm.
More importantly, Cupps is not a restaurant, unlike Hooters. Cupps is a coffee shop. It’s unlikely that a coffee shop will be open until midnight.
“and as I said you would have the last customers and the guys that try to talk to the waitress after work.”
If you say so. I’ve never been to Hooters. But I’ve been to coffee shops, which Cupps is, and they’re usually not open past 10pm.
“And I admitted that Fusion would probably have closed at 11 which is the latest I can find Asian restaurants in my area closing”
Okay so I agreed with you here as well
So…. we have two things which I agreed with you on, and one thing which I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about, given the type of business Cupps is. So… not sure what the argument is here.
The civilian and military parts of the building are almost entirely separated(p 116), so it is entirely possible that the defenses are too, and nothing penetrated.
That said, even if all those people were in the building in these made up scenarios(as far as the starting points go), there no evidence that anything involving the aura would force a waiter/tress to throw themself at a guest in front of his/her family. Nothing about what was shown has indicated that such extreme actions would be taken over safer more willing courses (such as going to a secluded space alone to deal with the problem, as Gwen technically did by rendering her room a secluded space). It is entirely possible that nothing happened, or that anything that did was no less private than what happened to the team. That is to say, involving only small mutually interested parties. Most likely, all the public would see is disruption in service, but not the cause, and would be too distracted to care.
That being said, your wording is odd, esp after reading your other comments, so I wanted to address that quickly. There have been no indications that rape was one the table through the aura, nor has anything in any way indicated that the aura… what? Instills fetishes? Exhibitionism and roleplay?
Your suggestions seem… weird, because the examples are so extreme it reads like satirizing people’s actual, quite fair concerns about the events that have occurred in this comic(and might’ve occurred in the background(and how they are being portrayed). I doubt that is your intent, but that is how it carries.
As far as keeping civilians and the team separate? That actually seems like quite the wise idea for several reasons.
Presentation. No one knew how them team was going to react in post. A disjointed mess of a team would have played havoc on public trust and likely stirred panic and overreaction from members of them public.(also, Sydney has a tragic case of foot-in-mouth quite often)
Experience. Max has experience with supers, supernaturals, aliens, and other stuff that does not occur in average daily life(also, mind controllers), and her team has experiences that in broad range, resemble hers, including, in some of their cases, the violence aura. Most civilians have none of the. None of the building blocks, the foundation. They need people understanding of their level of inexperience, or at least people trained to work with them (and it is clear Max is not trained in that).
Privacy. It is pretty clear that the supers in this building aren’t afforded every privacy a civilian might expect to receive in a normal situation, much less an abnormal one. Civilians are likely due greater considerations that way.
They might already have someone assigned to them for talks like this, while the team may not(though it should), due to its experimental nature and recency. All members of the staff are theoretically elite, and as such likely have their own elite handling system. And there is likely one for civilian as well, considering the building was attacked not too long ago.
Legal. If any parties take issue with what happened and wish to engage in some form of response, they likely want to communicate with their representatives. The team likely does not want to engage in any activities that might further jeopardize their ability to defend themselves.
*The civilian and military parts of the building are almost entirely separated(p 116), so it is entirely possible that the defenses are too, and nothing penetrated.*
Maybe? but Max was affected as soon as she walked in so it reaches the ground floor, remember Dabbler doesn’t fly and max wouldn’t want to carry her, it would just encourage her.
*Next paragraph I don’t want to copy to keep the size of this response down*
There is little evidence that people would be forced to perform a sexual act they didn’t want, I will stand by my reading of the Math problem, but there is no evidence that someone would remove themselves from someone they found attractive, even if they would not normally act on that attraction. See Mr. Amorphous and Jiggawat, heck he just asked her to let him go and she didn’t after just saying she doesn’t want Heatwave mad at her.
