March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Discuss the comic here!
User avatar
Generic
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 231

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by Generic » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:50 am

BuildsLegos wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:38 am
Morgaln wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:43 am
BuildsLegos wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:13 am
If Bowst could just help himself any ol' time (as most do), then the false pretense of needing Idle's help would classify as rape. However, Thunt swore to me a few years ago up & down all that is holy that Goblins doesn't have any rape. (linking that page and referencing his tantrum are a package deal for me, if only because I didn't take the chance in the chat.)
I'm afraid you got lied to. The sex between Bowst and Idle is, per definition, not consentual, since Bowst is being forced into it. As such, it is sexual assault since it involves forcing someone to perform a sexual act and it is rape since it forces that person into sexual intercourse. The victim is Bowst, the perpetrator is whoever cursed him.
Hell, I tried explaining to him that both are victims and his only good point is that, for all I know, the rapist/curse creator might not be an intelligent being. His insistence that I stop reading if this is how I understand his story got me to shut up, but with the kept-to-myself deal that, upon my purchase of volume 3, I want to mail him a thank-you for the great story and sign it by my user-name.
That is horrible.
Det är mera än låtsas och leka
för du kan vara alldeles viss
om att riktiga rosor är bleka
mot en handmålad rosenkuliss.

-Tove Jansson

User avatar
Krulle
Transcribes Goblins
Posts: 7174
Location: banned
Contact:

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by Krulle » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:31 pm

Morgaln wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:14 am
It doesn't actually matter if it falls into your definition of rape. It falls into the legal definition of rape, at least by German law. I haven't yet found relevant texts in other jurisdictions, but I expect it to be similar in most western countries.
The question on whether they were free in their decision is not a grey area. They are both coerced into having intercourse by threat of lethal force against Bowst (in that regard, Idle is as much a victim as Bowst, which I wrongly ommitted in my previous post). As such, by definition, their sex is not consentual.
If you want a real world example, it's the equivalent of a person standing there with a gun and telling them "you two have sex or I'll shoot one of you." The two people might be physically attracted to each other and they might enjoy the sex, but that doesn't change that they got forced into it, which constitutes rape.
That analogy makes me want to think about my opinion.
For me it matters whether the offensive perpetrator is watching or not.
If he's standing there with a gun, I don't have a choice of timing, of partner, and he wants a show.
That I find more disturbing than the currectly discussed curse (which doesn't seem to care about whether you even have a potential partner at all).

Don't mind me, I'll be reconsidering my opinion for a while.
Thanks. (I honestly mean Thank You for openly discussing with me and making me think.)
Danke schön!

Furmanda
Remains Silent
Posts: 2

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by Furmanda » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:19 pm

Welp, I really hope Forgath makes it, he was pretty much the best character.
I wish he didn't end up like the stuff from twitter though, which I fear is exactly what's it gonna be... Something less abomination-tier would be nice, if he became a machine-like hunk of balloid parts, he won't even be able to have kids.

User avatar
Generic
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 231

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by Generic » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:58 am

Furmanda wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:19 pm
Welp, I really hope Forgath makes it, he was pretty much the best character.
I wish he didn't end up like the stuff from twitter though, which I fear is exactly what's it gonna be... Something less abomination-tier would be nice, if he became a machine-like hunk of balloid parts, he won't even be able to have kids.
Best characters in my book is/was Chief, Grem and Kin. Perhaps Senior-Klick. Forgath has always been a bit to static for my taste. He really does not have much of a character development anywhere in the story. He never aspired to anything, never learned much, save from his fight with Young and Beautiful in the beginning.
Det är mera än låtsas och leka
för du kan vara alldeles viss
om att riktiga rosor är bleka
mot en handmålad rosenkuliss.

-Tove Jansson

rwstyles
Whispers Softly
Posts: 44

Re: 12 March 2019: FixHimFixHimFixHim!

