Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

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

Post Reply
Gotoh
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:18 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Gotoh » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:15 am

Fairy Glade's Fairy wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:36 am
of course it was Miyazaki, everyone knows that...

who did you think do that work? Hideaki Anno?
Yes, Anno's name is in the OP credits, not Miyazaki's.
Fairy Glade's Fairy wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:36 am
95% anime is made for the local market and never exported.... and that in a year big on exports.
You should really do your research before making statements like that (most recent article).

User avatar
Vitocap
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:02 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Vitocap » Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am

dmra wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:24 am
You were saying that DC was in a genre where parents didn't appear because it would be boring for both the readers and the creators. I pointed out that this wasn't actually true and quite often parents did appear, if only occasionally. I mentioned Lance appearing in DC because that was an example of that. An appearance that you seemed not to have noticed because you said parents never showed up because it would be boring and the artists wouldn't want to show it.

For the rest of your post you may not have noticed but actually we're not a mile apart in our views .
Maybe. But I want you to consider these two sentences:

"The hero lives in his house alone or with siblings, his parents live elsewhere."

and

"The hero's parents never show their faces in the story, never ever evar."

Are you aware of the difference betwixt the two assertions? I'm asking this because, if you are, then you should easily realize that refuting the second one and then claiming victory over somebody who stated the first one constitutes bad form in a debate -- the straw man fallacy, as logic calls it -- and actually casts doubt over the sincerity of your commitment to the discussion.

Some posters were lamenting the fact that Lance, who appeared for a short visit not too long ago, doesn't live in the house with his children. I quoted that bit about Lance (thus proving that, yes, I am aware of his visit) and explained that having the parents live far away, as DC does, is actually a classic trope in manga (I didn't specify which genre of manga, which was perhaps a mistake, but in my defense I will say that I honestly thought that any intelligent reader would understand I meant the DC sort of manga). Then I got replies from Gotoh saying: "Ah hah, you forget Lance once visited the house! You are refuted!" and "Oh yeah? Well I know series of a completely different genre which keep the parents at home! I win!" He tried to exemplify, too, but his knowledge of manga and anime is so godawfully poor that he bungled all his examples, mistaking names and authors, mistaking adults for teens, and claiming that all Japanese anime is made for export to the West. He even stooped so low as to personally attack me, calling me things. It was rude.

Rereading my posts, in all humbleness, I can't find anything that justifies such errors and horrors of comprehension. If the teen hero of a manga gets superpowers, starts skipping classes to fight other superhumans, and brings a couple of hot babes to live with him and sleep in his bed (all common happenings in this genre), it's way better if his parents are living elsewhere -- otherwise they would most likely object to these developments, resulting in endless reprimands and arguments and making the manga boring as watching grass grow. This doesn't preclude a visit to their son in one of the chapters; in fact, that would make for a fun episode -- what with all the things he'll have to hide. There's no contradiction here. Even a 10-year-old child would get the idea nice and clear.

And yet, look at the replies I got. Get the gist of each message.

You understand, I hope, that, after this, I can't really be blamed if I start doubting the good faith of my interlocutors.
We, the old ghosts of Pizen Bluff, who still roam about this dead forum screaming imprecations at the characters and whatnot.

User avatar
Valkog
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:19 am
Contact:

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Valkog » Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:23 am

Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am
He even stooped so low as to personally attack me, calling me things. It was rude.
That didn't actually happen, though. You're making it up entirely. I read and re-read Gotoh's posts, and not one of them contains a personal attack or name called. If he were to call you anything, I think "liar" would be a fair choice, in this case.
**== **== **==

Gotoh
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:18 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Gotoh » Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:57 am

Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am
I am aware of his visit) and explained that having the parents live far away, as DC does, is actually a classic trope in manga (I didn't specify which genre of manga, which was perhaps a mistake, but in my defense I will say that I honestly thought that any intelligent reader would understand I meant the DC sort of manga).
In regard to the highlighted portion, I suppose I should have considered that. But I can only go by what you've actually typed in your response.
Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am
Then I got replies from Gotoh saying: "Ah hah, you forget Lance once visited the house! You are refuted!" and "Oh yeah? Well I know series of a completely different genre which keep the parents at home! I win!"
I never said a word about Lance, I used the adults in EC (Adora, Twiggit, and Tia) to refute your point. As for the other portion, I also mentioned teachers, and mentor figures since your initial argument was ↓:
Vitocap wrote:The fans want to read about the cool adventures of the main characters, they don't give a damn about the dumb, dopey, stuffy adults.
...and since you've already admitted to not specifying a genre, neither did I. So I used examples from several genres to prove stories that include adults can still be interesting.
Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am
He tried to exemplify, too, but his knowledge of manga and anime is so godawfully poor that he bungled all his examples, mistaking names and authors, mistaking adults for teens.
Hideaki Anno is credited as the writer/director of 'Nadia' in the show's OP, Heather and Marolyn are said to be teenagers in 'Spinnerette'. If you have proof to the contrary, let's see it.
Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am
]and claiming that all Japanese anime is made for export to the West.
No I didn't. My exact words were (quote): "most anime is made for export"

That includes series that aren't released commercially (on Blu-ray and DVD) outside of Japan, since many series are now being simulcast on legal streaming sites such as Netflix and Crunchyroll (many of them dubbed, or subbed in english). Which allows western audiences to still see them.
Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am
He even stooped so low as to personally attack me, calling me things. It was rude.
Quote any post where I did. There isn't one.

User avatar
Vitocap
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:02 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Vitocap » Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:28 am

Valkog wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:23 am
Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am
He even stooped so low as to personally attack me, calling me things. It was rude.
That didn't actually happen, though. You're making it up entirely. I read and re-read Gotoh's posts, and not one of them contains a personal attack or name called. If he were to call you anything, I think "liar" would be a fair choice, in this case.
Here:
Gotoh wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:49 pm
If you're going to try to be snide, at least read far enough back in the discussion so your response doesn't repeat what was already stated.
Name-calling. Personal attack.

By the way, Valkog, I guess it's only fair to warn you: this is the last time I reply to one of your posts. I won't bother reading you anymore. Frankly, paying attention to you, to your trolling, it feels dirty. The people in the Ma3 forum who call you a hatemonger sure got it right down pat.
We, the old ghosts of Pizen Bluff, who still roam about this dead forum screaming imprecations at the characters and whatnot.

Gotoh
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:18 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Gotoh » Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:01 am

@Vitocap: I wasn't name calling, or making a personal attack. Here's the post I originally replied to verbatim ↓:
Vitocap wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:16 pm
Well, of course adults are nowhere around. Duh. It's the long, time-honored tradition of Japanese manga: have the parents of the teen protagonist be traveling, or divorced and remarried, or working overseas, or whatever excuse you can come up with to get them as far from the house as possible. The fans want to read about the cool adventures of the main characters; they don't give a damn about the dumb, stuffy, dopey adults -- and the last thing the authors want is waste valuable comic time in pointless bickerings between the youthful MCs and their parental figures. That would be more boring than watching paint dry. (-|
Or this comment you made in response to dmra ↓:
Vitocap wrote:Your post is a mess, but I'll try to reply anyway
Saying you were trying to be snide seems spot-on. The proof is right there in your posts.

Edit: The only information I could find concerning Spinnerette's age comes from her character bio on the comic's Fan Wiki, which states she's 25. Marolyn's age is listed as "unknown," but I'm guessing she's around the same age. So I admit I was wrong about them being teenagers.

User avatar
Valkog
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:19 am
Contact:

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Valkog » Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:40 am

Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:28 am
Here:
Gotoh wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:49 pm
If you're going to try to be snide, at least read far enough back in the discussion so your response doesn't repeat what was already stated.
Name-calling. Personal attack.
Wrong on both accounts.
Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:28 am
By the way, Valkog, I guess it's only fair to warn you: this is the last time I reply to one of your posts. I won't bother reading you anymore. Frankly, paying attention to you, to your trolling, it feels dirty. The people in the Ma3 forum who call you a hatemonger sure got it right down pat.
Hey, you do you. I mean, I don't actually troll, nor do I monger any hate, but facts aren't actually relevant to you, from the look of it.
**== **== **==

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5439
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Error of Logic » Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:43 am

When did people call Valkog a hatemonger? I can't recall seeing that.
My comic, Res Mira, starts here.

