Putting aside that things not being real does not mean the morality of real life doesn't apply to them in any way, incest, including parent-child incest, is a thing that happens in real life, buddy. That didn't stop being a thing just because elements of the supernatural got involved. Besides that, I don't have an inherent problem with things that are illegal or morally-wrong happening in fiction, before you harp on me, but if you're going to go there, you need to do it right and if you're going to spring for something that's a severe transgression, such as incest, you need to do it for a reason. For example...
In the manga/anime Black Lagoon, there's a pair of supporting characters called Hansel and Gretel. They are a pair boy-and-girl twins who are violent, bloodthirsty professional killers and, on top of everything else, incestuous. But the series shows us what happened to make them like that, i.e. being raised in a utterly amoral orphanage where they were forced to partake in snuff films (which, yes, is exactly as sick and horrific as it sounds) which led to not only severe mental traumas that haunt them to this day, but also some seriously messed-up concepts of right and wrong, among other things. In that case, the incest is there, and it's creepy and weird (although Black Lagoon fans generally consider it on the lower end of the creepy scale since it's also something of a redeeming quality) but it serves a clear purpose. By contrast, the incest in this comic serves no purpose except to... be funny, I guess, judging by the fact it's in the final panel, which is usually where the punchline is?
You see where I'm going with this? Black Lagoon uses incest to demonstrate three things, i.e. a) the twins are fucked up, b) their backstory is more fucked up still, and c) the entire world of Black Lagoon is even more fucked up than you'd think BEFORE they arrive on the scene. It's pretty fucking dark, after all. Dangerously Chloe!, on the other hand, uses it as a punchline, and I assure you it's not in any way comical when it happens, whether by accident or on purpose.
"Blatant bias towards physically attractive humanoids"? What are you on about? We as a species are different from cats and dogs in several fundamental ways; it's not biased to say so. And we're talking about succubi here, so I used them as an example. Also, you're the one who cited them having different brains from us humans to the degree of being as an explanation for their behaviour. All I did was opine that comparison doesn't make sense because if succubi were real, we'd have more in common with them than cats or dogs, for the given reasons.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.
As for different societies and the "white man's burden"? Being part of a different society doesn't mean a practice is above reproach. Cannibalism is still a thing in some places; it's still not best practice.
That's your rebuttal? That not every country has the exact same laws? That may be the case, but I'm sure a half-hour's Google searching would reveal significant overlaps. For instance, ever heard of the United Nations Convention against Torture? It's an international law, signed and ratified by 164 countries in the modern world (including the United States of America, Morocco and Australia, wise guy) that says torture of any kind carried out for any reason is illegal as fuck. And while laws are not one and the same thing as morality, (slavery used to be legal, and there used to be a law in Ireland that said women had to give up their full-time jobs upon marriage) they can definitely be influenced by it, and changed based on shifts in a society's general perception of morally-right behaviour. I only used the law in my phrasing because while morality is heavily subjective, full of exceptions and conditions and influenced by personal preference a lot of the time, the law (punitive law especially) applies equally to everyone under its jurisdiction. (At least on paper; in practice it often gets murky because to err is human, etc.)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.
Animals eat other animals (and by extension, animals eat plants) as a part of natural design. It's natural order-enforced population control designed to ensure no one species expands beyond the extent that nature can sustain them, no more and no less. Sapient-on-sapient hunting and eating would only be the same thing if wendigos were real and existed to be our predators. But they don't; they exist solely in the world of fiction, created by writers who were concerned with coming up with man-eating monsters to write scary stories about.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.