Grrl Power #311 – Succubi rarely diet (insert joke about juice cleanse)
Mr. Rogson doesn’t like people practicing casting in his Home Economics class. Save that for Mischievous Spellcraft 101. I love that bottom panel – so many unanswered questions. Is that succubus being nice to that guy and/or mean to the cheerleaders? Is she being mean to the guy? Is she being mean to someone who likes that guy? Why is the succubus not a cheerleader? You’d think she would be one. Is she messing with the cheerleaders cause she’s not on the team? Do demons even go to high school? Could I totally write a comic called Demon High? Ok that one isn’t unanswered. I totally could. Oh and the angel? She’s an exchange student. Daddy’s a progressive archangel and he thought it’d be a good idea, so naturally she made herself head cheerleader. The demonettes aren’t all that happy about it, but she has her halo already. Normally angels don’t get them that young, the have to choose a profession first and that determines the kind of halo you get and what powers come with it, but mom’s a Valkyrie and she pulled some strings. (Or threatened to garrote someone with their own harp strings.) No daughter of hers is going to the nether boroughs without protection. Apparently it does not protect her from succubus charm spells though. Geeze, this stuff writes itself.
Normally I wouldn’t point out Dabbler sitting in the back of the room, cause I like saving that sort of stuff for the more eagle eyed among you, but I will this time cause I wanted to say that while she’s obviously had a long and illustrious adventuring career, I wasn’t sure what her early childhood or adolescence was like. As I was drawing her in that panel I super fell in love with the idea of her being a gawky teenager. Especially considering her unusually mixed heritage, I can see her with big corrective lenses and one extra large horseshoe (or whatever you’d wear on a cloven hoof) to correct an uneven pigeon toe. Also the other succubi girls, who develop into insanely attractive if somewhat demony teenagers early on, making fun of her for being awkward and/or “too exotic.” In any case, I’m calling that bottom panel totally canon.
I’m actually not sure what early life is like for succubi. They’re not born sexually mature certainly – physically how would that even work? As I think about it, it makes sense that they’d be born normally and that their tantric energy needs are a fraction of what a mature succubi’s are. They start off supplementing from their mothers, (which invites all sorts of questions about family units and succubus/demon culture in general) and as they grow up they can absorb minimal ambient energy from others. While succubus sex ed is comprehensive, they still go through the usual teenage fumblings while they learn to draw energy directly from a partner.
Ok I’ll stop now, I could seriously come up with 50 pages for Demon High right now. Since people have noticed her, I’ll give a shoutout to the cameo by Ava’s Demon, (an enormously well drawn comic) who is resting on top of Dabbler’s head in the last panel.
#MakeComics: This page was one of the hardest pages to write to date in the comic. Besides trying to fit entirely too much dialog on the page, then editing and re-editing it all (I even did some editing right before the page went up.) a large part of it was trying dance around the word “rapey” without actually using it, but I couldn’t quite get Sydney’s point across well enough without it. Plus that’s just the way she talks. I do try and give each character their own voice. Sydney will be going to Archon finishing school here soon, but they won’t be able to iron all her wrinkles out I suspect. It’s telling that Sydney doesn’t even consider the issue of consent in the other direction, (something a lot of people commented on in the previous page) whereas Dabbler goes right there since Succubi are obviously equipped to… well, for them, the demarcation between seduction and… you know, seduction, is broad and blurry. Dabbler is down with all parties being copacetic. There are probably exceptions in her past but she’s behaved while being a guest here on Earth.
Here’s the link to the new comments highlighter for chrome, and the GitHub link which you can use to install on FireFox via Greasemonkey.
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.
So apparently “succubus” is basically an alien race. Dabbler refers to them as a “species,” we see them going to school, and the comic footnotes reference them being “born”. I know you might be thinking, “Well of course, what other options are there?” The other option would be that they are spiritual entities who were never young and are never old, but were created out of nothingness to feed upon the lusts of humanity.
It’s the whole heaven/hell part that’s confusing, really. If they’re just an alien race called succubi because that’s the human mythological conceit they most resemble then that’s one thing. But if they’re part of heaven/hell, divine realm, afterlife… then that’s really weird. You wouldn’t think that demons or angels would ever be children or have children. I mean, is “hell” just an extradimensional realm inhabited by aliens? Do souls of dead people go there?
If we take any of this remotely seriously then Dabbler’s very existence raises endless questions.
That sounds a lot like Fae.
Remember that Dabbler is only 1/2 succubus and 1/2 alien. So succubi are not an alien race.
She’s also part doppleganger.
And part unknown species
And to think that I considered my own family heritage to be mixed…
Yeah, I doubt your Tree needs a Species listing
With Pander being a lawyer, you never know.
We’re just alien in our thought patterns, not biology!
I’m guessing in this universe the word “demon” means “scary-looking monster, possibly from another dimension” rather than the more traditional “evil spirit.” Something it has in common with Buffy, Charmed, etc. Heaven & Hell will (probably) be treated as other dimensions, or just kept out of it entirely.
