Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra

User avatar
Raamyah
Creator of small worlds
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by Raamyah » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:58 pm

And I'm all like:
1947_eating_popcorn_and_drinking_be.gif
1947_eating_popcorn_and_drinking_be.gif (33.05 KiB) Viewed 3206 times
"There are four pillars of existence that support the very foundations of the universe: the speed of light in a vacuum, the Planck constant, Newtonian gravity, and the all-encompassing awesomeness of breasts." - Pauli Polsuo

"No matter how smart you are you can never convince someone stupid that they are stupid." - Anonymous

User avatar
lordoffiling
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by lordoffiling » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:21 pm

I really don't think this is hatefucking in the classic sense.

Teddi has been well on his way to becoming a full-on succubus himself for a long time now, in spirit if not in body.

This is just another symptom of that. It's how succubi solve things; when a problem comes up, they have sex with it until it isn't a problem anymore.

I'm not expecting this, but if Teddi is laying there with Pandora next strip and she has wings growing out of her back, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
"Rather than simply enjoying these comics, we log in to these forums to argue about them. [...] We are some strange people, and I guess we have nothing better to do." - lordoffiling

Passing Through
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by Passing Through » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:55 pm

OllieOrOlly wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:13 am
Osaru Sensei wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:10 am
It's funny to consider how nipples are a no-go, but bareback facesitting is apparently a-okay.
I think the image you're referring to was meant to be Pandora getting smothered by Teddi's breasts; the nipples are just covered by being pressed against Pandora's face, or possibly in her mouth, ick. That said, I think it is still bit too *mature* of a display, along with the bare ass-grabbing, and Teddi sucking Pandora's nips. This comic has pushed the limits - and arguably broken the limits - of PG-13 before, but this seems worse, if only due to the pairing.
Actually, there is a panel fragment near the bottom that appears to show a certain someone's head between Pandora's legs. It isn't clear who is on top, but that's beside the point really.
DocMesa wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:40 am
=/

I don't get it. Teddi utterly despises Pandora for all the horrible things she's done and she's never shown *any* attraction to her - why are they suddenly having sex?
Leaving aside that the wicked step daughter routine was rather ott(and largely consisted of Teddi blaming Pandora for problems entirely of her own making(even ignoring the whole demon summoning dealy that set all these events in motion, she's the one who's been powering Chloe up to hunting strength)), have you forgotten the defensive hormones? Unless they're immune, the moment serious violence occurred... the nookie was inevitable. There may well be more to it than that of course, but still.

User avatar
TJgalon
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:28 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by TJgalon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:33 pm

Opus the Poet wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:29 am
Mordhaus wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:42 am
Is this still the same comic I started reading? I don't think so.
What happened to Teddy's job in the museum from the first arc? We haven't seen the museum since.
He never had a job. He snuck in there, accidentally made a wish, and then Chloe showed up.
"Somebody just stake me now"

OllieOrOlly
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by OllieOrOlly » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:58 am

Passing Through wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:55 pm

Actually, there is a panel fragment near the bottom that appears to show a certain someone's head between Pandora's legs. It isn't clear who is on top, but that's beside the point really.
Ah, right you are. I didn't see that shard before.

User avatar
Suntiger
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by Suntiger » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:58 am

Given the circumstances, I'm not sure if Pandora is going to be pleased or angry that the fight turned into angry sex.
Pretty sure Teddi is going to be pissed about it when he wakes up from the moment though. =))

DehTommy
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by DehTommy » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:22 pm

Image

User avatar
sparky
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:09 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by sparky » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm

OllieOrOlly wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:13 am
Osaru Sensei wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:10 am
It's funny to consider how nipples are a no-go, but bareback facesitting is apparently a-okay.
I think the image you're referring to was meant to be Pandora getting smothered by Teddi's breasts; the nipples are just covered by being pressed against Pandora's face, or possibly in her mouth, ick. That said, I think it is still bit too *mature* of a display, along with the bare ass-grabbing, and Teddi sucking Pandora's nips. This comic has pushed the limits - and arguably broken the limits - of PG-13 before, but this seems worse, if only due to the pairing.
I wasn't sure either but due to the freckles I thought that it was boobs that we were looking at. My husband, who used to read these comics but has completely given up due to the lack of the archive function so that he can go back to where he left off, thought that they were boobs too. Apparently he's not a Jason Waltrip fan at all because I was told that they had to be boobs because he's really bad at drawing butts. I have no idea which comic he saw that gave him that impression though. He does read a lot of them.

User avatar
TwoWayStar
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by TwoWayStar » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:41 pm

I thought they were fighting and started cheering Teddi on. Then I looked closer at the shards......

