Dangerously Chloe 18-06-18 A Truant Student

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

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

dmra
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 18-06-18 A Truant Student

Post by dmra » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:14 am

brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
so why do you continue to read a webcomic you find morally objectionable?
It's possible for a piece of entertainment to contain things you find "morally objectionable" and still be entertained by it. I find robbery and theft morally objectionable but that doesn't stop me enjoying "the Italian job" (the proper one not the truly objectionable remake). I find murder morally objectionable but still enjoy the occasional slasher film.

In the same way I can disapprove of something a character does in the EC or DC universe and still find the series entertaining overall. So the fact that Jackie deceived somebody into sleeping with her using her magic or that Cerise tried to commit mass murder etc etc doesn't mean I'm not entertained.
It just means I wouldn't want to meet them or people like them in real life.

What I am struggling to understand is why, in a comic world where lots of bad things have been done you seem to regard somebody being coerced/tricked into sex as some kind of deal breaker when attempted murder and mind controlling an entire school in the name of your goddess seem not to worry you overly much.

User avatar
brasca
Posts: 3382
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:04 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 18-06-18 A Truant Student

Post by brasca » Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am

Gotoh wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:59 am
brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
Mr. Deltorre was tricked, but the real issue is Jacqui used a glamour to appear as an adult when she's possibly underage.
And that's all that needs to be said about that instance. She deliberately deceived an adult so he'd sleep with her.
And it's not illegal the other way around. Like I stated those laws are designed to protect children from predatory adults not the other way around. Unethical yes. Illegal no.
Gotoh wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:59 am
brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
As for Ash what people say in public and do in private can be very different.

Except the comic provides no evidence that supports your suggestion. As soon as he found out Kade was a guy, Ash said he wasn't interested and politely turned him down.
And it provides no evidence that he's adverse to being with someone that is transgender or another guy. We really don't know enough about Ash's sexual preferences. You take what you want from that and draw your own flimsy conclusion.
Gotoh wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:59 am
brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
Moreover, the magic wand is a force for good so I seriously doubt it would compel two people to love each other against their will.
The same wand that regularly forces Mel to follow Tiff's workouts, against her own will?
Maybe it's trying to draw out the goodness in Melissa that's been suppressed all this time. Hekate worship will do that.
Gotoh wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:59 am
brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
her physical appearance alone would be enough to seduce Lance
Except that isn't what we saw happen. Lance walked in and wanted to know who Pandora was and why she was in his house. So she enthralled him to keep from possibly being thrown out.
Lance would immediately be skeptical of a young woman finding him desirable so the pheromones diminished his better judgement, but he still had the wherewithal to want what she was offering.
Gotoh wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:59 am
brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
As for the jocks it's a little difficult to feel sympathetic when they committed assault and battery just because Teddi was getting all the boys.

That hardly justifies taking advantage of them and Teddy brought it on himself by dating those jocks without at least making sure they weren't already seeing anyone.

Meddling in other people's relationships (even if unknowingly) is a potential altercation waiting to happen, especially since Teddy chose to escalate the situation by mouthing off when he could clearly see he was outnumbered. A rational person would have tried reasoning with them.
Whatever relationships they might've had were obviously not that strong. And seeing as how Teddi has been on a mission since turning into a girl to find a man who can take Chloe's virginity and live to tell the tale zie can't really be bothered to learn who is and isn't in a relationship. Perhaps you've forgotten that throughout all this finger wagging. Teddi could be free of this contract if zie let Chloe die, but no Teddi is trying to save her and even now willing to risk death and eternal damnation not to mention everything else zie has done so far which wasn't all fun and games. And as I previously stated Teddi isn't in the same frame of mind that Teddy was so there's also that which you refuse to take into consideration.
Gotoh wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:59 am
brasca wrote: so why do you continue to read a webcomic you find morally objectionable?
I haven't. I only read the previous update out of curiosity. Beyond that, I've mainly been following forum discussion.
Then consider this my very last post on this particular subject directed at you because if you're not following along with the current story then it's a waste of my time. I read this webcomic for my amusement and come here to discuss the plot with other interested people.
dmra wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:14 am
brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
so why do you continue to read a webcomic you find morally objectionable?
It's possible for a piece of entertainment to contain things you find "morally objectionable" and still be entertained by it. I find robbery and theft morally objectionable but that doesn't stop me enjoying "the Italian job" (the proper one not the truly objectionable remake). I find murder morally objectionable but still enjoy the occasional slasher film.