If these were demons in more a more traditional, Christian religious sense, they probably wouldn’t have childhoods, or even physical bodies that could be born, mature, and die. Those demons can’t really by killed by swinging a sword or chanting a spell, so they’re not really a popular choice for modern fantasy settings. Not to mention portraying them would probably require placing more emphasis on spiritual warfare, morality, faith, and religion, which could get a bit too preachy.
So yeah, better just to translate “demon” to “fae.” Helps avoid theological hangups.
According to myth, succubi were the daughters of Lilith; the result of her sleeping around with Lucifer and the other fallen angels after she’d left Adam and hooked up with them instead after they were kicked out of Heaven.
According to some myths, anyway. I don’t think Lilith was ever part of Christian canon. Actually I’m not sure if she’s even canonical in Judaism.
Other myths (and the medieval church, to the extent it accepted these things at all) teach that demons cannot reproduce at all, or indicated they could only create degenerate human offspring called “cambion,” probably the most famous of which is probably Merlin, of Arthurian fame. Cambion were produced indirectly by stealing sperm (succubi) and implanting it in a human female (incubi), which–because medieval people didn’t understand genetics–somehow led to a supernatural hybrid instead of a normal human child.
Note though, Wikipedia claims at least one authority–a Fr. Ludovico Maria Sinistrari, went on record stating that incubi “do not obey exorcists, have no dread of exorcisms, show no reverence for holy things, at the approach of which they are not in the least overawed.” Which either indicates they aren’t demons at all, or is just an observation that certain biological things happened in peoples sleep regardless of how many crucifixes you hung on your wall.
It should also be noted that, in the old exorcism records, there are no records of succubi/incubi being successfully exorcised, and more than a few records of failed attempts.
In general, in real-world historical context, it seems they were pretty much completely different from demons. But also not friendly to humanity.
There are actually old records for that? That you can you can read? I thought the Church usually kept those things locked up.
But anyway, from a Catholic theological perspective, a demon that cannot be exorcised should be impossible–this was one of the powers the Church received from Christ. Sometimes it fails, but one that flat’s flat out immune would be…problematic.
So, if we assume that -cubi are anything other than normal sex dreams, there could only be two answers:
1) The erratic nature of their visitations makes exorcism difficult–unlike possession or haunting, where the demon would presumably be present at the time.
2) They’re actually the Fair Folk, probably of the Unseelie variety. How these things would differ from demons is currently unknown, as the last I heard the Church’s opinion was basically “if you find one, we’ll tell you where they fit.” And that was a few centuries ago.
Personally, I’ll stick with the normal sex dream explanation. Occam’s
RazorPrinciple of Limited Imagination and all that.The Catholic Church does allow some people to peruse the old records, and not all of those records are under the Church’s control. They’re typically not advertised, though.
The interesting bit is that succubi were known for occasionally outright possessing people… but were also known for ignoring all forms of holy power. Even ones that the Fae didn’t ignore. That’s part of why the Church had such of a hard time classifying them; succubi simply did not fit anywhere within normal spiritual classification and even today would be complete outsiders.
Interestingly, there is a disease known to cause the rabid sexuality that succubi possessions were known for: Rabies. Which would explain why no successful exorcism was possible and why holy items had no effect.
In D&D lore, when you kill a demon or devil or any other “outsider”, they just go back to their home plane. But if you go to their home plane and kill them, then they truly die.
*Some* D&D lore. It (how they return to their home plane, how long they’re stuck there, and how they can truely be killed) changes between editions. Or between settings in the same edition.
Of course the first thing I see is Him from ppg
Yep. Tell me about it. Familiar faces just stick out.
Glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed :D
Not gonna lie I didn’t notice until I read the comments a few days later
That demon at the very far left, is that the same guy we saw being beaten and banished in Dabbler’s flashback? Back when Maxima was doing her ‘big bang attack’.
I think so, yes. Yet is it so hard to believe that Dabbler would go out of her way to loot the dungeons of her high-school rivals?
Also notice white/black mask with horns. That may be one of The Nine shown after Maxima nukes the tank.
I have one more addition to the cameos in the last panel. I always suspected that Sinestro was a demon.
https://images.sequart.org/images/Sinestro_evil_rant-300×277.jpg
more powerpuff girls I think (thank my niece for me catching that)
Sorry to conflate the two with a bad comic match. I was talking about the purple guy on the right getting the (unwanted?) attention from the cheerleader. Various artists have colored Sinestro anywhere from spray-on-tan orange to demonic red to electric Kool Aid purple.
Sinestro doesn’t have horns though
They’re only quasi-evil, semi-evil, the margarine of evil, the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie. Not evil ENOUGH!!
Clearly enjoying the show.
Whoops, that was supposed to be a reply to mothra.
I don’t know if I’m the only one who brought this up, but isn’t Dabbler herself in that last picture of the classroom on the left side holding a science book and looking all nerdy with wide open eyes and a slight look of shock on her face? If so was that one of her own memories from when she was young and going through school?
yes dabbler was the science nerd in school.(don’t look so surprised she has built her own railgun.)
Dabbler does come across as kinda rapey. At what point does her magic become akin to a rape drug? There are some blurred lines here.
