Goblins XV: Klik Here

[Vinyadan]

because we had an earlier freak out over his choice of words

Wait what where did he say "contrived"?

[Draconi Redfir]

i think he's reffering to the time when an alternate not-walter told the alt-min-max that enslaved him "see you in hell b***H, me and a bunch of freinds are going to dogpile you blah blah" before going home to his own dimention. The last person he talked too before that was Kin, and while it was incredibly clear to anyone who actually read the comic that he was talking to the alternate minmax, some femminist types got on his case claiming that he was saying it to Kin, and there was this huge hubub about it... it was bad.

[John Cribati]

This has nothing to do with Thunt's writing style for me, and everything to do with the situation involving Bowst, Idle, and their respective curses. I'm even tossing the idea that Bowst is lying out the window for this and taking the situation at face value. And at face value, the situation is problematic, and remains so despite any sort of in-story justification.

[Traab]

It could certainly BECOME problematic very quickly. All it would take is for idle to no longer be more than happy to make the beast with two backs with bowst. But as it stands right now, both seem to be treating it as a shrug worthy event that YOU as an outside observer are offended over despite the actual participants being just fine with it.

[BannedInSchool]

If the Girl Scouts kidnapped your pet and threatened to kill it if you didn't buy cookies from them it doesn't become just fine because you actually like the cookies.

[Traab]

If the Girl Scouts kidnapped your pet and threatened to kill it if you didn't buy cookies from them it doesn't become just fine because you actually like the cookies.

If the girl scouts kidnapped my pet and said they would kill it if I stopped breathing I would.. well, I would be really confused, but I wouldnt exactly have a hard time going along with those instructions till I could find some way to fix the situation. Which is exactly what bowst and idle are doing. I have to say that I find it REALLY amusing that idle needing to be murdered every day in order to not stay dead didnt cause ANY outrage, but the idea that two willing people have to have sex once a day has caused massive amounts of outrage. It really kinda shows our cultural priorities. "Murder? Yeah thats an ok curse. Wait, they have to have... THE SEX?!?!?! This is an outrage!!!"

[T-O-E]

i think he's reffering to the time when an alternate not-walter told the alt-min-max that enslaved him "see you in hell b***H, me and a bunch of freinds are going to dogpile you blah blah" before going home to his own dimention. The last person he talked too before that was Kin, and while it was incredibly clear to anyone who actually read the comic that he was talking to the alternate minmax, some femminist types got on his case claiming that he was saying it to Kin, and there was this huge hubub about it... it was bad.

The strangest part about that was that the very next strip Thunt uploaded featured Kin having a traumatic flashback involving Dellyn.

[John Cribati]

If the girl scouts kidnapped my pet and said they would kill it if I stopped breathing I would.. well, I would be really confused, but I wouldnt exactly have a hard time going along with those instructions till I could find some way to fix the situation. Which is exactly what bowst and idle are doing.

I already answered that:

ANY situation where consent is compromised, taken away, or reliant on some force outside of the person who is actually giving consent, is at the very least sexual assault.

I have to say that I find it REALLY amusing that idle needing to be murdered every day in order to not stay dead didnt cause ANY outrage, but the idea that two willing people have to have sex once a day has caused massive amounts of outrage. It really kinda shows our cultural priorities. "Murder? Yeah thats an ok curse. Wait, they have to have... THE SEX?!?!?! This is an outrage!!!"

[Douglas]

i think he's reffering to the time when an alternate not-walter told the alt-min-max that enslaved him "see you in hell b***H, me and a bunch of freinds are going to dogpile you blah blah" before going home to his own dimention. The last person he talked too before that was Kin, and while it was incredibly clear to anyone who actually read the comic that he was talking to the alternate minmax, some femminist types got on his case claiming that he was saying it to Kin, and there was this huge hubub about it... it was bad.

As I recall the outrage started from someone completely new, who saw the current latest page (this one, at the time) and nothing else, and apparently thought the phrase "dog pile" was exclusively a rape term. I'm not sure how she never learned the "team up in large numbers against one target" general definition, but her believing it was specifically a rape threat was a big part of the issue.

