The Index of the Giant's Comments V―On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index

[Mad Humanist]

So has the Giant ever commented on Tentacles of forced intrusion?

[Linneris]

So has the Giant ever commented on Tentacles of forced intrusion?

In an interview. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...14&postcount=6

IIRC, there was also some comment where he said he regretted them because of the rape connotations, but I don't remember if it was on the forum or in book commentary.

[B. Dandelion]

It's under the "writing" spoiler, subsection "real world intent" with the title "distasteful jokes".

Yes, I regret it, and no, it will never, ever show up again.

And no, not because it would be a Conjuration spell and I subsequently determined that V had barred Conjuration magic. Although sure, that too.

[Mad Humanist]

Okay. I guess there goes any fan theory that the webcomic is divinely inspired. Rich is just a mere mortal.

[Peelee]

There likely won't be any more tribute strips.

[Gift Jeraff]

Some random ancient post I stumbled upon regarding Shojo being a direct servant of his gods and Miko's alignment:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=649
I'm not sure it deserves inclusion but I figured someone here might care about it.

[Peelee]

Some random ancient post I stumbled upon regarding Shojo being a direct servant of his gods and Miko's alignment:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=649
I'm not sure it deserves inclusion but I figured someone here might care about it.

Huh. Lacuna Caster pulls that quote out so often I just assumed it was already indexed.

[Lacuna Caster]

Huh. Lacuna Caster pulls that quote out so often I just assumed it was already indexed.

I can recall referencing it maybe 3 or 4 times.

I could give you a few others that were lost to the server wipe, but they'd be strictly from memory and probably not word for word accurate.

[Peelee]

I can recall referencing it maybe 3 or 4 times.

Huh. I'm just wrong all over the place today.

[137beth]

Some random ancient post I stumbled upon regarding Shojo being a direct servant of his gods and Miko's alignment:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=649
I'm not sure it deserves inclusion but I figured someone here might care about it.

I think it’s sort of redundant with what Shojo himself says during the trial.

[Lacuna Caster]

I think it’s sort of redundant with what Shojo himself says during the trial.

It's a direct rebuttal of some of the more common accusations against Miko at the time. (e.g, that entering foreign territories to perform bag-and-grab operations would be grossly-unlawful behaviour and therefore fall-worthy.)

[Jasdoif]

There likely won't be any more tribute strips.

Hmm, seems a bit too indirect for my tastes...what's everyone else think?

---

Some random ancient post I stumbled upon regarding Shojo being a direct servant of his gods and Miko's alignment:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=649
I'm not sure it deserves inclusion but I figured someone here might care about it.

How does everyone else feel about this one? (Adding it as a general "see also" on one of the existing entries about Lawful alignments, as well as a new entry for how it pertains to Miko and Shojo specifically, seems like the way to go if we decide to include it.)

[Peelee]

Hmm, seems a bit too indirect for my tastes...what's everyone else think?

For the most part, I'd agree. The first paragraph is the on-point bit.

How does everyone else feel about this one? (Adding it as a general "see also" on one of the existing entries about Lawful alignments, as well as a new entry for how it pertains to Miko and Shojo specifically, seems like the way to go if we decide to include it.)

I'm cool with that.

[snowblizz]

Hmm, seems a bit too indirect for my tastes...what's everyone else think?

While am generally for absolutely any inclusion. I don't see the point of this one. Stan Lee is dead and in a couple of months noone will be asking fora tribute comic. Which in of itself seemed odd to me.

[Peelee]

While am generally for absolutely any inclusion. I don't see the point of this one. Stan Lee is dead and in a couple of months noone will be asking fora tribute comic. Which in of itself seemed odd to me.

Could say the same for Scar being in the new art style, as will everything else going forward. Giants never gone backwards in art style, after all, and yet.

The relevance isn't about Stan Lee. It's about tribute comics in general. Which, yes, is rare, but rare things pop up sometimes. Only one person ever thought Malack's vampirism was an LGBT allegory, but we've indexed the "no" to that.

[Kish]

Hmm, seems a bit too indirect for my tastes...what's everyone else think?

---

How does everyone else feel about this one? (Adding it as a general "see also" on one of the existing entries about Lawful alignments, as well as a new entry for how it pertains to Miko and Shojo specifically, seems like the way to go if we decide to include it.)

I'm for including both.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'm for including both.

Also for including both. The second one seems pretty clearly relevant, and the first quote, while mostly about Stan Lee, does indeed still have a connection to the comic in the first paragraph.

[137beth]

The quote about no tribute strips I think is worth including. I recall one time in the past where it came up: someone asked if there would be a tribute strip for Jack Vance. This quote could work as a general reminder that there likely won't be any more for anyone.

[Ron Miel]

Include the "no tribute strips" one.

[Caerulea]

I haven't been here before, but I think both should be included.

[Lacuna Caster]

In an interview. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...14&postcount=6

IIRC, there was also some comment where he said he regretted them because of the rape connotations, but I don't remember if it was on the forum or in book commentary.

While the original never bothered me especially, I'm not clear on how the recent Slaad joke doesn't have similar or worse connotations?

[pearl jam]

which recent slaad joke

[Kish]

which recent slaad joke

The current strip, but a better question would be, does this actually relate to indexing Rich's comments, or is it about starting some kind of proxy argument with him?

[Lacuna Caster]

The current strip, but a better question would be, does this actually relate to indexing Rich's comments, or is it about starting some kind of proxy argument with him?

No, I'm honestly more curious about why the readership is bothered by the one and not the other. It doesn't bother me much either way, but like, why?

[Keltest]

No, I'm honestly more curious about why the readership is bothered by the one and not the other. It doesn't bother me much either way, but like, why?

The implantation of a slaad tadpole is typically not an act that one would consider sex, but even within the context of the joke, this is seemingly intended to be an ill conceived one night stand (ie consensual sex) that resulted in "pregnancy".

[Gwynfrid]

No, I'm honestly more curious about why the readership is bothered by the one and not the other. It doesn't bother me much either way, but like, why?

That's off topic on this thread, I think.

Regarding the two quotes most recently mentioned, I'm for inclusion.

[martianmister]

Include both.

[Morty]

I'm really not sure if a quote from 2005 about Miko and Shojo tells us anything useful at this point.

[hamishspence]

I'm really not sure if a quote from 2005 about Miko and Shojo tells us anything useful at this point.

I think the main benefit from it (since Shojo had not yet been revealed as an aristocrat rather than a divine caster, and so the stuff about him being a "servant of the gods" may have an element of red herring about it) - is that it shows that, from The Giant's perspective, Miko is very Lawful, but not very Good.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

So, I've been saving this quote for my own annotation project, but the Giant said something on twitter that I found interesting and realized it might be worth putting on here.

Here's the link: https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/statu...20904571031552

Here's the actual conversation:

Rich: [Regarding Strip 1087] Huh, looks like I used that name for a comic already. I'm going to rename this one...

Ultizeta: Well, there are two comics named Role Reversal, so it's not the first time it's happened

Rich: Right, which is why I want to avoid it. People tend to assume there's a secret meaning to it, rather than that I have a bad memory.

Me: Have you ever intentionally matched 2 comic titles like 333 & 877's "The Bright Side" or are all matching titles chalked up to memory loss?

Rich: All memory loss. The title is written at the last second before posting, so usually my first workable idea gets used.

---

Basically, according to Rich, he never has made titles with the same name on purpose. Always by accident. I was a little surprised by that, given that there's give or take 11 matching titles, I figured at least one or two matches were on purpose, especially the one I highlighted since the reference is pretty clear.

Anyway, I figured I'd put this up and see what people thought about inclusion.