Teddi...of all people....honestly half of those require position changing and..and i just can't buy it!! Teddi hated her......for totally real gross reasons. HIS FATHER HAS HAD LOUD SEX WITH HER. SHES HIS STEPMOTHER. WHAT WILL HIS FATHER SAY IF HE WALKS IN! WILL HE ASK TO JOIN IN??!! :ymsick: :ymsick: :ymsick:

OllieOrOlly
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by OllieOrOlly » Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:09 am

sparky wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm
OllieOrOlly wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:13 am
Osaru Sensei wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:10 am
It's funny to consider how nipples are a no-go, but bareback facesitting is apparently a-okay.
I think the image you're referring to was meant to be Pandora getting smothered by Teddi's breasts; the nipples are just covered by being pressed against Pandora's face, or possibly in her mouth, ick. That said, I think it is still bit too *mature* of a display, along with the bare ass-grabbing, and Teddi sucking Pandora's nips. This comic has pushed the limits - and arguably broken the limits - of PG-13 before, but this seems worse, if only due to the pairing.
I wasn't sure either but due to the freckles I thought that it was boobs that we were looking at.

Yeah, that's what I thought they meant, too, however, someone later pointed out that the top of Teddi's head is clearly between Pandora's legs in the lower most shard, between the image of Teddi's moaning(?) face and the image of his hand grabbing one of Pandora's butt cheeks. It gets more unpleasant the more one examines it; I do enjoy the odd titillation here and there, but this current development makes it more fan disservice than service.

Alexander Collins
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by Alexander Collins » Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:33 pm

DehTommy wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:22 pm
Image
But they won't. They just won't ...

Alexander Collins
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by Alexander Collins » Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:07 pm

lordoffiling wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:21 pm
I really don't think this is hatefucking in the classic sense.

Teddi has been well on his way to becoming a full-on succubus himself for a long time now, in spirit if not in body.

This is just another symptom of that. It's how succubi solve things; when a problem comes up, they have sex with it until it isn't a problem anymore.

I'm not expecting this, but if Teddi is laying there with Pandora next strip and she has wings growing out of her back, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
I was kind of hoping Teddy would go demon as well but as an incubus (the male version of a succubus). If this is the route they really want to go down fine. If it means Teddy and Chloe finalyl getting together in the end, I can endure the cringe. :-s

User avatar
Suntiger
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by Suntiger » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:27 am

OllieOrOlly wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:09 am
Yeah, that's what I thought they meant, too, however, someone later pointed out that the top of Teddi's head is clearly between Pandora's legs in the lower most shard, between the image of Teddi's moaning(?) face and the image of his hand grabbing one of Pandora's butt cheeks. It gets more unpleasant the more one examines it; I do enjoy the odd titillation here and there, but this current development makes it more fan disservice than service.
Wait, you thought this scene was meant as titillation? Really? :-\
It's supposed to be discomforting. In a darkly hilarious way.
I mean, the humor of this comic has been pretty dark from the start, although it's been interwoven with many places of more light-hearted jokes and outright slapstick. I like dark humor though, so I've quite enjoyed the ride. :)
There's some pretty dark shit going on and has been ever since Teddy met Chloe, but it's not written seriously or with any realistic consequences, hence the humor. :ymdevil:

User avatar
Fluffy
Posts: 2731
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by Fluffy » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:59 pm

You'll have to forgive my ignorance - but how is this darkly humorous?
sparky wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm
Apparently he's not a Jason Waltrip fan at all because I was told that they had to be boobs because he's really bad at drawing butts.
To be perfectly honest, the artist isn't much good at drawing decent breasts, either. No matter what the size, they're all perfectly spherical and defy gravity. The expressions bother me from time to time, as well - something about the open mouths where a tongue and/or teeth should be visible, but there's nothing but a black space. Somehow, it's a little off putting.

He isn't a terrible artist and props for being able to draw up a comic (because it's not as easy as it looks) - but out of all the artists they've had, he's definitely my least favorite.
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.

dmra
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 14-09-17 SMAKK

Post by dmra » Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:55 pm

Fluffy wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:59 pm
You'll have to forgive my ignorance - but how is this darkly humorous?
Even in the early days the story has featured things like Chloe thinking Teddy was a paedophile; Chloe mistakenly destroying Teddy and Abby's parents' marriage and turning Jackie from somebody who didn't like boys to somebody whose primary characteristic was an obsession with sleeping with them. So I think it's fair to say it DC has always had a dark side to it.

Which is fine by me because I don't mind a bit of dark humour every now and again.

The problem with DC is that one main character has disappeared, one has had a near complete character change the story doesn't seem to be going anywhere and the "jokes" are few and far between and aren't even that funny.

Post Reply