The crazy will bust loose. Either in the stories or on the forum. Or both at the same time.

Mad theory: Eulice is actually a retired succubus. This explains why she says DiDi Chastel looks like she did in her younger years. She maintains her current form because it allows her to get through her day without having to turn down sexual advances.

A busty redhead by decree of the Internet...? o.o;

User avatar
Valkog
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:19 am
Contact:

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Valkog » Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:57 am

Error of Logic wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:43 am
When did people call Valkog a hatemonger? I can't recall seeing that.
They didn't, unless the search function only gives results from the past few days. Just one more made-up detail. Although I'm mildly flattered that someone would lie about me leaving enough of an impression to earn such a strong label.
**== **== **==

dmra
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by dmra » Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:40 am

Vitocap wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am

Are you aware of the difference betwixt the two assertions? I'm asking this because, if you are, then you should easily realize that refuting the second one and then claiming victory over somebody who stated the first one constitutes bad form in a debate -- the straw man fallacy, as logic calls it -- and actually casts doubt over the sincerity of your commitment to the discussion.

He even stooped so low as to personally attack me, calling me things. It was rude.

You understand, I hope, that, after this, I can't really be blamed if I start doubting the good faith of my interlocutors.
I don't intend to waste a lot of time on this but you do deserve an answer on some of these points.

Firstly I never claimed "victory." I said that you'd misunderstood a post of mine. Explained it and then waited for you to respond. There was no gloating. no triumphalism. if anything I went on to try to reach out to you and show that in fact we had a lot of opinions in common. Any idea about winning or losing came from you. And if had replied proving I was wrong I'd have happily put my hands up and said "Fair cop. Sorry about that"

Perhaps if you didn't appear so keen to see posting here as some kind of game or battle you might even enjoy talking about the comic more. I'd certainly enjoy talking about it more with you than I have to date. Less resort to saying how clever you are and how stupidly wrong other people are and you might not get so much hostility in response.

Which by the way may be a rebuke or a criticism but it isn't a personal attack or calling you things. It's simply stating that I disagree with how you approach something. In the same way as somebody saying the tone of your post was "snide" isn't a personal attack it's simply stating an opinion about the tone or intent of something.

You may take these things personally but that doesn't mean they are "personal attacks."

And finally I don't generally feel the need to doubt the essential good faith of anybody posting on these forums. There are some people I agree with more often than not, some I disagree with more often than not. Some I find more interesting than others but we're all here because we love all or part of the work of the Pixie Trix team. That doesn't mean we are some kind of hive mind who will agree on everything but it should mean that we should be able to talk to each other in a tone of mutual respect.

Somebody isn't a "better" or more true fan just because they like everything the creators do.No fandom is ever wholly in agreement on anything (except perhaps the Star Wars one when it comes to Jar Jar) so some people will always disagree on how good or bad something is. Talking about that shouldn't be a problem in fact it ought to be the more interesting part of discussing the comic. I always like to get an idea of why somebody sees something differently from me. Sometimes I even change my mind.

OllieOrOlly
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by OllieOrOlly » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:43 am

Onyx wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:37 pm
Fluffy wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:17 pm
Pay in mind, in Canada, the legal age of sexual consent is sixteen - so, the majority of the cast getting up to sexual activity is totally fine . The stripping, though - is something else entirely

Isn't it a general law in most countries however that real life people or even fictional characters under 18 depicted in sexual situations is considered child pornography? I remember Max Hardcore got into legal trouble because a porn actress in one of the movies he was producing played an underage character despite actually being an adult herself.

