Strong Female Protagonist

I guess the faculty found about his grading metric

He never actually specified whether Alison winning meant he'd keep or quit his job. She just assumed the former.

And now everyone will discover she was the reason he quit, meaning they all lose their free grades.

no, he died from laughing at the last thing she said to him
it's still her fault because he was clearly going through some kind of epileptic episode and she just walked away

So did her kidnapping that one guy and forcing him to use his powers against his will come back to bite her in the ass, or did she face no consequences for being a piece of shit yet again?

Whenever I look into this I'm not sure if I'm supposed to like the protagonist or not

his mom gave her a disapproving look and Allison felt bad about it
what kind of consequences could she possibly see from it? the whole point is that no one can stop her from doing what she wants.

>what kind of consequences could she possibly see from it?

The dude said he didn't want a villain or someone to find him, right? Maybe she goes over to his house, finds it trashed and blood everywhere. You know, "oh shit, I got this guy kidnapped or maybe even killed."

I'm not saying she would have learned anything because the writing is terrible and she is a disgusting unrepentant asshole, but it would have been SOMETHING, you know?

No, it was implied in their second game.

If this thread can stay up for 5 hours, I can go into detail about why this whole thing is incredibly stupid and infuriating after I get off work.

A better consequence would be increasing the girls' powers making her heal too fast for her organs to be harvested.

But hey, that's what a smart writer focusing on a strong character arc would do.

Disagree. That changes the issue from a moral one of whether it is right to make these kind of decisions unilaterally because one has the power to do so, which was clearly the focus here.

The proposed consequence you put forth only suggests the action is wrong by virtue of not being thought through well enough, and wouldn't give any more room for character growth than nothing at all.

Isn't an awful idea though.

Better writing would have Al change, find a third option, be more strongly affected by the decisions she's made than mild guilt and discomfort, or stand resolute as the narrative paints an unflattering picture of this decision.

Any of these options would introduce some form of conflict, tie into the Othello game that's being treated as if it's thematically important, and would leave room for the writer to portray what happens/Al's stance as varying levels of right/wrong/ambiguity. It would also give the writer the freedom to make the character static or dynamic without compromising on audience engagement, and the several pages of philosophical back-and-forth would be unnecessary as the audience would be given the mercifal priviledge of being allowed to think and interpret for themselves.

I'm convinced the writer does not understand basic storytelling.

Thread says strong female protagonist, but what I see is an effeminate gay man happy about getting a second date.

This comic feels like the most damning piece of media regarding millenial moral relativism and cognitive dissonance regarding suffering.

I think the person who writes this comic is likely a trotskyist in an ivory tower of academia in a multicultural urban city.

I think it's fair to say that they're also pretty uneducated when it comes to ethical philosophy considering a lot of the stuff presented in the comic is basically old hat topics that have been addressed decades ago.

how is that a consequence for her? at best it would make her feel bad which we've established is not a satisfying consequence for you.

no it wouldn't, that's just retarded bullshit, basically the Dungeon Master going "no that doesn't work because I said so"

The guy in the first two panels looks like Connie's dad.

Eh kinda

Did Tintin get a sex change?

After his dog died he just wasn't the same

strong female and weak beta

No, that's not why it's bad. It's bad because it has a stupid premise (what can we REALLY do to make the world a better place) and then has a bunch of people with the obvious capacity to make a difference whine and whinge about their inability to do so.

Like that fucker who had the robot army and just quit because oh man there's nothing meaningful he can do. He had a fucking robot army, there are dozens of potential beneficial uses for that in the world. A better story might've shown why he couldn't, such as fear of the negative applications, or the hamstringing of it by bureaucracy, but it just says that he can't do anything and expects us to believe it without backing it up.

There are other things it fails it in terms of basic storytelling, that was just the most noticable first example that expended any credit I was debating giving it.

Why does the pebble game trigger people?

clevin clevin CLEVIN clevin clevin clev? in. clevinclevin clevin clevin. Clevin, clevin clevin. Clevinclevinclevin clevin clevin. CLEVIN CLEVIN CL EV IN CLEVINCLEVIN CLEVIN

c l e v i n.
l
e
v
i
n.

Her mom is a powerful woman who made a blatant veiled threat. Not saying you'll be satisfied from what comes of it, but something will.

There's just something about this milquetoast male lead...

The whole point is that there's nothing anyone can actually do to her.

how often the bitch turns to violence when she doesn't get her way is pretty crazy. does the author really think she's relatable? she turns violent almost immediately when the british teleporter guy calls her out, she's mused several times on how if she wanted she could do whatever she wants and kill people, and then she's making speeches at the safe space school on how great she is.

>academia
for bieng an academfci his articulations on ethics on this comic are fucking mediocre