Pixie Trix Comix & Hiveworks Community

Seems to me that people are missing the important question about this scene.

Where was Ilsa keeping the photo of baby Pandy? In her outfit? On a nice little cabinet by the side of the rack?

Maybe she has access to hammerspace. *shrug*

Guys, you're arguing about the moral aspects of *succubi*.

For starters, completely different species than human. There's no reason to expect their brains are wired anywhere close to our own. They are probably completely missing the 'incest is icky' wiring. Besides, do you try to force your morality on your pet dog or cat? Assuming you could even have a vocal conversation with them, of course. Same problem, different species, different brains.

And then there's the fact that they are Literal. Sex. Demons. Expecting them to be moral examples of society is like expecting fire to not burn you.

So yeah, creepy. Why did you expect anything different?

Mother of God, Zorlond. I thought it was annoying when brasca made that argument.

First of all, we're not (or at least I'm not) disturbed by this because succubi are okay with what's basically incest and, apparently, has been retroactively all this time. We're disturbed that it's here in the first place; succubi may have different ideas of right and wrong, but the writer is as human as you and me; HE'S supposed to know better.

Second of all, I love how you make the comparison of humans and succubi to humans and cats/dogs. Mentally speaking, cats and dogs are non-sapient creatures, so no kidding they have different brains than us, and physically-speaking, we have as much in common with cats and dogs as a concrete block has with a plastic bucket. Succubi, on the other hand, look awfully like us physically, and while their physiology is quite different, they can still have personal preferences, goals, plans, fears and desires. Isn't the point of Chloe that they don't even have evil sewn into their genetic mark-up, it's more of a societal thing?

And while we're on the subject, being different from ordinary people doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you, so why should not being human disqualify us from reacting to the acts of a succubus, an incubus or any other monster that clash profoundly with basic moral and human decency*? Having different societal beliefs, or customs, or physiology or whatever is an in-story explanation for their actions, not a catch-all defense against any negative reaction to said actions.

*No, I'm not saying vampires can't drink blood ever as long as they do it responsibly and humanely, or that monsters don't have the right to exist. Just saying that when you see something like a wendigo eating a person, it's no use turning your back on it, shrugging and saying, "Oh, well, that's just how a wendigo feeds, nothing we can do about it."

The writer is writing the character. By your logic, a human writer shouldn't write about murder, because we know murder is wrong.

As for the succubi, I would think in 2018, this is a matter of two grown adults (Pandora is over 18) engaging in acts they both want to act in. Next thing you'll tell me, in 2018, they can't be any gender they want either.

No she's not, she's supposed to be Chloe's classmate.

And you're leaving out the part of them being related.

JoybuzzerX wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:22 am

The writer is writing the character. By your logic, a human writer shouldn't write about murder, because we know murder is wrong.

A writer can write what they want to write about. But, guess what? By publishing their work, they're opening themselves up to criticism, just like anyone else who creates any form of published media.

They don't like the criticism? Too bad for them. They're not entitled to praise, exclusively.

As for the succubi, I would think in 2018, this is a matter of two grown adults (Pandora is over 18) engaging in acts they both want to act in.

Incest is incest, dude - regardless of the age/species of the characters. The characters are succubi; sexual debauchery is expected. The readers, however, are not succubi; and will react to what they are shown.

Next thing you'll tell me, in 2018, they can't be any gender they want either.

In this comic? No, they can't. How many times was Teddy turned into a girl against his will? (first one was an accidental side effect; the second was a deliberate act - forcing him to pretend her had gender re-assignment surgery in order to explain his sudden, inexplicable change).

Well even Pandora found that bit weird that her Mother was acting all sugar and spice during her punishment, so maybe there is a line or maybe something else at this point I just don't know anymore.

renmei wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:51 am

She knows what happens to the men in succubi matings. She's seen her brother's corpse and she's gotten "the talk" from Pandora and Chloe about how succubi biology works. He's a super hot beefcake now. The damage they could do to his body through mating or pregnancy would ruin a "work of art".

It's perfectly possible to find someone attractive and not want to have sex with them.

Well yes I wasn't intending to imply a sexual attraction, just that to me the normal, decent reason to not want your brother torn apart would be that you love him as your brother and fellow living being.

Wouldn't be the first time she used the threat/implication of incest as torture/getting her rocks off.

http://www.dangerouslychloe.com/strips- ... d_for_Life

LegendaryKroc wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:14 am

Mother of God, Zorlond. I thought it was annoying when brasca made that argument.

First of all, we're not (or at least I'm not) disturbed by this because succubi are okay with what's basically incest and, apparently, has been retroactively all this time. We're disturbed that it's here in the first place; succubi may have different ideas of right and wrong, but the writer is as human as you and me; HE'S supposed to know better.

So, there's no difference between reality and fiction for you? Yeah, you just went from pushing your modern human morals on the family pet to pushing your modern human morals on a place/situation that doesn't exist.

Second of all, I love how you make the comparison of humans and succubi to humans and cats/dogs. Mentally speaking, cats and dogs are non-sapient creatures, so no kidding they have different brains than us, and physically-speaking, we have as much in common with cats and dogs as a concrete block has with a plastic bucket. Succubi, on the other hand, look awfully like us physically, and while their physiology is quite different, they can still have personal preferences, goals, plans, fears and desires. Isn't the point of Chloe that they don't even have evil sewn into their genetic mark-up, it's more of a societal thing?

Even skipping over the blatant bias towards physically attractive humanoids, you actually specifically mentioned another problem. Different societies. I think "white man's burden" has already proven how incredibly wrong that reasoning is.

And while we're on the subject, being different from ordinary people doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you, so why should not being human disqualify us from reacting to the acts of a succubus, an incubus or any other monster that clash profoundly with basic moral and human decency*? Having different societal beliefs, or customs, or physiology or whatever is an in-story explanation for their actions, not a catch-all defense against any negative reaction to said actions.

Who's laws? American laws? Or how about Moroccan laws? Australian? They don't line up, man. Besides, here you're basically stating that laws = morality, which is so far from reality it might as well be fiction itself.

*No, I'm not saying vampires can't drink blood ever as long as they do it responsibly and humanely, or that monsters don't have the right to exist. Just saying that when you see something like a wendigo eating a person, it's no use turning your back on it, shrugging and saying, "Oh, well, that's just how a wendigo feeds, nothing we can do about it."

Wendigos literally can't eat anything else. Spiders eat butterflies, lions eat zebras, sometimes there's just no alternative except gunning them down first, in which case who's the actual predator? The anime Trigun covered this pretty well in the late 90s. Vash didn't have an answer back then either.

LonestarF1 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:35 am

Wouldn't be the first time she used the threat/implication of incest as torture/getting her rocks off.

http://www.dangerouslychloe.com/strips- ... d_for_Life

Nope - and it was as shivvy then as it is now.

Varanus wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:06 am

Well yes I wasn't intending to imply a sexual attraction, just that to me the normal, decent reason to not want your brother torn apart would be that you love him as your brother and fellow living being.

Sure, that would be the logical, reasonable thing someone would do. But no character in this comic acts like a normal person. They never have.

renmei wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:40 am

Varanus wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:06 am

Well yes I wasn't intending to imply a sexual attraction, just that to me the normal, decent reason to not want your brother torn apart would be that you love him as your brother and fellow living being.

Sure, that would be the logical, reasonable thing someone would do. But no character in this comic acts like a normal person. They never have.

And it certainly doesn't seem to be Abby's main concern.

Wendigos literally can't eat anything else.

And they're considered evil monsters. Succubus are considered evil too. What's your point?