The Aura affected everyone, anyone in the range would be at least following Gwen and Anvil’s actions up to joining a group of people they find attractive like Peggy, Senca, and Ren. With the amount of people in close proximity I would assume the latter would be more common. Remember this took long enough for the security kiosk to be opaque from the humidity, so these hypothetical civilians would have been surrounded by horny people acting on their desires for several minutes at least.
*Your suggestions seem… weird, because the examples are so extreme it reads like satirizing people’s actual, quite fair concerns about the events that have occurred in this comic*
I will admit I was going for absurdity on the last example, the comic said the people working at Luftwaffles always stay in character and that funny scene popped in my head. That was why I put it last hoping for a bit of absurdity to break the tension from the other two ideas. But the others I could very much see as possibility’s.
Almost no one goes to Hooters for the food, they are there to look at the waitress and imagine. I would assume the same for Cupps, now take those women who will use their assets to get better tips, sometimes through flirting, and surround them with the normal customers a location like that brings, men and usually older men. Now hit them with an aura that makes them “Realy like sex! and I should have lots of more sex.” One of the more adventurous is going to grope someone then others will be emboldened and it goes from there.
Fusion would be in a similar situation, someone from one table is going to wander over and try to join another maybe ask for a kiss or something and it escalates from there. Yes I used an extreme example but I am being told that this aura is so powerful it is making military officers ignore all rules of fraternization, those are drilled into every person on a weekly basis or so.
*As far as keeping civilians and the team separate? That actually seems like quite the wise idea for several reasons.*
I will give you all of those reasons to keep them separate, but there are other heroes ARC has, I think a better set up for this would have been to have those heroes be our view point as they dealt with the attack on the civilians. We could have the same information being coming from people we don’t know and don’t have an invested interest in. It would show ARC responding to the threat, discussing that they need to protect themselves from auras like this and the violence aura, give some less used characters room for growth, heck Heatwave could be there talking to people effected by it and could come to the realization Mr. Amorphous might have done something himself and deciding how she was going to handle it. Instead of the people under the affect of the aura plotting against her.
Thank you for your responce to my post.
Hey, sorry, I know it’s been like a month, but on the off chance that you have notifications on for this comment(I always forget), I wanted to apologize for vanishing after your respond. I’ll spare the sob story, but due to life events, I’ve been unable to spend time on the comic, let alone the comments. It bothers the heck out of me when someone vanishes mid conversation, and bothers me again when *I* do it, and, on the off chance that it did the same to you, I wanted to reply.
Things have evolved quite a bit in the month I was away, and at least some of my thoughts have changed based on later pages, but for the most part I think I can address the replies while both being consistent to my initial direction and allowing for the new information.
I do not expect a reply(I turned notifs on in case), considering it’s been a month, but would’ve felt guilty if I did not respond when you put in effort.
With regards to the ground floor bit. I’d expect that there’d be separate military and civilian entrances (as there are separate elevators, but connections, which Peggy and Halo had to go to to reach the restaurants). Far as I can tell, unless the aura automatically conforms to “containers”(aka the building) by default, there must be *some* shielding (keeping it in, but normally intended to keep it out… oops), otherwise it’s odd that it effected Maxima mere steps in and not sooner or later. It’d just be too… perfect. The way I imagine it, the civilian and super shielding would also be separate, so that someone couldn’t just disable the team from the civilian section. Unfortunately, that’s all speculation.
“There is little evidence that people would be forced to perform a sexual act they didn’t want, I will stand by my reading of the Math problem,”
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure how to read this.
I’m going to start by saying, that I absolutely disagree with the reading of that scene as rape without further evidence otherwise. From what I’ve seen of your comments in other threads(I did not read them all, though I quickly perused the debate with Pander in case anything caught my eye), your arguments seemed to depend on information we aren’t given, information hidden due to the author hiding explicit elements, which means they hold no more water than arguments of the opposite using just that same non-information(unfortunately, the arguments against your claims at least have other pages to indicate that it does not qualify as rape).