[-D-]

I have to say that I find it REALLY amusing that idle needing to be murdered every day in order to not stay dead didnt cause ANY outrage, but the idea that two willing people have to have sex once a day has caused massive amounts of outrage. It really kinda shows our cultural priorities. "Murder? Yeah thats an ok curse. Wait, they have to have... THE SEX?!?!?! This is an outrage!!!"

No one said, that. First posts mentioned its basically recreating a snuff film scenario (snuff involves killing, torture, often rape).

As for why no one bats an eye, is:
A) They are adventurers, they are expected to murder and be murdered. Some weird curse forcing them to be murderous is more like par for the course.
B) The killing curse, restores your body, so its effects are easier to shrug off.
C) Sex usually plays a bigger role in someone's identity then their homicidal tendencies because A) and readers are hopefully not murderous. Being a murderer isn't a big differentiator, unlike sex.
D) Violence is too common in Goblins, it would be pointless to worry about. Much like letter T, you don't notice it because its so frequent it becomes background noise. It's like that joke about Hitler killing one million Jews and a Scandinavian Mime.
E) Tonal shift from D&D into real life creepiness is jarring. There is a difference between Xenomorph stalking from above and a guy dressed in pudding in bushes outside your house.

[Bird]

It could certainly BECOME problematic very quickly. All it would take is for idle to no longer be more than happy to make the beast with two backs with bowst. But as it stands right now, both seem to be treating it as a shrug worthy event that YOU as an outside observer are offended over despite the actual participants being just fine with it.

As we all agree, the whole story is illusory--the characters, the plot, etc. We do not need the permission of one illusory story element (the characters' feelings) to be concerned about another illusory story element (the curse and the implications thereof).

[turbo164]

As I recall the outrage started from someone completely new, who saw the current latest page (this one, at the time) and nothing else, and apparently thought the phrase "dog pile" was exclusively a rape term. I'm not sure how she never learned the "team up in large numbers against one target" general definition, but her believing it was specifically a rape threat was a big part of the issue.

...that definition would certainly change the tone of the old Bugs Bunny cartoon.

(also with the misunderstanding, iirc she also thought that Alt-Not-Walter was calling Kin a "bald turd," rather than the bald Alt-Max <_< )

[Lethologica]

There's squickiness and rapiness inherent to creating a situation where a woman must let a man f*** her and then kill her every day. (Insert obligatory rebuttal to "What about if the genders were reversed?" remarks.) Things get a whole lot worse if the woman isn't okay with it, but for the same reason, it's easy to read the woman's acceptance as a fig leaf for the author to get away with creating that situation in the first place. Ultimately, it isn't an author's job to avoid situations that are squicky/rapey, but a number of readers understandably don't trust Thunt to handle those topics with care.

[Ibrinar]

There's squickiness and rapiness inherent to creating a situation where a woman must let a man f*** her and then kill her every day. (Insert obligatory rebuttal to "What about if the genders were reversed?" remarks.) Things get a whole lot worse if the woman isn't okay with it, but for the same reason, it's easy to read the woman's acceptance as a fig leaf for the author to get away with creating that situation in the first place. Ultimately, it isn't an author's job to avoid situations that are squicky/rapey, but a number of readers understandably don't trust Thunt to handle those topics with care.

She does not have to (suicide would fulfill her curse she could survive alone), he is dependent on her she isn't dependent on him. Now "I will die if you don't" is a rather potent way to guilt someone into something but I would say "do that or you die" is the stronger coercion than "do that or I die" so "he has to let him **** her" is imo the correct portrayel.

That might seem pedantic but when people give argument why the course is rapey and then don't talk about warrior guy but only bunny girl has a slight "men can't be raped" flavour to me, though that might be overanalyzing it.

