# Suicide for Hire



## LycanBlade (Nov 7, 2011)

Hey I just read all of what is out of Suicide for hire and I was wondering what you all thought of it? I personally love it, its my new favorite comic. Sadistic, Comical and a hint of intelligence, what more could you ask for? 

Also anyone know anything similar to this?

http://suicideforhire.comicgenesis.com/d/20041022.html


----------



## avrillin (Nov 9, 2011)

I may not be in a furry comic mood but I may be in a vampire comic mood....


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 9, 2011)

I find this comic stupid as fuck.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 9, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I find this comic stupid as fuck.



Now now, let's give proper _reasons_ and critique. 

I find this comic misguided and malcontent in both its message and execution. From a merely artistic and character point of view, it's impressive. Visually every character is different and unique, and personality wise they each have the basis for interesting character sketches and interactions. 

However, the arcs are borderline sadistic, with little to no redeeming features. Some I can agree with, but others are more questionable. Even the suicide victims who wanted to back out at the last second the author insists on murdering anyways. This is a comic without forgiveness, which I think tells us more about the _author_ than the society portrayed in the comic itself. 

In the long run, I'd like to see the story and plot lined _tightened_ and reworked. Juggle, more carefully, the teenagers lives with that of their "business". Create more action through happening and plot, rather than long winded monologues. To a point, the can be enjoyable, but when half the comic dialogue is a tl;dr, you may have an issue. 

So, my final score? 5/10. Great art, with characters that have the potential to be interesting, but in the end a comic too self absorbed in showing the idiocy of suicide, becoming more ineffective through each progressing arc.


----------



## Ames (Nov 9, 2011)

I read some of this comic a while ago.

I could feel myself getting dumber.  It's like listening to a sadistic, autistic, two-year-old serial killer trying to sound smart while justifying his actions.

Seriously, what IS the point of this comic?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 9, 2011)

I gave it a 10-page chance. As someone who might someday self-euthanize due to a chronic medical condition, I found it rather petty and offensive.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 9, 2011)

CC just 'this' it :V


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 9, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> CC just 'this' it :V



Gahhh if I must. :V


----------



## Aden (Nov 9, 2011)

http://badwebcomics.wikidot.com/suicide-for-hire
sums up my thoughts on this pretty well


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 9, 2011)

Wait why is that one person banned for spammer douche. Are the spammers getting so smart they speak furfag?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 10, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Wait why is that one person banned for spammer douche. Are the spammers getting so smart they speak furfag?



Furry Markov chains.  Or a Cleverbot wannabe with ears and a tail.


----------



## Fearkissers (Nov 12, 2011)

That was surprisingly offensive, I agree. The author didn't seem very interested in a plot line, to me it felt like he just wanted to shock the audience, and if that really was his goal, then he did a good job. It was just vulgar and morbid, not a story.


----------



## ryanleblanc (Nov 12, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> So, my final score? 5/10. Great art



WHOA WHOA WHOA, HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! "GREAT ART?" 

Just *NO.* 

Allow me to help you revise that review :V  

I think it's time for a couple of lists:

- Yes, there characters could become interesting individuals, but will they, *no.*
- Yes, the comic is too absorbed in demonstrating the idiocy of suicide, I agree completely.
- Yes, this theme does become more ineffective through each progressing arc, I have no rebuttals there either.
- HOWEVER, the art is definitely *far from great* when compared with other furry comics.

Allow me to give a *semi-accurate* scale by which to compare the quality of comic art.
- Excellent art: Lackadaisy, Any comic by Rukis, etc.
- Great art: Dog Days Of Summer, Furpiled, etc.
- Good art: Cheap thrills, etc.
- Mediocre crap: Suicide for Hire, etc.
- Crap: Concession, etc.
- Pile of Crap Conveniently Located in the Seventh Circle of Hell: This picture below, which is not a comic but is a good example of terrible terrible art.







And just for fun, lets put another scale for quality of story:
-Good Story: Lackadaisy (And maybe one other someone can remind me of.)
-Mediocre to Bad Story: *Everything else, this comic included.


*â€‹So yeah, there we go, all listed out for today? I am


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 12, 2011)

ryanleblanc said:


> All this



Lol wat? I think you're reading too much into the term "great", and the fact that everything is subjective, as far as judging art goes. But I'll humor you and describe my reasoning. 