In the same way I can disapprove of something a character does in the EC or DC universe and still find the series entertaining overall. So the fact that Jackie deceived somebody into sleeping with her using her magic or that Cerise tried to commit mass murder etc etc doesn't mean I'm not entertained.
It just means I wouldn't want to meet them or people like them in real life.

What I am struggling to understand is why, in a comic world where lots of bad things have been done you seem to regard somebody being coerced/tricked into sex as some kind of deal breaker when attempted murder and mind controlling an entire school in the name of your goddess seem not to worry you overly much.
Nobody actually died. And strangely enough attempted mass murder doesn't seem to bother as many people on this board as sex. You keep going on about how all these people are compelled to do things against their will, but if the desire is there it just overrides their better judgement. Gabrielle wanted Teddi as soon as she saw zie, but would've waited to intervene as a matter of strategy. The pheromones overrode that judgement and so she leaped to Teddi's defense. Tandy on the other hand is having some inappropriate dreams, but she's not acting on any of it. Maybe I'm wrong about all this, but until proven otherwise I prefer to think that the devil isn't responsible for everything except nudging them in the wrong direction.

I take everything as a case by case basis. The succubi are not good, they are demons, but Chloe tries to fight against her nature so I tend to view her differently. Teddi has been thrust into situations no one zies age should be in and doing the best zie can. Sure zie has made some mistakes, but zie's heart is in the right place much like Chloe's so I view zie differently. Intent matters and if Teddi were abusing zie's power the way Blair would if he could trade places then I'd have a different opinion.

Gotoh
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:18 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 18-06-18 A Truant Student

Post by Gotoh » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:44 am

brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am
Like I stated those laws are designed to protect children from predatory adults not the other way around. Unethical yes. Illegal no.
The law proves otherwise. In 2013 a teenager was charged with raping his math teacher, before killing her.
brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am
We really don't know enough about Ash's sexual preferences. You take what you want from that and draw your own flimsy conclusion.
I'd have to agree with the highlighted text in regard to your reasoning, at this point.
brasca wrote:Lance would immediately be skeptical of a young woman finding him desirable so the pheromones diminished his better judgement, but he still had the wherewithal to want what she was offering.
Lance didn't have a choice, he was enthralled.
brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am
Whatever relationships they might've had were obviously not that strong.
Which still doesn't justify what he was doing.
brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am
Teddi could be free of this contract if he let Chloe die
As I and others have pointed out several times, Chloe has options and has chosen not to try any of them. So if she were to die, it'd be through no one's fault but her own.
brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am
Then consider this my very last post on this particular subject directed at you because if you're not following along with the current story then it's a waste of my time.
I don't have to follow the story to follow the discussion. The fact that I can still link to all relevant points in DC should be proof enough.
brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am
Nobody actually died. And strangely enough attempted mass murder doesn't seem to bother as many people on this board as sex.
Might wanna re-read the comments on that thread, 'cuz I and several others called Mel out on letting Cerise off scot-free after everything she did. So did Faith, 'til Tiff bribed her to drop it.

dmra
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 18-06-18 A Truant Student

Post by dmra » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:13 am

brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am

Nobody actually died. And strangely enough attempted mass murder doesn't seem to bother as many people on this board as sex. You keep going on about how all these people are compelled to do things against their will, but if the desire is there it just overrides their better judgement. Gabrielle wanted Teddi as soon as she saw zie, but would've waited to intervene as a matter of strategy. The pheromones overrode that judgement and so she leaped to Teddi's defense. Tandy on the other hand is having some inappropriate dreams, but she's not acting on any of it. Maybe I'm wrong about all this, but until proven otherwise I prefer to think that the devil isn't responsible for everything except nudging them in the wrong direction.