Because external pressures sort of force her to consent - he's the guaranteed source of fulfilling her curse. Letting him die would jeopardize her life. The curse acts as a form of coercion, and coerced consent isn't consent. The curse is rapey. There's no question about it.

That is what this curse is. It's a person following her around with a gun pointed at her head and telling her "Sex or die." That is a coerced choice. That is a false choice. That is a rapey curse.

This for instance Boyst is the one who will die so why is the argument only about her?

[SaintRidley]

This for instance Boyst is the one who will die so why is the argument only about her?

Because I goofed up which one had the stupid curse and which had the curse I'm talking about. And that goof up is probably in part due to being half checked out of the comic already because Thunt handles things with the delicate care of a Tyrannosaur doing needlepoint.

[Lethologica]

She does not have to (suicide would fulfill her curse she could survive alone), he is dependent on her she isn't dependent on him. Now "I will die if you don't" is a rather potent way to guilt someone into something but I would say "do that or you die" is the stronger coercion than "do that or I die" so "he has to let him **** her" is imo the correct portrayel.

That might seem pedantic but when people give argument why the course is rapey and then don't talk about warrior guy but only bunny girl has a slight "men can't be raped" flavour to me, though that might be overanalyzing it.


This for instance Boyst is the one who will die so why is the argument only about her?

That's fair. I forgot that Idle's curse didn't specify external factors. I think the reason people aren't talking about Bowst is that the mechanic makes him into the one seeking sex, even if he doesn't want to--but also fair to consider that he's in even less of a position to give or withhold consent. I thought through that earlier, but somewhere between thinking about it and writing my previous comment it dropped out of my thoughts.

[Traab]

Personally, I have to wonder if he even needs another participant if you get what I am saying. Are they just assuming that he needs full on sex with someone else, or can he take 5 minutes and remember an old nudie mag around the corner? Like Idle, she has to die, but literally any method of death seems to be ok so long as she dies. Is Bowst similarly loose in his restrictions? It says he can have sex "with anyone" I think his right hand might count. But then again, this is the sort of thing you can only be wrong about once.

[Vinyadan]

As I recall the outrage started from someone completely new, who saw the current latest page (this one, at the time) and nothing else, and apparently thought the phrase "dog pile" was exclusively a rape term. I'm not sure how she never learned the "team up in large numbers against one target" general definition, but her believing it was specifically a rape threat was a big part of the issue.

Uh. That sounds like a phenomenal misunderstanding. Also, like the kind of thing which should have no bearing in interpreting the comic, because it really doesn't make sense. I can sort of see how you can get that understanding (not understanding and therefore ignoring the bald **** comment, assuming the fifth panel simply represents uninvolved bystanders, thinking that the b**** was referred to a seemingly defiant Kin and giving a sexual meaning to a paraphrase which has multiple meanings, which aren't sexual per se), but that's a good example of a situation in which you should be able to spot the unclear points, search for an explanation and to come to the actual meaning of what you are seeing.

EDIT: That's an impersonal "you", BTW.

[Ibrinar]

That's fair. I forgot that Idle's curse didn't specify external factors. I think the reason people aren't talking about Bowst is that the mechanic makes him into the one seeking sex, even if he doesn't want to--but also fair to consider that he's in even less of a position to give or withhold consent. I thought through that earlier, but somewhere between thinking about it and writing my previous comment it dropped out of my thoughts.

And I guess the discussion started from the question whether he is lying which would also push the focus in that direction.

[Lizard Lord]

How would letting him die jeopardize herself? He needs her to fulfill his curse of having sex once a day. She doesn't need him to fulfill her curse of "dying" once a day. Suicide is a thing.

And with Forgath there and him knowing about her curse she now has three options.

So was I just not coherent enough here? Because I had already pointed out that Bowst needs Idle more than Idle needs Bowst.

(Also I would think masturbation would count as "third base" rather than sex. You're still a virgin if you have only ever handled it yourself.)

[Draconi Redfir]

If the Girl Scouts kidnapped your pet and threatened to kill it if you didn't buy cookies from them it doesn't become just fine because you actually like the cookies.

