# Suicide for Hire fans?



## Adrimor (May 18, 2009)

It's probably in VERY bad taste to ask right now, but I've recently stumbled across it (ED is amazingly useful at times ) and am now hooked.

Anyone else like it? If so, got any favorite dialogue/story arcs/etc.?

EDIT: For those who've not read it, I highly recommend it. http://suicideforhire.comicgenesis.com/


----------



## blackfuredfox (May 20, 2009)

best god damned comic i've ever read. that fucking simple. in fact i just came here from reading the latest one, but my favorite death would have to be the cancer paitent due to how nice and unlike themselves they were with the death. though favorite one would be No. 200, in color and point effective if the back story is read.


----------



## Adrimor (May 20, 2009)

Yeah, I liked the cancer patient...

What was the date on #200, though? I keep track of 'em by that.


----------



## blackfuredfox (May 20, 2009)

err, right after the religious protest and before cancer paitent that one guy comes up asking to fuck Hunter, threatens rape, obvious actions be obvious. involves hidden bat


----------



## Adrimor (May 20, 2009)

OHHH, THAT guy. Yeah, that was pretty cool too ^_^


----------



## Corto (May 20, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> err, right after the religious protest and before cancer paitent that one guy comes up asking to fuck Hunter, threatens rape, obvious actions be obvious. involves hidden bat


Holy shit


----------



## cpam (May 20, 2009)

Been reading it, but I don't know.  I like the art, but am disturbed by its philosophy.  Which in turn makes it difficult to enjoy.


----------



## Adrimor (May 21, 2009)

Corto said:


> Holy shit


Yep, it's amazing.



cpam said:


> Been reading it, but I don't know.  I like the art, but am disturbed by its philosophy.  Which in turn makes it difficult to enjoy.


Aw, come on--it's not like it's an Ayn Rand book (or _Better Days_, for that matter). He's not trying to represent it as some kind of morality tale or an argument for the characters' sociopathy--hell, the only things he really crusades against are hypocrisy, lying, and violence against women. The rest is just something for people to feed their gators with--a nice little vicarious thrill at violence we in the real world can't commit, despite any instinctive or innate desires to.

For more elaboration on the above analogy, read Why We Crave Horror Movies by Stephen King.


----------



## cpam (May 21, 2009)

Adrimor said:


> Aw, come on--it's not like it's an Ayn Rand book (or _Better Days_, for that matter). He's not trying to represent it as some kind of morality tale or an argument for the characters' sociopathy--hell, the only things he really crusades against are hypocrisy, lying, and violence against women. The rest is just something for people to feed their gators with--a nice little vicarious thrill at violence we in the real world can't commit, despite any instinctive or innate desires to.



I understand what he's doing, which is why I find it disturbing.  He may be crusading against his perceptions of evil (hypocrisy, etc) but the methods his characters use are as questionable as the things they proclaim to be against.  Setting up a battered wife to kill her abusive husband!?  As opposed to getting her to the police, or to a shelter, or, if lacking faith in these things, getting her out of town and into hiding?  There's a hypocrisy right there, as this is just a different form of violence against women.

Sociopathy as an entertainment is sociopathic in and of itself, and I am always suspicious of blatant vicarious thrills -- because of the vicariousness of their nature.

It's got nice art, though.


----------



## Corto (May 21, 2009)

Adrimor said:


> Yep, it's amazing.


No, it was more of an "I'll never visit that site or read that comic ever again who the hell makes this kind of stuff" holy shit.
EDIT: I mean, sure, as a mod I must be imparcial in every thread, especially those in the subforums where the only line between order and spam/trolls is myself, but _holy shit._


----------



## Irreverent (May 21, 2009)

Adrimor said:


> Yeah, I liked the cancer patient...
> 
> What was the date on #200, though? I keep track of 'em by that.



Is there a better archive?  I've always found the one on the site to be hosed.


----------



## Lobo Roo (May 21, 2009)

Man, I haven't read this in forever. I need to read it again and catch up; I love it.



Corto said:


> No, it was more of an "I'll never visit that site or read that comic ever again who the hell makes this kind of stuff" holy shit.



Better make a comic/read a comic about it than do it. *shrugs* Though with APD, I'm basically a functional sociopath. Not much bothers me, and I laugh at the weirdest shit.


----------



## blackfuredfox (May 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> I understand what he's doing, which is why I find it disturbing.  He may be crusading against his perceptions of evil (hypocrisy, etc) but the methods his characters use are as questionable as the things they proclaim to be against.  Setting up a battered wife to kill her abusive husband!?  As opposed to getting her to the police, or to a shelter, or, if lacking faith in these things, getting her out of town and into hiding?  There's a hypocrisy right there, as this is just a different form of violence against women.
> 
> Sociopathy as an entertainment is sociopathic in and of itself, and I am always suspicious of blatant vicarious thrills -- because of the vicariousness of their nature.
> 
> It's got nice art, though.



i am assuming you didn't read the back story on their current "client". she went to the police, the hospital, and her friends & family, but the cat came back. they mentioned about getting her away, and pricks like that need to be properly "dealt" with, do you not agree, while the method is a tad "extreme" what else can be done. while my plan would involve her being in the end "disposed" of by her husband singnaling a homicide and, at a distance, claim to have witnessed it no matter how horrific, that fucker had to go down. the current comic that is up shows her love for him, that is why she would employ both Hunter and Arc's "services". sorry for the seemingly insanity of my mind with the plan and "exsessive" use of quotation marks.