Here is a thought that got my gears turning: What if we redefine Dabbler as an Apex Predator (In regards to the food chain, not sex) and humans as a prey species?
Does this make her feeding more or less moral?
With this shifted perspective, consider: Succubi in Dave’s comic do not kill their food. Does this not put them a moral step above humans who generally only eat something after it is dead and cooked?
No, this doesn’t make it right. Just because she needs sex to survive doesn’t mean she can ignore consent.
Same as if there were a vampire on the team. Just because he needs blood to survive doesn’t mean he can bite someone without their consent. (Yes, even if it doesn’t kill the victim, consent needs to be given first.)
So… tigers are supposed to get consent from their prey animals? Human hunters need to get consent from the deer they kill, even when it’s for sustenance?
Sorry, no. Rape is awful, but on a moral level survival need overweighs the need for consent. If it is acceptable for a human being to kill an animal in order to survive whether that animal likes it or not, then it is equally acceptable for some other creature to feed on humans in order to survive whether they like it or not. Presuming that humanity has some special privilege based upon being human, that actions taken by others against us are somehow more morally wrong than like actions (arguably of less severity) we take against others is… well, irrational.
Your argument ignores the construct that society has made to resolve this issue. Namely the distinction between sentience and sapience. Whilst we accept that there is a mysterious quality that separates a self-aware intelligent person from an animal, which ‘only operates on instincts’ then there is a moral justification for allowing different rights for a person to an animal.
Thus it can be argued that a person’s right to survive takes precedence over an animal’s. However the same cannot be said to be true for one person’s right over another’s. They have equal right to survive, so for one person to kill another, in order to survive, is immoral.
The one exception to this, which society accepts (and not universally at that) is that if both would fail to survive, under the status quo, then it is fair for one to die, in order for the other to live. However this is only morally true if there is consent. So starving people, in a life raft, could ‘draw straws’ to see who gets eaten.*
Whereas killing one, whilst he sleeps, cannot be justified by saying ‘it was him or me’. Likewise if unconscious. In both circumstances he is unable to provide informed concent. However, if he dies of natural causes, then snacking is acceptable.
Corpses are not living people and therefore have no rights (as people, albeit that some countries require that the corpses be respected, in other ways). Of course hastening death, by any means, including failing to provide reasonable medical care is still murder.
In our society it is illegal to take blood without informed consent. Loss of blood increases the chance of death (for instance if injured or falling ill). Even though taking a small amount is relatively safe, there still remains some risk. Therefore it remains the donor’s right to refuse. It is their blood, not anybody else’s.
Likewise sex, without consent, is rape. Further there are laws against invasion of privacy by observing people having sex (again, without consent). We know that Succubi can sense, via sexual energy, in addition to feeding on it. Ergo even passively feeding off of ambient sexual energy would be contravening existing laws.
Fortunately we live in a society including good Samaritans. There are people willing to donate blood. Likewise there would be many people who would be willing to consent to sex or passive ambient feeding. So (barring exceptional circumstances such as being trapped in a life-boat) there are options available, for survival, which do not require breaching moral or legal issues of consent.
* There is also the issue of a pregnant mother, suffering medical difficulties, who may require an abortion, in order to live. Which poses controversial legal, moral and religious difficulties. However, in secular society, the courts speak for the rights of the baby, given its inability to provide concent.
Clearly if it is certain to die then, morally speaking, the mother’s right to survive is clear. Religious strictures, however, can contradict that, if factoring in ‘the soul’ and ‘sin’ (as defined by religious dogma) and giving those higher weight than life.
“Your argument ignores the construct that society has made to resolve this issue. Namely the distinction between sentience and sapience.”
Yes, it does. Primarily because that argument has all the hallmarks of after-the-fact rationalization. Further, the argument that an entity’s right to exist increases or decreases according to its intelligence is a self-serving argument when made BY the intelligent. Under that argument, Dabbler enjoys a greater right to exist than humans, whether humans like it or not. It’s not morality, it’s sophistry.
All things have equal right to survive regardless of intelligence. This is shown as much in predators killing prey as much as in prey killing plant, as much as plant competing with plant for limited resources such as water, soil nutrients, and sunlight. Survival is a recognized moral right. Circumstance (which evolution counts as) puts creatures at odds with each other, but there’s nothing morally wrong about an animal killing for food, just as there’s nothing morally wrong with an animal killing a predator who tried to eat it.
Humans are by nature a cooperative social species. Our morals within our own species are stringent because we have an established and successful survival strategy. Actions that contravene that communal survival strategy are immoral, and we have had to develop a structure of moral codes to enable us to continue living communally (hence concepts like ‘property’, ‘reputation’, ‘honesty’).
Problems arise when you try to apply human morality, which is created to govern human behavior in order to facilitate our survival strategy, to nonhuman entities. That’s the issue we’re looking at here; an individual seeking to apply human morality to nonhuman entities out of a belief that human morality is a superior morality. It is not superior, it is merely different. It’s adapted for us, not for lions, deer, or succubi.