That addressed, “little evidence that people would be forced to perform a sexual act they didn’t want” seems to imply you believe that one cannot claim that the aura could make someone do what they don’t want to(I agree, and that has been my stance, with an addendum for varying levels of “want to”, since the start), but also your Math reading implies that Jabber committed rape, which would mean she is wiling, that she *wants* to rape. That seems like quite something to assume about someone without evidence.
“but there is no evidence that someone would remove themselves from someone they found attractive, even if they would not normally act on that attraction. See Mr. Amorphous and Jiggawat, heck he just asked her to let him go and she didn’t after just saying she doesn’t want Heatwave mad at her.”
There is a big difference between removing yourself from a cuddle in a room where no one appears to be judging and your partner isn’t protesting(he’s inquiring if she’ll remove herself before his girlfriend arrives, not actually telling her to get off) and engaging in sexual activity around(and/or with) people you likely are not interested in having involved with your sex life in any way. Massive.
“The Aura affected everyone, anyone in the range would be at least following Gwen and Anvil’s actions up to joining a group of people they find attractive like Peggy, Senca, and Ren.”
We don’t know if they were already together or not, we don’t know if they started in private or were in public and went “hey, let’s go somewhere private”, we don’t know if they called each other up from their private rooms… What we *do* know is that Gwen verified her privacy, indicating that privacy was still a concern to whom it mattered. Even if “everyone” would be “joining a group(or individual, since, you know, it doesn’t override your preferences) of people they find attractive(what about those who aren’t attractive/attracted to others in the area?)”, they’d need spaces they find comfortable as well(e.g. not with family, not in public, not on (security)camera, not so dingy closet if they dislike that…).
“With the amount of people in close proximity I would assume the latter would be more common. Remember this took long enough for the security kiosk to be opaque from the humidity, so these hypothetical civilians would have been surrounded by horny people acting on their desires for several minutes at least.”
You assume that people would pair off… You also seem to assume the everyone will find someone attractive and it’ll be mutual, people will engage in multiple partner activities where required, they will ignore what they are not comfortable with in favour of sex and that other horny people around them will make them more amenable… There seems to be a lot of assumption packed in there about things unshown.
“I will admit I was going for absurdity on the last example”
Actually, I found all examples equally absurd based on lack of evidence. Also the way you chose to word your second example was frankly painting a much worse image than the third, because frankly it read very “Wink wink, nudge, nudge, say no more”, creating a sense of implication about DaveB’s world that has in no way been indicated. The “tension” the third was intended to “break” was entirely created by the way you chose to phrase things(in a way that creates strong negative associations out the gate).
“Almost no one goes to Hooters for the food, they are there to look at the waitress and imagine.”
I’ll have to take your word on that. I’ve heard the same from others, but I’ve also heard it asserted their wings are to die for, but I’ve never been and never plan to go.
“I would assume the same for Cupps,”
A not-unreasonable assumption, though considering the location(on a civilian floor of a building that is essentially a military complex full of rich people), I imagine the clientele is mostly upper class and military, not Danny and his parents on a day-trip from across town and I further imagine that since it is “basically Starbucks”, many people are just there for their over-priced coffee, not a three course meal.
“now take those women who will use their assets to get better tips, sometimes through flirting, and surround them with the normal customers a location like that brings, men and usually older men.”
You usually, to my knowledge, don’t spend much time in a Starbucks unless you’re using their Wi-fi or holding a meeting or something, which’d only really leave short periods for flirting/”getting better tips”.
“Now hit them with an aura that makes them “Realy like sex! and I should have lots of more sex.” One of the more adventurous is going to grope someone then others will be emboldened and it goes from there.”
Or it can have the complete opposite effect. I’ve seen cases where people getting a bit too flirty, even among otherwise… open parties has a chilling effect. “others will be emboldened” is a *huge* assumption.