Exept there is no kidnapping in progress. this is more like the girl scouts threataning to kidnap and kill your pet if you don't buy cookies from them every year, but you already did that anyways so there's really nothing to worry about.

I mean yeah, you'll want to do something about the threat, but you enjoy the cookies and get to keep your pet so long as you buy them, so it's kind of a win-win without loosing anything.

The strangest part about that was that the very next strip Thunt uploaded featured Kin having a traumatic flashback involving Dellyn.

Due to completely unrelated events that had nothing to do with what the demon said yes.

Personally, I have to wonder if he even needs another participant if you get what I am saying. Are they just assuming that he needs full on sex with someone else, or can he take 5 minutes and remember an old nudie mag around the corner? Like Idle, she has to die, but literally any method of death seems to be ok so long as she dies. Is Bowst similarly loose in his restrictions? It says he can have sex "with anyone" I think his right hand might count. But then again, this is the sort of thing you can only be wrong about once.

I kind of doubt it. As far as i'm aware at least "sex" is defined as "two individual living beings having physical intercouse with one annother" One person doing it themself is just masturbation.

[Traab]

So was I just not coherent enough here? Because I had already pointed out that Bowst needs Idle more than Idle needs Bowst.

(Also I would think masturbation would count as "third base" rather than sex. You're still a virgin if you have only ever handled it yourself.)

Pfft, thats a cultural definition, not a biological one. The act of sex really has only one requirement to be considered complete. You can take care of it yourself. That being said, Idle's curse is very visible when it activates, if bowst is the same way, he could at least give it a try.

[Lizard Lord]

Pfft, thats a cultural definition, not a biological one. The act of sex really has only one requirement to be considered complete. You can take care of it yourself. That being said, Idle's curse is very visible when it activates, if bowst is the same way, he could at least give it a try.

Eh. Magical is cultural as well.

[Vinyadan]

Exept there is no kidnapping in progress. this is more like the girl scouts threataning to kidnap and kill your pet if you don't buy cookies from them every year, but you already did that anyways so there's really nothing to worry about.

I mean yeah, you'll want to do something about the threat, but you enjoy the cookies and get to keep your pet so long as you buy them, so it's kind of a win-win without loosing anything.

It's like the Mafia: they tell you that they will kill you if you don't pay them money, but, if you do pay the money, they will protect you from other mobs. So you just pay, because you enjoy being protected! And not being killed, too! Win-win! Or did I grossly misunderstand?

[Traab]

It's like the Mafia: they tell you that they will kill you if you don't pay them money, but, if you do pay the money, they will protect you from other mobs. So you just pay, because you enjoy being protected! And not being killed, too! Win-win! Or did I grossly misunderstand?

I think constantly suggesting that someone is forcing the situation makes it sound worse. This is more like, "Oh no, I have a terrible disease that will kill me unless I get treasure type O once a day!" And it actually being true. There is no person or group to rail against, there is no intelligence forcing this situation down upon them. They stepped on a magical trap and this was the curse bowst got.

On a semi related note. When and if forgath gets remove curse, how will they know for sure what curse gets removed? I mean, they apparently have several curses each. Yeah losing bunny ears will be obvious, but depending on the consequences of each curse, it may be hard to test them to be sure. I mean, we know of at LEAST three curses bowst is stuck with, testing the "what" curse will be easy, and it sounds like he only takes damage if he walks too far from the talking sword klik, but if he has other ones with bad outcomes, it may be hard to tell for sure what one he can either stop doing, or be allowed to do again.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Spoiler

Show

If I'm being honest, the way that that comic has sent this thread into a ... three?-page (so far) discussion of the precise definition of rape and whether this counts isn't really a good sign in itself.

The whole thing just feels off, from the coercive pressure on the characters to the way Thunt falls over himself to try to justify it in the next panel, and he obviously suspects that it's not going to play all that well otherwise he wouldn't have done a runner from his forum. For what it's worth I don't make a habit of checking the Goblins forum or this thread, but on seeing the comic went looking to see if anyone else could explain where the hell this was coming from.