Bodily autonomy is a good and proper part of human morality. I agree with and support it, as it applies to humans. It helps us survive by ensuring that we don’t have to fear bodily violation from those who are most powerful in our community. We are, however, fine with throwing out out the window if we can draw a resource from an animal. We harvest blood from a quarter of a million horseshoe crabs per year because we have uses for their blood’s powerful antibacterial properties and haven’t developed alternatives as effective. While this is intended to be survivable for the crabs, 10-30% of the crabs harvested don’t survive. Complaints of violations of the crabs’ bodily autonomy are largely considered to be lunatic; the more reasonable complaints are based on the fact that we are overharvesting in some areas, and that the crab population is therefor in decline, thus endangering our future use of the resource.
Human morality doesn’t apply to them because they aren’t human. Not because we’re better than them, but because they are different from us.
The same principle applies to succubi. They are not human. They have different morality. A lot of it may overlap with humans (they’re clearly living with a cooperative survival strategy), but some of it may not (arguably, their survival strategy may be even MORE cooperative than ours). Judging their actions by our morality is inherently humanocentric; an act born of the human ego. It will automatically present problems.
Extremely well argued.
At the same time that seeing a girl who has a really fantastic body and a willingness to have sex with you becomes rape.
If she drugs your drink or food to make you want to have sex with her, or lower your mental capacity to the point that you can no longer deny consent, then yes, at that point it becomes rape.
She doesnt do that. She’s outright said she doesnt do anything like that or the magical equivalent of that, and people ALWAYS have the option to say no with her. They just don’t. Please stop acting like it’s rape when everything that’s been stated incredibly bluntly in the comic has been to stress that it isnt rape. You’re trying to make controversy where there is none.
I would argue that even if it was rape, it might not be inappropriate to this particular character (others feel differently, obviously).
It feels like people are just looking for excuses to get outraged and call it rape, no matter how many times it’s outright stated that there was no rape, that there was consent, that there are different social norms in a demonic reality, etc
Guh.
Well, also, she pretends to be a human. Like, the cover story is that she’s a lady who can turn into a war form. But really, she’s a succubus, and it isn’t just sex, she drains your energy. What you consent to isn’t what ends up happening. Label does not match contents of box.
Do we know that? Maybe the conversation went like this:
Dabbler: Hey, Barberian, do you think I’m hot?
Barberian: Uh…buh…yes?
D: Cool. Want to bang me like a screen door?
B: Yes!
D: Cool. Here’s the deal: I’m a succubus, I need sex to live. When I sleep with someone I drain some of their energy as my food. You’ll have an amazing time but afterwards you’ll be utterly exhausted for a while. Still onboard?
B: Yes!
D: Just so you know, I have this lust aura thing. I’m not using it right now but once we’re in bed I’m gonna crank it ALL the way up. You’re basically going to go into heat; you won’t be able to want to stop, no matter what. You’re also going to have the most amazing sex of your life as a result. Still onboard?
B: You had me at “most amazing sex of my life”. Can we get to the banging part, please?
D: Sounds good to me. One more thing: If you bang me, you’re never going to be satisfied banging human females again. If you want, I can fuzz out your memories afterwards so that isn’t a problem. I’ve got this amnesia spell, looks like a hammer. It’ll suppress the memories, although you’ll eventually get most of them back. You want me to use it on you afterwards?
B: Um…yes? I guess. Is there going to be banging soon?
D: I’m in. C’mon, the bed’s this way.
Yes. This is very much what I suspect Dabbler’s method is.
I approve of this as my new headcanon. Bravo ;-)
And no headcanon required, given its upgrade to canon, by DaveB‘s confirmation below. :-)
Yeah, pretty much this.
To be honest, just being a woman of appreciable dimensions is enough to the willing consent of numerous men.
Heck, how many male (and female) fans of the comic have made comments regarding how sexy she is, and we are most definitely not under the affects of any kind of succubi aura/spell.
Seriously, I think a lot of folks here are pushing too hard on making Dab’s innate traits more sinister than they actually are.
This isn’t about a woman of appreciable dimensions getting consent. I’m talking about a person who’s using illicit means to prey upon someone.
Suppose a sexy woman puts a drug in a man’s drink. Then, while he’s in a drug-addled stupor on this woman’s couch, the woman straddles him, and asks if he wants her, and he says yes, and she takes advantage of him, that’s rape.
If Dabbler uses her magic to seduce someone, then drains that person of his/her energy, that should also be perceived the same way as drugging someone, yes?
“If Dabbler uses her magic to seduce someone, then drains that person of his/her energy, that should also be perceived the same way as drugging someone, yes?”
Do we have any reason to think she’s using her magic to get a ‘yes’? All she has to do is use her words and she’ll almost certainly get a ‘yes’. See conversation I proposed above in response to Walter.
“If/then”, yes. However, Word of God also states categorically that, at least since hitting Earth and joining the team, she’s stayed within the line. It’s quite possible that within the demonic culture she comes from, there’s little or no stigma attached to conduct we would consider completely unethical, even with other demons–in such an environment, rape and other forms of predation might even be considered the norm.
In which case, Dabbler’s willingness to abide by ‘local rules’ is actually pretty impressive. Humanity might try emulating that trait a bit more in our interactions with each other, actually.