But firstly, *Rukis comic art is haphazard at best*. (As far as her comic endeavors go. Some of her other art is pretty good.) You know she uses actual people in fursuits in costumes to pose for photos so she can trace the anatomy? On top of that, her anatomy and facial detail ends up wonky and utterly inexpressive as far as I'm concerned. 

But again, subjective. So whatever.  

Now, to be on topic about Suicide for Hire. Rafael's linework, poses, and expressions are top notch (Not at first, but he gets very well as he goes on). He portrays a wide range of emotions with the characters extremely well, and for once in this goddamned fandom, _it's perfectly clear what species is what._ You don't have to ask, "Oh is that a weasel or a poorly drawn fox?" It's crisp, clear cut, and the attention paid to all of this is highly admirable, imho. 

But at the very least, I digress, and admit that no, it's not top notch. But I easily describe it as "great" and have my reasons. 

At the very least, I _damn well_ put the art of SFH above Concession.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2011)

Out of curiosity, ryan, how do you rate comic art? What takes priority in your scale?
Amount of detail? Expressiveness? Anatomy? Formalities (panelling, line-work, colouring)? What? Because, frankly, I agree with Coyote in this category (that is, if I compare Concession's final stage with SFH's final stage).


----------



## Aden (Nov 13, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> But firstly, *Rukis comic art is haphazard at best*...On top of that, her anatomy and facial detail ends up wonky and utterly inexpressive as far as I'm concerned.



Just gonna go ahead and reiterate this right here


----------



## Neuron (Nov 13, 2011)

I find this comic particularly tasteless and it's never a good thing when I can describe every single character in every single comic I read with one sentence. 

Take it from me, I haven't really shown my comic work on FA yet but most of my characters will have elaborate, sometimes pages long stories with significant events that can explain their interactions and personal details. I'm not trying to say I'm better than anyone, I'm saying that I'm putting some _effort_ into character creation.

The creator of Scott Pilgrim said something about .001% of his work being the actual character creation and then 99% of it was finding ways to write and draw their significant stories. These guys don't have much of a story beyond, "Badasses killing things and making light of a terrible thing for shock value" and anytime there's a story arc that seems like it could go somewhere it..doesn't.

He tries to give the victims stories and they end up with fomulaic, "Boohoo, this is my life and why it is terrible" usually with the implication being it's the person's fault somehow or that these behaviors or whining annoys the creator. See that's just it, every time I read another character in this comic with a sob story it reads more like a revenge wank for annoying, irresponsible people.

I will give him the credit that where his story always is shitty, at least his art improved a lot and quite a few of the later comics are dare I say even decent in quality.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 13, 2011)

When ever I judge comic art, I usually don't have a set "rubric" for how I critique or judge it. If it works for me, then it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. 

Redundancy aside, however, I do one thing I'm fond of. Expressions. Expressions are first and foremost in comics, in my mind. When you're telling a story in both the visual and textual format, emotion has to be portrayed very carefully in the art in order to fill the gap created by not being able to fully describe them via text. This is why I'll actually hold comics such as Housepets! and even Freefall in _much_ higher regard than Rukis's art. The character's portray emotion and they _entertain me_. A more artistically "on par" comparison, I suppose you could say, would be the comic art of Screwbald. SB draws some of the most amazingly goofy expressions in Dog Days of Summer, and it's funny and effective. 

Rukis seems utterly incapable of drawing any expressions outside of the melancholy and slightly-sad range. It's boring, really. 

And as a side note, if you take out all the gay sex in Rukis comics, _no one would read them,_  because the stories are utterly boring.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 13, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Redundancy aside, however, I do one thing I'm fond of. Expressions.


This, this, all of my agreement to this. Part of what makes Disney so great is their effective portrayal of all sorts of facial expressions through the years. They're also experts at representing body-language (which is just as important). 
If nothing of this was important, there wouldn't be any sort of appeal in pantomine.


----------



## ryanleblanc (Nov 13, 2011)

Yes rukis's comic characters do suffer from lack of expression. That has been a long withstanding problem. However, it is largely due to the limitations of the realist style of art she prefers to do. If we are to expect realistic looking characters with human like expressions, then we must all be insane. For example, a real wolf cannot display a shocked expression (mouth wide open, large eyes, raised eyebrows, etc.) in the same fashion as a human. As such, a realist style anthropomorphic wolf cannot display this expression without loosing it's realistic qualities.

