Pixie Trix Comix & Hiveworks Community

The whole "jumping over roofs" - I don't think a stereotypical proper lady could pull that off unless vampirized.

Mackus wrote:Vampire hunters might be ruthless, but I see no evidence that they are actually evil. For all we know our lovely due was to blame. "Oh look, those guys are ugly middle aged white men, so they must be evil! And those two girls got nice pairs of boobs so they must be misunderstood victims!". Meh.
I guess that Lorna turned Emma out some sort of twisted idea of friendship (I feel powerful, I want to Emma know whats its like), or Emma was terrified of her, and Lorna went all "you'll change your mind in a minute... sister", and they both went on rampage of some sort. Someone knew how to contact vampire hunters, and they do not differentiate between "spoiled princess" and "mass murderess" - and most of time when it comes to vampires difference between the two is one of power only.

As I pointed out earlier, they're grinning as they pin Emma down. That's not something good guys do. That's what bad guys do.

"They smile. They are evil because they smile." *facepalm*
If I travelled in time and strangled Hitler, I would smile too.
Just because they smile as they are about to kill someone who we have reasons to believe is evil, doesn't mean they are evil too.
Sure, it is certainly within realms of possible that Emma and Lorna did nothing beside draining people and charming them to forget (did nothing beside what was needed to surive), and cryptid hunters caused rampage and set everything on fire to smoke them out, and that they enjoy their job of killing criptids way more than they should.
But keep in mind, that for all we know almost all vampires prior to XX century were unashamedly evil and treated humans and cattle to be slaughtered for food - if thats the case, even overzealous vampire hunters who hunt them indiscriminately would, while definitely not nice, be positive force in the world.

I usually end up enjoying it when a vampire's killed and I don't even live in a world where they're real and a threat. For the most part I'm just fed up with them in general and get annoyed when human characters inevitably take things too far and become the bad guys.

Mackus wrote:Vampire hunters might be ruthless, but I see no evidence that they are actually evil. For all we know our lovely due was to blame. "Oh look, those guys are ugly middle aged white men, so they must be evil! And those two girls got nice pairs of boobs so they must be misunderstood victims!". Meh.

The town consuming fire doesn't seem like something the vampires would cause. And no, "she has boobs she must be nice" doesn't factor in for me(Unless you think people thought the Harrows weren't horrible people). The "This is one step away from a rape scene" vibe does however.

Hitler was responsible for the death of millions, I somehow doubt a non-queen could pull even a quarter of those numbers. (Also vampires aren't usually genocidal, unless they're the stupid ones in Blade who wants to actively kill off their only food source for reasons)

Mackus wrote: But keep in mind, that for all we know almost all vampires prior to XX century were unashamedly evil and treated humans and cattle to be slaughtered for food - if thats the case, even overzealous vampire hunters who hunt them indiscriminately would, while definitely not nice, be positive force in the world.

But we don't know. We'd have to go back in time to see how Lilith herself handled things, and then different/diverging continuities, etc. Sure it's perfectly fine to kill what feeds on you, no objection about that


Thing is though, humanity just doesn't place itself in the most sympathetic light. Harlem for example.

"Well this person has some nice property I want, but they won't sell/give it to me. I know, I'll accuse them of being a witch!"

"But I'm not a witch!"

"Well we're going to kill you anyway to test you. If you pass, you're a witch and your death was justified. If you fail, you were innocent and we're sorry but you'll be in a better place!"


So forgive me if a pack of vicious looking vampire hunters doesn't automatically scream "Pure hearted heroes" to me.

An awful lot of sound and fury about a situation where there isn't enough information to be sure of anything in a comic that's has "fangservice" as its main selling point.

God I love the internet.

Oh geez, you're right. I was ignoring my own advice.

Nothing wrong with a little verbal sparing. Fandom debates is the fire that keeps a fandom strong.


(As long as it doesn't turn stupid)

Hyper Magi wrote:The town consuming fire doesn't seem like something the vampires would cause.

I said that vampire hunters could've been the ones who did this literally one line above the one you quoted. Did you you read first and last sentences of my post and ingnored the rest?

Hyper Magi wrote:The "This is one step away from a rape scene" vibe does however.