Sydney has been mesmerized by her breasts–like a lot of people. But she’s resisted any feelings of attraction to Dabbler, in spite of the succubus’s willingness to screw anything that’s moving (or not). Seeing how easily Sydney is distracted, I’d say this makes clear evidence for Dabbler NOT being a rapist.
Solid logic.
Could she use her succubus powers to entrance someone against their will? Sure, she did it during the fight with Jabberwocky. But outside of a combat situation, it’s been pretty established that she doesn’t and Dave himself has repeatedly stated she only goes for those who consent on their own.
If Dabbler wanted to seduce a human who wasn’t an active antagonistic combatant, she really wouldn’t have to use any of her succubus abilities to do it. Her natural physical endowments seem to be more than up to the task of enticing someone’s sexual interest in her and their willing consent.
Seriously, you’re looking for an evil that isn’t there this time.
That’s a fair estimation, yeah. No question that’s rape.
The issue beyond that, though, is whether or not a biological need can ethically counterbalance the issue. Consider; if I am confronted with a deadly threat in the form of a hostile person who is attacking me with lethal force and will not relent, I could be considered ethically justified in taking their life in defense of my own. Someone who biologically needs copulation in order to survive is confronted with the prospect of ‘sex starvation’, which for them is a deadly threat. We’ve established that murder is justified in defense against a deadly threat. Unless you are prepared to argue that murder is a less severe crime than rape, the same system of justification holds up in this fantastical and hypothetical case.
Nope. You are not comparing like for like in your argument.
If somebody is attempting to kill you, your right to survive is being compromised by their actions. In which case your rights take precedence, as they have no right to commit that act on you (nor anything else, including rape).
Which means the same rule applies when you reverse the roles. You do not have the right to compromise someone else’s right to survive by your actions. Further they are taking no action which threatens your survival. So you cannot claim ‘self defence’ as a justification. If they were not there you would die just the same as if they were.
Their rights take precedence as you have no right to compromise any of their rights, including the right not to be raped.
‘Self defense’ as a justification is merely a specialization of ‘right to survive’ as a justification.
The only difference here is the source of the threat; with one, it is external. With the other, it is internal. Within the hypothetical, however, the source of the threat is less relevant than the EXISTENCE of the threat. If the threat is lethal and credible, a right to survive justifies whatever actions are needed on the part of the threatened to secure the abatement of the threat.
The other individual’s right to not be raped, as you note, remains. What we have is a situation where two people’s rights are in conflict, and both people are justified in taking whatever actions are needed for their respective protection. The person fighting off rape is entirely justified to use whatever means are needed for their own protection, because peoples’ rights CAN exist in conflict with other peoples’ rights without one set of rights having to take priority. (this is presuming equivalence between a right to not be raped, and a right to not die, on the basis that murder and rape are of equal severity in moral terms.)
The predator who kills a prey animal is just as justified as the prey animal who lethally fights off a predator. Both faced a lethal and credible threat, both took lethal action to end that threat. Both were justified in taking lethal action by their right to survive.
Thinking on it… The idea of rights being things that can exist in conflict without a decision being needed about which is most important is the biggest distinction between ethical morality and legal morality, which I think is the biggest disconnect between our respective arguments.
Ethical morality (as I’m defining it) is concerned with the ethic and rightness of each individual’s actions. As it approaches each individual’s case separately, it sees no issue with two individuals being in conflict; both could be right. This is fine when one is working with a moral framework that extends beyond society to include things that aren’t human and don’t have to live together.
Legal morality (again, as I’m defining it) is concerned with making moral rules work in the real world. It can’t get away with having rights be in conflict because in the end, you still have to live with other people every day. There has to be some structure of rules other than ‘whoever manages to get the upper hand’ to decide how conflicts shake out, otherwise you end up with societal breakdown.
Your ‘right to throw a punch’ stops where my nose begins.
“Rights” are an abstract we create in order to codify the cooperative survival strategies we have developed. Whilst we define them as ‘universal rights’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘animal rights’ these are done to ensure that the amoral realise that such will be protected and enforced regardless of the amoral individual’s opinion on the matter.
In reality rights only exist when granted. Fighting to protect one’s own survival is indeed something that every creature will do. Rights do not come into that. They only become pertinent when other individuals (in other words a society) have to decide whether such an action was reasonable.
Especially, as you say, when ‘rights’ of two or more individuals come into conflict. However I would express it as previously acknowledged rights. The ‘right to eat’ has been acknowledged, the ‘right to rape to eat’ has not.
Meaning that the decision is that of the society making that judgement, not the individual. If they recognise the concept of a ‘right to self defense’ then such can be granted. If that is foreign concept to them, then it, to all intents and purposes does not exist!
I do not grant the ‘right to rape’ to anybody.
Your argument was used by the Japanese army though, when subjugating conquered countries. Albeit that they used terms like ‘comfort women’ and modern day apologists and deniers claim they were consensual (whilst ignoring overwhelming testimony to the contrary).
The Japanese commanders were not granting the civilian women the right not to be raped. I however, with my differing moral perspective, do grant them that. Albeit retroactively. Whereas, as regards the soldiers, I refuse to grant them, or any other soldiers, the right to rape. They will still do it mind. But if I am present I will intervene.