Age of consent here in the UK is 16 as well, but make a sex tape with anyone under 18 and you're in hot water. Just to use another example, R.Kelly was taken to court because he made a sex tape with a girl who was legal in the state the filmed it in but still under 18.
Indeed.

To clarify, in Australia, it is illegal to display exploitative sexual depiction of minors. If showing vignettes of Teddi and Pandora hatef**king and the multiple sweaty, post-coitus displays throughout the sleaziest run of the strip aren't exploitative, well, what is?
Granted, my country is a tad ridiculous with strictness in censorship, however, other countries have similar weird standards, and I guess my original point was: I was slightly amused that this strip's lazy dependence upon smut meant it probably would be refused classification if attempts to sell it from an Australian retailer, thus not technically legal.

I know neither of you made such a point, but looking ahead (well, behind this one now), certain declarations were made, so ------ I'm no prude nor believe art should be censored, however, my disappointment is about how something avoids proper storytelling or world building by throwing titilation at the audience; if something is advertised as fantasy themed porn, then okay, but if something is sold as a fun fantasy adventure with some fanservice for flourish, yet ultimately throws out fun, fantasy, and adventure (outside of f**king), then I'm annoyed. The skeevy nature of the "fanservice" doesn't help either.

User avatar
Dragon Paladin
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:43 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Dragon Paladin » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:56 pm

OllieOrOlly wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:43 am
Onyx wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:37 pm
Fluffy wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:17 pm
Pay in mind, in Canada, the legal age of sexual consent is sixteen - so, the majority of the cast getting up to sexual activity is totally fine . The stripping, though - is something else entirely

Isn't it a general law in most countries however that real life people or even fictional characters under 18 depicted in sexual situations is considered child pornography? I remember Max Hardcore got into legal trouble because a porn actress in one of the movies he was producing played an underage character despite actually being an adult herself.

Age of consent here in the UK is 16 as well, but make a sex tape with anyone under 18 and you're in hot water. Just to use another example, R.Kelly was taken to court because he made a sex tape with a girl who was legal in the state the filmed it in but still under 18.
Indeed.

To clarify, in Australia, it is illegal to display exploitative sexual depiction of minors. If showing vignettes of Teddi and Pandora hatef**king and the multiple sweaty, post-coitus displays throughout the sleaziest run of the strip aren't exploitative, well, what is?
Granted, my country is a tad ridiculous with strictness in censorship, however, other countries have similar weird standards, and I guess my original point was: I was slightly amused that this strip's lazy dependence upon smut meant it probably would be refused classification if attempts to sell it from an Australian retailer, thus not technically legal.

I know neither of you made such a point, but looking ahead (well, behind this one now), certain declarations were made, so ------ I'm no prude nor believe art should be censored, however, my disappointment is about how something avoids proper storytelling or world building by throwing titilation at the audience; if something is advertised as fantasy themed porn, then okay, but if something is sold as a fun fantasy adventure with some fanservice for flourish, yet ultimately throws out fun, fantasy, and adventure (outside of f**king), then I'm annoyed. The skeevy nature of the "fanservice" doesn't help either.
Totally agree. This comic started out as a supernatural Rom-Com of sorts, not a sex comedy like Ma3. That's why people are upset by recent strips. That's not to say it wasn't sexual, it stars a literal sex demon, after all, but it wasn't just non-stop sex. If it started out that way, the readers very well might not be upset at recent developments, because they would just be par for the course. But, it was originally a romantic comedy about a succubus (who was, in my opinion, one of the better EC characters), her would-be victim, and several other cryptid and human characters. Now, it's cast are arguably more over-sexed than the Ma3 cast, and THAT is saying a lot.
I am Suleviir, Paladin of Iomede, Goddess of Valor. Those who do evil shall fear my blade.

User avatar
DarkAsh
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:57 am
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by DarkAsh » Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:07 pm

Dragon Paladin wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:56 pm
OllieOrOlly wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:43 am
Onyx wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:37 pm


Isn't it a general law in most countries however that real life people or even fictional characters under 18 depicted in sexual situations is considered child pornography? I remember Max Hardcore got into legal trouble because a porn actress in one of the movies he was producing played an underage character despite actually being an adult herself.