So What? Police arresting criminal who happens to be a woman also gives rape vibe to many people. Because its men using violence against woman. Both "gangrape" and "punching woman who tried to strangle a baby" is technically violence against women. What makes difference is context and intention. For example: a man punches a woman who tried to kill a baby, but not because he tried to save a baby, but because he likes to punch women, and has no preference to punching babies - he was neither nice nor moral person, but in this case, even if by accident, he happened to do something that had good outcome. Or inversely: some schizophrenic guy beats up random stranger, because he thought he was alien spy that wants to destroy Earth - he had good intention, but obviously he didn't do a good deed. The questions regarding those vampire hunters are:
their intentions, some of possible options are:
a) desire to save humans by killing vampire who hurt them, because every innocent life is sacred - good (unlikely)
b) simple are good at killing vampires, its only a job to them, they're in for money - neutral
c) like to kill people, and killing vampires is socially acceptable way to act on their violent urges, so they do it - evil
and the outcome, which depends on whether
a) Emma and Lorna were mostly harmless, only drank blood without killing anyone undeserving death - then staking them would be too harsh punishment
b) Emma and Lorna were completely harmless, only drank blood of genuine volunteers (very unlikely) - then doing anything but leaving them alone would be evil thing
c) Emma and Lorna were violent killers, who drank their innocent victims dry - stab 'em bitches

note that any combination, including evil vs evil, and good vs good (somebody blamed murder on local vampires, for example) are possible, some more, some less likely. I don't think any side in this battle is truly good: neither vampires, nor hunters.

Hyper Magi wrote:So forgive me if a pack of vicious looking vampire hunters doesn't automatically scream "Pure hearted heroes" to me.

Well, I forgive you that, since I never claimed them to be pure force of goodness and rainbows and teddy bears. You know if you gonna put things in my mouth that I never said, why stop at that? Who won't you go all the way and claim that I said it would be awesome if they raped her, then killed her, then raped her dead body.

Hyper Magi wrote:Nothing wrong with a little verbal sparing. Fandom debates is the fire that keeps a fandom strong.


(As long as it doesn't turn stupid)

Yes, but I considering I was arguing against uninformed debates in a previous thread, my posts here make me feel like a hypocrite. From now on, I'll hold back judgment until we know more about the circumstances.

I read everything. I was merely pointing out that it's more likely that the fire wasn't caused by the vampires, and that preconceived judgement regarding the mob isn't because of them being old men and their victim being a young female.

Mackus wrote:
So What? Police arresting criminal who happens to be a woman also gives rape vibe to many people. Because its men using violence against woman. Both "gangrape" and "punching woman who tried to strangle a baby" is technically violence against women. What makes difference is context and intention. For example: a man punches a woman who tried to kill a baby, but not because he tried to save a baby, but because he likes to punch women, and has no preference to punching babies - he was neither nice nor moral person, but in this case, even if by accident, he happened to do something that had good outcome. Or inversely: some schizophrenic guy beats up random stranger, because he thought he was alien spy that wants to destroy Earth - he had good intention, but obviously he didn't do a good deed. The questions regarding those vampire hunters are:
their intentions, some of possible options are:
a) desire to save humans by killing vampire who hurt them, because every innocent life is sacred - good (unlikely)
b) simple are good at killing vampires, its only a job to them, they're in for money - neutral
c) like to kill people, and killing vampires is socially acceptable way to act on their violent urges, so they do it - evil
and the outcome, which depends on whether
a) Emma and Lorna were mostly harmless, only drank blood without killing anyone undeserving death - then staking them would be too harsh punishment
b) Emma and Lorna were completely harmless, only drank blood of genuine volunteers (very unlikely) - then doing anything but leaving them alone would be evil thing
c) Emma and Lorna were violent killers, who drank their innocent victims dry - stab 'em bitches

note that any combination, including evil vs evil, and good vs good (somebody blamed murder on local vampires, for example) are possible, some more, some less likely. I don't think any side in this battle is truly good: neither vampires, nor hunters.

It's not just the violence that's giving me that vibe. It's a combination of the violence, the sadistic grins on their faces, and the terrified look on the girl's face as she begs for her unlife. Violence in and of itself doesn't suggest rape, but the context that's being presented to me. That said I would be shocked if that's the mob's actual intention, but the vibe is still there. Much like how Heather's turning looks, what with her terrified face as she screams in a locked room being the last thing we see of her as a human, and the next page have her on the ground with ripped clothing and a bite mark on her thigh. Again, I'm not saying rape actually happened or that there was any intent of it going on, but from an outside perspective....

We don't know everything about these hunters yet, but they don't look good. And it's not because of what you implied.


But yeah, the main characters were never portrayed as 100% good (Most of the VCs aren't exactly the nicest... Steph was a bit too eager to kill monsters, etc) and the most evil characters so far seems to have been the gorgons.

Mackus wrote: Well, I forgive you that, since I never claimed them to be pure force of goodness and rainbows and teddy bears. You know if you gonna put things in my mouth that I never said, why stop at that? Who won't you go all the way and claim that I said it would be awesome if they raped her, then killed her, then raped her dead body.

I don't recall putting that in your mouth, or anything for that matter. I wouldn't place something in anyone's mouth... without their consent of course. ;)


Jokes aside, I was just pointing out why I'm sympathetic towards Emma right now. You say "Vampires could have been totally evil up til a certain century". Sure, but there's no proof for or against that. But there's plenty of proof that humans are bastards through all of history. All the evidence presented up to this point of the story, and my opinion could very well change within the next strip or two, points to Emma being a victim more than a monster who's about to get what she rightfully deserves.