Like those ‘comfort women’ though, I realise that there is not much hope of successful intervention against heavily armed soldiers. Especially if state sanctioned (or condoned by turning a blind eye)!
If wishing to consider the legality, on the other paw, if I am sitting on a jury considering their fate, it will be ‘guilty’. I do not consider the morality (of the society that I exist in) or the laws regarding rape to be at odds with one another.
Rape is both morally wrong and illegal, in OUR society’s judgement, when perpetrated on a member of OUR society. No matter what society the rapist is from.
And that’s the issue. In our society. Our human society.
Once you’ve brought succubi into it, a morality that is explicitly internal to our society doesn’t get to claim primacy; the morality of succubi must be either equally weighed, or all societal morality on both sides must be discarded, and the whole thing reverts to animal-level survival laws.
Dabbler was the class geek?!
I’m pretty sure that award would go to that young “man” in the front. Cthulhu: Marine Biologist/Archaeologist extraordinaire.
Now I’m imagining the Cthulhu Mythos as a self-insert fantasy written by a lonely, bullied demon geek to make himself feel awesome.
Then he failed. In the Cthulhu mythos, Cthulhu himself was merely the gatekeeper, the harbinger of the TRUE HORRORS waiting to gain entry to Earth. What you’re implying is that Josh (the doorman at 344 Clinton St. in Metropolis, home of Clark Kent) is really Superman’s disguise.
Um… Isn’t that “Him” a desk behind the teacher? You know, Powerpuff Girls “Him” ?
Indeed! That is… HIM.
Hornin’ up the cheerleaders, that’s a fire paddlin’
Sexy Poses on top of another student’s head, that’s a fire paddlin’
Speaking in bizzare pictograms, that’s a fire paddlin’
Paddlin’ the school canoue through the lake of fire, you’d better believe that’s a paddlin’
*Slow clap processor initiated*
You win the Internet for today, my good man.
That voice… omg where the hell is that voice from?!
I would Patreon the HELL (pun intended) out of a spin off called Demon High if you drew it, Dave!
Well, for cloven hooves, there is such a thing as ox shoes.
Balrog: Continue with such antics in my classroom and You Shall Not Pass!
…But who grades the teachers?…
Why do I have this lingering feeling that we might see more of miss “I`m gonna hex those cheerleaders to get naughty on that fellow over there”? Could she be coming back as Dabblers past coming back to haunt her? Or just to hunt her maybe?
I do have a feeling that we’re going to get some demonic forces at some point.
Is that Her from Power Puff Girls to the left of teach?
No, it’s Him.
Does anyone else kind of want to see how things on the other side of the exchange go? Y’know a teenage demon in Angel High?
Maybe the son of Ghost Rider. He could be the ‘bad boy’ with a leather jacket and a motorcycle who makes all the girl angels swoon and makes all the boy angels jealous.
Read all the way down…. Oooooooohhhhh. So that’s where the little head perching young lady is from. Add another webcomic slot into my list :P
I find the sex as food analogy (and apparent biological reality) to be very helpful in imagining Dabbler’s mindset. In the bottom panel, the succubus is inciting her classmates to break out lunch in the middle of class, and she is stealing french fries while they chow down. She just didn’t count on the teacher catching her at it.
This does bring up some interesting questions as to whether human societies should impose their own morals on other cultures: rape essentially doesn’t exist in the ‘cubus society because everyone likes food (although force feeding someone would still be bad). Not sure about the moral implications of mind control spells in their world, but it would not have the same connotations of violation and trauma it would here.
However, underlying all this is a simpler question: are demons inherently evil or evil by default in Dave’s ‘verse? Not enough info to tell, yet.
Another important question: is a fire paddlin’ punishment to a succubus?
it certainly can be. even if it’s not, he could pull a “Tiffany” from exiern and “make it hurt”
Being asexual and having special opinions on how sex is ~the greatest thing ever~ (no it’s not, only the greatest sex ever is), I’m side-eyeing this direction of the story pretty hard.
I mean… humans don’t have to have sex. Not every single human has to have sex. Not every pair that has sex is even capable of bearing children. Sex is a choice, always. And it’s different from eating. Eating doesn’t necessitate a willing partner, and arousal =/= consent, and…
Bascially this can go very icky ways and I hope it doesn’t.
I don’t think anyone is actually saying that Dabbler is right, per se.
They are saying that she has an understandable but alien social perspective.
The question of whether any set of morals applies across all imaginable societies, regardless of biology is not one that is likely to be answered this week. :)
I personally am satisfied with knowing that DaveB is not intending it in a bad way.
‘humans don’t have to have sex’ – some individuals don’t have to, as a species, its still rather important.
Just because you don’t have to have sex, doesn’t mean that applies to everyone. Besides, its an awesome relationship glue, like tape, it fixes many a problem.