Sure, we don't know where it's going, and I'm sure it does have plot significance down the line. But I have to wonder whether it would be possible to achieve the same ultimate end in a way that felt a bit less skeezy. The whole thing smacks of contrivance, self-indulgence and general Mookie-ness.

I have been debating whether I can be bothered to continue reading Goblins for a while now and this comic has brought that issue to the front of my mind once more.

Spoiler

Show

Whether I'd buy this more easily from another comic writer, or whether it's that Thunt has a terrible record for dealing with this sort of thing, both in terms of throwing it into his comic or in terms of handling it really badly, I'm not sure; maybe it's a bit of both.

I'm hanging on purely out of morbid curiosity.
What's the next disaster Thunt will stumble into?
Will he ever smarten up to review his story line and make adjustments?

Doesn't look like it so far.

[Seerow]

On the topic of Idle being the one with all of the control in this situation, let me just add they're only stuck in Klik Valley because of Bowst's cursed sword. Idle could seriously opt to just **** off at any time and go her own way, killing herself before bed each night, and Bowst could do literally nothing about it.

Idle in this situation has pretty much 100% of the power. She is staying because she clearly wants to and has some reason to want Bowst to stay alive. I'll agree the situation can be kind of 'rapey' (which I think is an awful term but w/e, it serves), but for the most part? It's not Idle who's being victimized. She has all of the choice and control. You can say that she is being guilted into sex, but we just had a bunch of people saying killing somebody isn't a big deal in Goblins' world, and if that is the case leaving someone to die should be even less of one.

[Draconi Redfir]

It's like the Mafia: they tell you that they will kill you if you don't pay them money, but, if you do pay the money, they will protect you from other mobs. So you just pay, because you enjoy being protected! And not being killed, too! Win-win! Or did I grossly misunderstand?

no i think that's a fair compariosn. It still sucks that you need to pay them, and you'd much rather not need to pay them, but you are still perfectly able to pay them and it's not really taking anything away from you because you have a well-paying job, so you pay them, they leave you alone until it's the next time you have to pay them, and all the while you keep looking for a way to get out of this scheme you've found yourself in.

you're keeping yourself alive by doing something that isn't much of a problem anyways.

[Douglas]

On a semi related note. When and if forgath gets remove curse, how will they know for sure what curse gets removed? I mean, they apparently have several curses each. Yeah losing bunny ears will be obvious, but depending on the consequences of each curse, it may be hard to test them to be sure. I mean, we know of at LEAST three curses bowst is stuck with, testing the "what" curse will be easy, and it sounds like he only takes damage if he walks too far from the talking sword klik, but if he has other ones with bad outcomes, it may be hard to tell for sure what one he can either stop doing, or be allowed to do again.

I just checked, a single casting of Remove Curse gets rid of EVERY curse all at once. Forgath would need to cast it twice, once on each of them, and they'd be curse free.

I wouldn't be surprised if Thunt house rules it differently, but even then his house rule might allow the caster to choose which curse to remove.

[Lethologica]

It's like the Mafia: they tell you that they will kill you if you don't pay them money, but, if you do pay the money, they will protect you from other mobs. So you just pay, because you enjoy being protected! And not being killed, too! Win-win! Or did I grossly misunderstand?

The Mafia analogy would run thus: the Mafia tells you you need to collect X money for them every day or they'll kill you. Nothing personal, just business. A friend, knowing this, gives you X money every day by mutual agreement--of a sort. After all, you are forced to collect the money, and your friend feels obliged to give it to you. Your friend wants to help you, but he might also wonder what you'd have done if he hadn't agreed; technically, no duress was involved between you, but it very easily could have been. So far, you're both very understanding about the whole thing, and you're incredibly lucky that your friend likes you and has money to spare. (How convenient for whoever made the scenario!) But if either of you starts resenting the agreement, things could turn awful in an instant.