It seems like everyone bags on rukis's art for the expressions without ever considering why they are the way they are. It's not for lack of trying. It's for realistic ideals. I agree completely that expressions are essential in a comic, and so perhaps rukis's art would be better suited to just single pieces of art only, and not to comics which demand such expressive faces.

Next argument, art is subjective, there is no way we can possibly have the same tastes, that I can fully accept, i'm sure you would change that scale of mine completely.

Next argument, my original post was made in jest, bear that in mind.

Next argument, yes, i do realize after the fact that SFH should probably be placed above concession. In fact, it should *definitely* be higher than concession, if I remember correctly, concession was total and utter crap in more ways than one.

Anyway, you never know, maybe we could continuously edit that scale until it roughly represents the general consensus.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 13, 2011)

Personally, I see Blotch's art as the prefered approach to a "realistic" style.: cartoony enough to allow expressions, realistic enough to... errmmm... seem anatomically correct and look as close as possible to the animal in question. Animators balance realistic with cartoony all the time depending on their stule, emotions in acting must be exagerated a bit in order to be clear because too "realistic" usually ends in too stiff, and so on.

To each their own, though.

Edit: By this I mean "art is subjective and all of that".


----------



## ryanleblanc (Nov 13, 2011)

Well yes, blotch does have the mix down pat, but when i refer to realist ideals it means putting realism over expression by removing the cartoon element as much as possible. Whereas blotch has successfully discovered the compromise between realistic and cartoonish, rukis prefers realistic over cartoonish and so refuses to add a more cartoonish element to her art. By limiting herself in this way, I would say blotch has the definite advantage, but we cannot say blotch uses "realist style" when blotch actually uses a mix between realist and cartoon styles.

I can agree completely that blotch's mixed style is more "comic friendly" and by not setting limits as rukis does, is of a higher calibre than rukis.


*Also, I think we may have strayed a bit from the thread topic.*


More on topic, to assess this comic more accurately in it's entirety (art, story, etc) I would say *mediocre at best*, REALLY dragged down by its storyline (or lack thereof). My rating 4.5/5


----------



## Ak-Nolij (Nov 14, 2011)

Suicide for Hire is shit. The acting for these characters are a complete trainwreck whilst the author has a fucking hard time writing this without having a thesaurus at hand. He shoulda just stuck to writing a book since his only crutch is an unhealthy dose of walltext plaguing almost every fucking page of his comic. Raf's only niche is that he actually makes the characters look like their intended species, but even then, I still can't fucking tell what Arcturus is supposed to be.


----------



## mapdark (Nov 30, 2011)

I had not heard of this comic before reading this thread and all i can say about it is : 
"What in the fucking fuck is that thing?!"

One would have to be a sociopath to think the whole premise of this thing is even remotely funny or entertaining.
Suicide is a pretty serious issue and as MUCH as I like dark humour , I couldnt look at more than 10 pages before feeling bad for even reading that crap.

Add to this the fact that even when "customers" don't want to kill themselves anymore , they still proceed with the whole thing , which in the end makes this a comic about jolly merry happy serial killers who never get any consequences for their acts.

It actually looks like some teen kid trying too hard at being edgy and failing terribly.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 30, 2011)

I read it for a while. The idea has some... promise, I guess, but it's way too far stuck in a pattern. There's a hint that one of the characters (the one with the ridiculous fucking hair) might have moral concerns about what they're doing, and that looks like it's going somewhere... buuuuuuuuuuuuuutt... It never does. Nope. Guy just keeps on killin', now with 20% more stylish gauntlets super-glued to him or something. 

There's a potential for dark humor, but it doesn't really work because it's never acknowledged that anything is really "dark" at all. There's blood and gore and shit, but that's still played more for the "humor" part than the "dark." It's just kind of the natural consequence of what they're doing, part of the routine. 

There were one or two arcs where things were different, and I actually liked those, but for the most part it's like a psychopathic Garfield. Eat lasagna , kick Odie, force someone to go through with a suicide they want to back out of. 

Rinse. 

Wash. 

Repeat.


----------