Yeah, but Dabbles is saying that Succubae have to, individually, have sex or they will die (or explode or something) and she feels that all humans have to have sex to keep the entire species going
Okay, I’m not feeling these she rapey the man arguments…
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/607
Here she has her sexy turned down to ten and everyone is able to resist who wants too!!! In the end she is super alluring, to the point she makes everyone horny, but everyone who wants to say no can still say no. I live close to a summer resort and see hot women all the time but I don’t cheat on my wife! Seems to be the same effect, as long as she isn’t subverting freewill it is a dead argument. IMHO
She probably could turn the power on her aura up. Like vehemence has that aggro aura. I don’t think the ppl around vehemence wanted to fight, yet they did.
Dabbler probably could do the same, … if that fight on the parking lot had been an orgy instead.
The thing that strikes me as interesting is that assuming that they are sticking to the classic “cheerleaders=popular” high school movie thing, it’s kind of interesting that the lone angel in a school of demons is one of the popular girls. Is she the “French exchange student”?
Who says it was a Demon school? o_O
I count 7 traditional demons and two eldritch abominations in that picture alone. That’s a demon high school.
It could just be a school for Supernaturals, like in Eerie Cuties, and this class just happens to be Demonology 101
Then there’s the fact that the author was referring to it as Demon High in the notes.
Who says? Uh…Dave does, right in the text below the comic.
Did anyone else notice the lobster dude from powerpuff girls?
That would be Him. And yes, he does stand out a bit, but not nearly as much as nerdy Dabbler!
Not sure if anyone has asked this yet, but who is the girl leaning on Young Dabbles’ head?
Guess should take the time and read long text (stupid ADH… ooo, chocolate, need some more pineapple lumps), hmmm, read “Ava’s Demon” years ago
Dave you evil bastard, thanks to that cameo and link you dropped in the wall’o’text, I just read the ENTIRE Ava’s Demon archive in a single unstoppable blitz instead of sleeping. And yes, I do agree, that comic is incredibly well drawn.
Thanks for the link, now I’m…*yawwwwwn*…. going to get some much needed sleep.
Is it just me who thinks so, but is the demon over Dabbler’s head from the comic Ava’s demon?
Good eye: “I’ll give a shoutout to the cameo by Ava’s Demon, (an enormously well drawn comic) who is resting on top of Dabbler’s head in the last panel.”
… am I the only one who wouldn’t want to sit on that couch? Ew.
The “cthulluish” nerd is most likely an adolescent star spawn of cthullu.
The description given for them is a “smaller” version of cthullu.
Now to a little education for the masses.
Cthullu is classified as a Great Old One.
They are the primary servitors of the Outer gods, and the Other gods.
Now the Elder gods are the adversary of the above-mentioned forces.
elder gods? Like in mortal Kombat? Because….that would be something to see…
Riiiight! Because all of us meat eating humans have gotten the consent of the animals which we kill for food and eat. As a species that requires sex to survive, I don’t believe that they would be bound by our morals or codes of ethics. That is like telling a plant that it is stealing light from the sun and it is being an evil little greenery for doing so.
Damn, that was supposed to be a response to something earlier in the page. Why did it place it here?
Because comments wants to pick on you.
it doesn’t like you
I don’t like you either
You’d better watch yourself – we’re wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems…
The rules about meat eating would change a bit if the animals were talking animals.
No, not really, McDonald’s and Wendy’s wouldn’t allow it :P
I was immediately reminded of this and this.
Is there anything TV Tropes hasn’t covered?
My first thought, other than “Boy Sydney looks cute when embarrassed” was whether the final panel was Sydney’s visualisation, or Dabbler’s memory. But, I see DaveB‘s comment that it is canon, so that got resolved immediately.
Boy life with interrupted access to the internet is sucky! Global happiness levels will drop badly the next time we have a solar flare (or whatnot) that manages to damage and disrupt the world wide web!
And I shall laugh an evil laugh.
And I’ll actually go outside and play for once!
I am betting Sydney’s super blush is because she is a virgin.
100 quatloos on “Sydney’s a virgin!”
I’ve suspected that for a while, but after that panel I was almost expecting Dabbler to bring it up.
Dabbler: *poke..poke* Sydney…are you a vir–*Sydney clamps hand over Dabbler’s mouth, squeezes jaw in death grip*
Unlike Harem I expect Dabbler would be discrete. Unless it really catches her by surprise. Which seems unlikely on one paw, given how many powers and senses Dabbler has focussed on that one area. But, on the other, she simply may not suspect it. Succubus culture might not even lead her to think such a thing.
A bit like it is possible to envisage living life without chocolate. *wobbles and feels faint* But not the possibility that anybody with access to chocolate would never have even tasted it? Unthinkable!
Well, it’s just the two of them in the room (Barberian is alternating between sleep and general fuzziness, and doesn’t count), so she could bring up the subject and still be considered “discrete,” especially if it’s whispered quietly. Sydney’s (probable) outsized reaction would probably draw more attention than the question itself.
Of course for all we know Dabbler doesn’t need to ask. For all we know that hoof-poke could have her way of reading Sydney’s sexual history (or lack thereof) like an open book, disguised as something completely innocent.
*Crawls up and cuddles into Barberians mohawk to join the nap time*
Dave you need to fix Barberians Who’s who page!