I take everything as a case by case basis. The succubi are not good, they are demons, but Chloe tries to fight against her nature so I tend to view her differently. Teddi has been thrust into situations no one zies age should be in and doing the best zie can. Sure zie has made some mistakes, but zie's heart is in the right place much like Chloe's so I view zie differently. Intent matters and if Teddi were abusing zie's power the way Blair would if he could trade places then I'd have a different opinion.
We usually tend to judge morality and criminality not by whether or not somebody succeeds but whether or not they tried to do something. There is a reason why attempted murder or conspiracy are still crimes even if nobody gets hurt.

So Cerise intended to murder several people and did her best to do it. Her incompetence at doing so shouldn't make her any less of a villain than Blofeld's inability to kill James Bond excuses anything he does.

So I agree with you that Chloe isn't as bad as the other succubi because she isn't generally trying to do bad things. Even when she does do something "evil" - like during the Valentines Day arc - we see her feeling remorse or guilt. In a kind of mirror image of Cerise she wants to do good but just isn't very good at it. So she's not a villain but an incompetent good guy with good intentions. Which for me is a lot of her appeal. Seeing her struggle with her nature rather than simply accepting it makes her a lot more interesting to me than somebody like Lucretia who we only see being traditionally "evil".

When it comes to people being "compelled" to have sex it's equally clear for me that the comic has put people into situations where they aren't giving fully informed consent. Sometimes - as with Faith misusing (albeit unconsciously) the school's power to get people to like her enough to want to have sex with her or Mel's reaction to zapping Ash and Dio- the comic makes it explicit that that is something bad. Other times we don't get the same editorial judgement shown but are left to make our minds up.

Delatorre, for example, made it clear that he didn't want to have a relationship with Jacqui. And the only reason he entered into one was because she used magic to change her appearance and claimed to be somebody she wasn't. Now it's true that Delatorre agreed to have sex with the person Jacqui was claiming to be but only because he'd been tricked. It's a bit like an identical twin claiming to be their twin to sleep with their twin's partner. The partner consents to the sex but only because they've been conned into it. There is consent but it really isn't informed consent because deception is involved.

So Jacqui did something reprehensible which I really didn't like seeing even though I thought she was one of the more interesting of the Hellrunes. Partly because she wasn't obsessed with power, prestige and school politics but also because she had an intelligence and insight that the other two lacked. . Delatorre being deceived didn't stop me liking her completely but did make me like her a lot less and I was glad that the story line wasn't really pursued.

It's the same with Teddi and the harem. I used to like Teddy a lot. As a geek who liked the idea of disassembling a mechanical duck he was always an unlikely hero for a "teen" comic. But then the comic became almost solely concerned with Teddi having sex that it took over pretty much all the rest of his character and turned him into a one act bore.

I don't blame him for wanting to have lots of sex. I don't blame her for the fact that the jocks want to have sex with her - looking like she does it would be surprising if most of them didn't - because I don't think we've seen anything that suggests Teddi should know that they might not be acting normally. I do though condemn her for being willing to risk their lives or serious injury when the lucky winner of his virility contest eventually got fed to Chloe but that's a different debate.

But it's very different when it comes to the harem of ex-bullies.

Teddi knows for sure that they aren't acting normally but still has sex with them. It's just about understandable that she might think sleeping with the first girl was a way to dispel the charm she thought they were under. But when it failed to work on her sleeping with the rest of them served no logical purpose. Neither did the sleeping with them multiple times when it should have been obvious that it wasn't helping but was simply Teddi taking advantage of their altered state for her own benefit.

For me that was like sleeping with somebody you know is drunk and who wouldn't sleep with you sober. You may not have got them drunk but taking advantage of the fact that they are is still a pretty shitty thing to do. Doing it once would be bad enough but doing it every Friday night is pretty inexcusable.

User avatar
tau neutrino
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:28 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 18-06-18 A Truant Student

Post by tau neutrino » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:01 pm

brasca wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:51 am
Gotoh wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:59 am
brasca wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:26 am
Mr. Deltorre was tricked, but the real issue is Jacqui used a glamour to appear as an adult when she's possibly underage.
And that's all that needs to be said about that instance. She deliberately deceived an adult so he'd sleep with her.
And it's not illegal the other way around. Like I stated those laws are designed to protect children from predatory adults not the other way around. Unethical yes. Illegal no.
It is illegal. It's rape by deception.

Post Reply