Age of consent here in the UK is 16 as well, but make a sex tape with anyone under 18 and you're in hot water. Just to use another example, R.Kelly was taken to court because he made a sex tape with a girl who was legal in the state the filmed it in but still under 18.
Indeed.

To clarify, in Australia, it is illegal to display exploitative sexual depiction of minors. If showing vignettes of Teddi and Pandora hatef**king and the multiple sweaty, post-coitus displays throughout the sleaziest run of the strip aren't exploitative, well, what is?
Granted, my country is a tad ridiculous with strictness in censorship, however, other countries have similar weird standards, and I guess my original point was: I was slightly amused that this strip's lazy dependence upon smut meant it probably would be refused classification if attempts to sell it from an Australian retailer, thus not technically legal.

I know neither of you made such a point, but looking ahead (well, behind this one now), certain declarations were made, so ------ I'm no prude nor believe art should be censored, however, my disappointment is about how something avoids proper storytelling or world building by throwing titilation at the audience; if something is advertised as fantasy themed porn, then okay, but if something is sold as a fun fantasy adventure with some fanservice for flourish, yet ultimately throws out fun, fantasy, and adventure (outside of f**king), then I'm annoyed. The skeevy nature of the "fanservice" doesn't help either.
Totally agree. This comic started out as a supernatural Rom-Com of sorts, not a sex comedy like Ma3. That's why people are upset by recent strips. That's not to say it wasn't sexual, it stars a literal sex demon, after all, but it wasn't just non-stop sex. If it started out that way, the readers very well might not be upset at recent developments, because they would just be par for the course. But, it was originally a romantic comedy about a succubus (who was, in my opinion, one of the better EC characters), her would-be victim, and several other cryptid and human characters. Now, it's cast are arguably more over-sexed than the Ma3 cast, and THAT is saying a lot.
Teddi definitely is more over sexed than any character in MA3. What I've liked about the last chapter and the current chapter is that they focus more on story and less on sex (and yes there was a little bit there with a lot of "fan service"). Despite Abby having turned into a succubus the comic has so far been about the consequences and not about her having sex, at least not yet.

User avatar
Dragon Paladin
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:43 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by Dragon Paladin » Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:14 pm

DarkAsh wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:07 pm
Teddi definitely is more over sexed than any character in MA3. What I've liked about the last chapter and the current chapter is that they focus more on story and less on sex (and yes there was a little bit there with a lot of "fan service"). Despite Abby having turned into a succubus the comic has so far been about the consequences and not about her having sex, at least not yet.
Fair point. I don't personally like this new turn of events, but i will admit that it will be interesting to see if Abby learns how careless she's been and grow as a character (and maybe stop being quite as stupidly impulsive). But a part of me is worried this will just turn into more squicky fanservice of a 12 year old.
I am Suleviir, Paladin of Iomede, Goddess of Valor. Those who do evil shall fear my blade.

User avatar
DarkAsh
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:57 am
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went

Post by DarkAsh » Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:42 pm

Dragon Paladin wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:14 pm
DarkAsh wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:07 pm
Teddi definitely is more over sexed than any character in MA3. What I've liked about the last chapter and the current chapter is that they focus more on story and less on sex (and yes there was a little bit there with a lot of "fan service"). Despite Abby having turned into a succubus the comic has so far been about the consequences and not about her having sex, at least not yet.
Fair point. I don't personally like this new turn of events, but i will admit that it will be interesting to see if Abby learns how careless she's been and grow as a character (and maybe stop being quite as stupidly impulsive). But a part of me is worried this will just turn into more squicky fanservice of a 12 year old.
This is not my preferred path for the story either. I would rather the story had focused on turning Teddi back into Teddy, but that doesn't appear to be a priority. Initially, I was just happy that Chloe was back after what felt like a life time of being absent, and this coming from someone who only started reading the story a little less than a year ago.

Post Reply