Post by rwstyles » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:50 am

Krulle wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:14 am


For for his life might make Bowst break, and possibly interfere with Wards resurrection of Forgath.
(Actually, I'm calling this now: Forgath would be killed by a great battle with a Dwarf. I call Idle being the Dwarf fighting Bowst to protect Ward resurrecting Forgath, but this fails, and Ward cannot resurrect Forgath, leading to Forgath's death being final.)

Let me hope I am wrong.
Notably because Forgath said a Dwarf would kill him and the Talking Wall confirms this.
IMHO, it would be a stretch to say Idle loosing a defending fight is counted as her killing him. It would be a result of her losing the fight, but it would not be the direct cause of the death.
This clearly counts as a death. She gave him the poison, she killed him. Now what he looks like after ...

Mitschu
Remains Silent
Posts: 2

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by Mitschu » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:05 am

To add on to the Bowst-rape dilemma discussion:

Imagine if Idle were the one with that curse.

Regardless of how sexually open and willing she was to have sex, you'd be hard pressed to say "woman forced to choose between having sex or dying" isn't a textbook example of rape. Heck, if Idle had both curses, die-a-day and rape-a-day, it would be entirely reasonable for her to choose to use them to cancel each other out, just to avoid not being forced into sex. Nobody would question the "waste" of her bonus life.

Furthermore, so far as I'm aware, Idle is also the only one to even discuss the curse, in an amused fashion. Bowst, the presumed benefactor of the curse, remains silent on the subject.

We're left to conclude that either Bowst is a gentleman (...), master of subtlety (...), or has some other reason not to discuss his curse. I'd give Thunt all the storytelling props possible if he about-faced on this subject and the reason Bowst didn't mention it while listing off his curses was shame or trauma from what he has to do every night.

It is, after all, perfectly reasonable that far from enjoying "free sex" every night, he is suffering from having his agency violently stripped from him and being forced into unwanted intimacy. Even as a male.

Alas, though, that would paint Idle's chortling over the curse as absolute villainy, and she's sorta being built up as a love-interest heroine, so...

User avatar
Generic
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 231

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by Generic » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:41 pm

Mitschu wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:05 am
We're left to conclude that either Bowst is a gentleman (...), master of subtlety (...), or has some other reason not to discuss his curse. I'd give Thunt all the storytelling props possible if he about-faced on this subject and the reason Bowst didn't mention it while listing off his curses was shame or trauma from what he has to do every night.
Well. They both waited till AFTER the daily decapitation to tell Forgath about Idle's death curse. I think it's safe to say that openness and honesty is not really the forte of these two.

I personally think Thunt just did not think of these implications of his curse. (And I kinda think it makes everything worse if he did not.)
Det är mera än låtsas och leka
för du kan vara alldeles viss
om att riktiga rosor är bleka
mot en handmålad rosenkuliss.

-Tove Jansson

User avatar
BuildsLegos
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 851
UStream Username: BuildsLegos
Location: So rorery in OKC

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by BuildsLegos » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:32 pm

Generic wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:41 pm
I personally think Thunt just did not think of these implications of his curse. (And I kinda think it makes everything worse if he did not.)
That reminds me of another segment to Thunt's outburst: "Didn't think about it enough?! I've been thinking about it for 10 years!" So there's your answer, I hope.
"I miss good ol' Jar Jar."
— aurilee

User avatar
Generic
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 231

Re: March 12th, 2019 "Breaking the Law(s)"

Post by Generic » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:04 am

BuildsLegos wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:32 pm
Generic wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:41 pm
I personally think Thunt just did not think of these implications of his curse. (And I kinda think it makes everything worse if he did not.)
That reminds me of another segment to Thunt's outburst: "Didn't think about it enough?! I've been thinking about it for 10 years!" So there's your answer, I hope.
:puke:
Det är mera än låtsas och leka
för du kan vara alldeles viss
om att riktiga rosor är bleka
mot en handmålad rosenkuliss.

-Tove Jansson

Post Reply