But to the main topic of my comment. I love Dabbler’s clothes in these latest posts, i want them…
“Him” from PPG was a succubi?
No HIM from powerpuff girls is a lobster demon from hell that also happens to be the brother of the blue meanie from the move “the yellow submarine”.
Then why is he in succubi school with dabbler? He’s the one behind the disciplinarian looking demon. AND did you mean “movie” (it sucks that there i no edit option)?
Too bad the comic timeline does not match the actual date. It would give Sydney a chance to practice her sneaky spy skills. She could say “Today is something we call Earth day, where we think about our effect on our planet. If they had that back where you came from what would they call it?”
I just thought of something else, after reading some of ava’s demon.
So apparently ava is the only one who can see “the demon” does that apply here too? Is dabbler the one being possed by “the demon” since she’s on dabblers head or is she possessing someone else in the classroom…
Okay so since i can’t edit my posts, i’ll just add one more since I was doing some dicking around and noticed something else.
The cast page hasn’t been updated as far as “noteable appearances” goes for a few people who got noteable appearances in “the big fight” unless that’s something you’re aware of dave and will address later.
Yeah, the cast page needs a lot of work at this point.
saying that angels ass is from heaven, have a quite literal meaning here
I’m surprised you didnt instead say something like:
“That cheerleader has a heavenly body”
Trying to figure out the pictograph
Cheerleader is obvious, but what is the second one? ‘Bait’, ‘Hooked’, ‘Gone Fishing’?
The first time I saw it, I thought that was a tentacle on a boat anchor (bad eyesight on my part).
I went back later, and noticed it was a worm actually on a fishing hook. So, I read the pictogram as:
Cheerleader + bait
and the spell the blonde succubus is casting is not actually on the cheerleaders, but on the purple guy, which then affects the cheerleaders. The teacher might be about to whup the blonde because she didn’t cast the spell on him. >-)
Cheer-bait.
Cheer – obviously ‘cheerleader’
Urban Dictionary:
Bait – A male or female that is appealing to the opposite sex.
Soooo I’m guessing it means making the guy irresistably appealing to the cheerleader.
After so many examples in movies and comics and tv series I finally have to ask: Do cheerleaders in US high schools actually run around in their costumes outside exercises? And if yes, then why? That cannot be practical or comfortable.
It’s a “Show your school spirit” thing.
I detest it. One girl who lengthened her skirt to make it appropriate for the schools dress code on skirt length was suspended for damaging school property.
That’s fucking hysterical! “You can’t wear skirts that are under a certain length, unless you’re required to!”
It’s just a short-sleeved top and pleated skirt in most cases. Not really any different from a ny other short sleeved shirt and skirt combo outside of it being in the school’s colors.
Sometimes, yes. But it’s not as common as you’d see on TV. I seem to remember something about a tradition of wearing their uniforms on game days, or something like that.
I just sat down and read the entirety of Ava’s Demon…I need more of this in my life.
Not quite as much as Grrl power, to be fair, I prefer comedy to tragedy ultimately, but I’ll be damned if that wasn’t REALLY good. And fantastic art.
A train of thought just left my station.
It’s possible that the whole beef between humans and succubi/incubi may have just been a culturally/religious induced antagonism surrounding opposing attitudes regarding sex.
A few exceptions aside, most human cultures throughout our history have had (and still possess) some pretty extreme religiously sourced restrictions/taboos regarding sex. Combined with other negative interactions with the more aggressive/”evil” otherworldly entities, and it would be understandable why humans in general would have such negative views of succubi, resulting in them being lumped in with the others “demons” as beings of evil.
Additionally, there doesn’t appear to be as much separation between extra-planar forces as human dogma would have us believe in the GP universe. The classroom make up shown in Dabbler’s flashback. It had traditional demons, possible elemental (on Dab’s head), “Old Ones” (Cthulan and possibly Shub) and a traditional angel as students all in the same class with what appears to be a Balrog teacher.
Would be immensely interesting if in the GP verse, that was the case.
Just something to think about.
I love the ridiculously stupid PC world we live in now where a comic that includes chopping a man’s arm off and threatening to blow his brains out, among other violent, final acts is taken in stride, but we have to have 2 pages of apologetic ‘I’m really not pro-rape don’t sic the SJW’s on me” about whether succubus sex is consensual or not.
*sigh*
I was thinking the same thing. Violence? Pfft. Sex? OMIGOD IT MUST BE RAPE? Then the author says it’s consentual… OMIGOD IT MUST BE MIND RAPE. Then there’s a long explanation of how it’s not. OMIGOD IF SO AND SO HAPPENS IT MUST BE RAPE AND THAT LAST PANEL OF DEMONS IN ANOTHER DIMENSION IS RAPE! At which point I want to stab their eyes with a fork and chop off their arms so they can’t type any more. Which they’d probably be okay with as long as I didnt also give them a kiss, because then that would be sexual harassment.
Btw, I had to look up what SJW meant :)
‘Social Justice Warrior’ …. haha,
This wasn’t an apologetic page Dave had this page already written and done when the other page went up. He’s around 2-4 pages ahead in coloring.