“Fusion would be in a similar situation, someone from one table is going to wander over and try to join another maybe ask for a kiss or something and it escalates from there.”
Ignoring that Fusion doesn’t seem to get a huge amount of attention(because it might just be that DaveB didn’t want to draw background people), holy cow this is even worse. Someone popping, uninvited into a seat at my table? I don’t care how attractive they are… unless they are about to drop 10 grand in my lap, they can get right back up and leave the restaurant. You know how I mentioned a chilling effect above (and how you presented Math as an unwilling party for the “rape”)? For myself and many others, someone just shoehorning their way into a groups private space(there are social spaces for this kind of thing, expensive booth restaurants generally aren’t that) without consent(the thing Jabber, per your reckoning, and therefore others, would ignore) is a great way to make interactions decidedly not amiable, especially if they attempt to immediately extract gratification.
Even if that’s not how you mean it, being actively horny isn’t going to suddenly open you up to such overtures(making or receiving) if you are not at least somewhat inclined, and then there is still the question of “where do you go?”. (and if the answer is “somewhere private” and “somewhere private” is “outside the building” suddenly you may no longer be actively horny)
“Yes I used an extreme example but I am being told that this aura is so powerful it is making military officers ignore all rules of fraternization, those are drilled into every person on a weekly basis or so.”
Uh… When? Half of these people have been in the military for a couple months, during which the stuff we are shown is lots of training, education on public facing, random info about supers and tons of flirting, willing interaction and harassments(that no one does much of anything about… “go stare at boobs until you’re tired of it” or some such). It’s pretty darn clear that these people were plenty willing to ignore those rules if it weren’t for possible repercussions(which aren’t elaborated upon, but considering how soft they are with the other punishments these celebrities get… might also not be as bad as it’d likely be in real life).
“I will give you all of those reasons to keep them separate, but there are other heroes ARC has, I think a better set up for this would have been to have those heroes be our view point as they dealt with the attack on the civilians.”
Not clear on what you mean here? Like… Arc Dark separating civilians from each other? Cause beyond Max and Dabbler who we do see, we don’t get any indication of anyone “dealing with” the “attack”. We have no indications even that anyone in the civilian side was affected at all.
“We could have the same information being coming from people we don’t know and don’t have an invested interest in.”
That would defeat the purpose of a published comic. A published media that takes you away from the materials it intends to have you be interested in, to show you things you aren’t supposed to be interested in, that will in no way impact what you are interested in, when it can instead achieve the same effects by show what the writer wants people to be interested in… is media losing its intended audience.
“It would show ARC responding to the threat, discussing that they need to protect themselves from auras like this and the violence aura,”
ARC(allowing that you could not be prescient of the next page) responding to the “threat” was being shown. That’s what the meeting was about. First addressing “damages” then discussing “fixes”.
“give some less used characters room for growth, heck Heatwave could be there talking to people effected by it and could come to the realization Mr. Amorphous might have done something himself and deciding how she was going to handle it.”
All of this could still happen, if it does and if it’s important to the comic. If it isn’t, then there’s a reason it isn’t shown. Also, there are several “less used” characters in the scene. Some of these characters haven’t seen the light of day in *years*.
“Instead of the people under the affect of the aura plotting against her.”
That is a unnecessarily negative interpretation of the situation. What is actually happening, is people discussing how to reveal the situation to Heatwave in such a way that she has a full grasp of everything involved without room for misunderstanding. They have disagreements on what is an appropriate solution, and work to hash one out that is fair to her.
“Thank you for your responce to my post.”
And thank you for yours. Despite my many objections to your presentation, I appreciate the effort you put in, and if you got this far, thank you for both putting in the time to read after so long, and for making it through this mass of text. I hope you have a great day!
Tbh, I think that Mr. A’s situation doesn’t make any sense. If he found himself suddenly in a room with Jiggawatt who suddenly seems a hundred times hotter due to the lust aura, he could have just picked up the phone and called Brook and been like, “Hey babe, I’m in danger, can you come and rescue me?”
Arianna is shown literally texting someone to get to HQ as soon as possible.
To be consistent and fair to the characters, you can’t just have Brook unable to intervene at a moment when her boyfriend is about to lose control.
Yes. This is evidence that Mr. A willing chose to cheat and is trying to find a way to get out of it by blaming the aura.
Yeah, nah, he’s not trying to get out of it, he has publically stated that he cheated
Also, before I forget, Jiggawatt can literally turn into electricity and escape the situation, then go find Brook to tell her that her man is in danger.
It’s like superpowers and their potential applications suddenly got thrown out the window.
Or they’re both cheating cheaters who cheated?
Supers don’t have to be paragons of virtue.
What about Parfait,should some sort of disciplinary action be taken against her or will Dabbler and/or Tom handle it???
Parfait is like a flight student suddenly being the best pilot on an airplane and crashing it on trying to land.
She fucked up, she knows she fucked up, but this wasn’t actually her fault. She hasn’t got the training to not fuck up in the situation she was put in. She realised that before everything went tits up, and tried to knock herself unconcious in order to stop it.
Let’s not forget that the one month abstinence is only if Dabbler has to use anything like or approaching mind control to get Heatwave’s consent.
I think Dabbler is sweating because the quick fix she had in mind is a no-go now and knowing Heatwave getting the consent from her will be a challenge even for Dabbler.
Dabbles has always been big on consent
She will push buttons, but knows when she is pushing too far: she wants people to want to sex with her, but she won’t force them to feel that way
No, not really. She drep up her lust aura just for fun when she first met Sydney, she didn’t bother to inform Sydney about the “side effects” of the heat spell. She also doesn’t ask Maxima for permission before groping her.
(She also didn’t ask Jabberwokky, but that one is justifiable because it was used as a weapon in justified combat.)
She didn’t tell Sydney about the side-effects because she either didn’t think of it, or didn’t realise that particular side-effect was one of them (she’s a succubus, she probably doesn’t notice it when she casts it on her self)
She doesn’t ask Maxi permission to grope her, because that’s one of the buttons she likes pushing, but she doesn’t take it further than just using her Golden Orbs as fun-house mirrors (she was too distracted and having fun with reflection to make it sexual) or to grope her butt to get her to let go when Maxi forcibly grabbed her to look at Sydney’s balls (which is no real difference than tickling someone who has you in a headlock)
– She’s an experienced adventurer who claims the spell is standard adventurer equipment, and isn’t aware of the side effects? It’s plausible (but I give it even odds she knew exactly what she was doing) she doesn’t think of it because she doesn’t consider it important. Not considering that kind of thing important hardly makes her “big on consent”.
She likes groping Maxima to push her buttons – that means she does it because Max doesn’t want her to. That’s even less consensual than normal groping, straight up anticonsensual.
You also have no justification for the lust aura enhanced entrance.
> She’s an experienced adventurer who claims the spell is standard adventurer equipment
A spell that does that is standard adventuring equipment. Her version obviously has some bells and whistles that aren’t standard.
She explicitly said “that spell”. If she put some bells and whistles on it, she should be especially aware of what she added, most certainly before using it on someone else.
She also should be aware of it afterwards due to her porno sense, which if she really was big on consent would motivate a very contrite apology, and probably an offering of a spell for calming Sydney down.
> if she really was big on consent
1) I never said she was.
2) She has in ingrained assumption that anyone asking a succubus for anything is expecting sexy side effects. Like internalised bigotries, this is something she needs to conciously account for, and she’s not always good at it.
> an offering of a spell for calming Sydney down.
I expect casting such a spell would be increadably draining for a succubus, and therefore not something you do in a potential combat situation.
It was the topic of discussion in the subthread
“Guesticules. October 17, 2023, 1:22 am
Dabbles has always been big on consent”