----------



## cpam (May 21, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> i am assuming you didn't read the back story on their current "client". she went to the police, the hospital, and her friends & family, but the cat came back. they mentioned about getting her away, and pricks like that need to be properly "dealt" with, do you not agree, while the method is a tad "extreme" what else can be done. while my plan would involve her being in the end "disposed" of by her husband singnaling a homicide and, at a distance, claim to have witnessed it no matter how horrific, that fucker had to go down. the current comic that is up shows her love for him, that is why she would employ both Hunter and Arc's "services". sorry for the seemingly insanity of my mind with the plan and "exsessive" use of quotation marks.



I had indeed read the backstory, and had thought it had added up to an interesting story situation, making me interested in how they would be resolved.  But I was disappointed that the proffered solution was simply to kill him, because, as the story tells us, nothing else was ever going to work.  When the story reaches this point, it becomes less of a story and more of a social diatribe espousing a personal POV  (eg, nobody can help, the government is a mess, the cops are watching out for themselves, etc).  The situation was serious enough, and even the lack of proper assistance (since this does happen in real life) is believable enough, but the final solution being offered is nothing less than murder, no matter how its justified.  It has less to do with a 'real' solution than it does with allowing the lead characters an excuse to exercise their nihilistic beliefs in a creative and reprehensible way.

The important point to note is that no matter how real the situation in the story may be, or how solidly based on reality it may be, it is still fiction and in the control of the writer.  If there's _only _one solution to a problem, it's because there was only one solution _allowed_, and its likely the one that serves the writer's interests, not necessarily the right one.

In the end, what I get out of the story and the strip in general is that murder is okay -- and it is murder they're planning, not self-defense -- if it serves our purpose, we can rationalize it, and we can get away with it.

I guess I could more easily accept this as black humor if there was at least some moral center in the strip to properly gauge the lead characters again and show by contrast that their basic motivations are seriously out of whack by comparison.

As it is, I guess I'm really the wrong audience for the strip.


----------



## blackfuredfox (May 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> I had indeed read the backstory, and had thought it had added up to an interesting story situation, making me interested in how they would be resolved.  But I was disappointed that the proffered solution was simply to kill him, because, as the story tells us, nothing else was ever going to work.  When the story reaches this point, it becomes less of a story and more of a social diatribe espousing a personal POV  (eg, nobody can help, the government is a mess, the cops are watching out for themselves, etc).  The situation was serious enough, and even the lack of proper assistance (since this does happen in real life) is believable enough, but the final solution being offered is nothing less than murder, no matter how its justified.  It has less to do with a 'real' solution than it does with allowing the lead characters an excuse to exercise their nihilistic beliefs in a creative and reprehensible way.
> 
> The important point to note is that no matter how real the situation in the story may be, or how solidly based on reality it may be, it is still fiction and in the control of the writer.  If there's _only _one solution to a problem, it's because there was only one solution _allowed_, and its likely the one that serves the writer's interests, not necessarily the right one.
> 
> ...



this seems well thought out. and you read the back story, i like that about people. most would see a few strips and think wtf this is straight out homicide but you read the back story, what are your thoughts and your plan for dealing with said "situation". also the characters balance each other out.


----------



## Adrimor (May 22, 2009)

Corto said:


> No, it was more of an "I'll never visit that site or read that comic ever again who the hell makes this kind of stuff" holy shit.
> EDIT: I mean, sure, as a mod I must be imparcial in every thread, especially those in the subforums where the only line between order and spam/trolls is myself, but _holy shit._


Thanks for getting my hopes up >.> Then again, it's not like mods really need _another_ way to vicariously vent aggression.


cpam said:


> Sociopathy as an entertainment is sociopathic in and of itself, and I am always suspicious of blatant vicarious thrills -- because of the vicariousness of their nature.


You're suspicious of them because you don't understand humanity--or, for that matter, society.
Society is a shell game, a three-card monte played with one's very character taking the place of cards. Every single interaction with another person is a kind of mini-game in which the sole objective is, ultimately, to represent yourself as being directly or indirectly better than somebody else.

In short, sociopaths not only depend on society--they're the ones best suited to it.

Humanity, by and large, buys into this game--but humans are animals too, and the base instincts to kill, rape, fight, and so on are all still there. They will never go away, so people generally learn to deal with them in non-destructive ways. Tell me, do you find _football_ philosophically offensive? Because watching it is fundamentally no different than watching an action movie, reading horror stories, or enjoying a webcomic about a paid-suicide agency. (Personally, I'd argue football is worse, because unlike the other vents, _real people_ get hurt in football; and, with the exceptions of religious tomes and Smeyer's inexcusable tween-lit defecations, I've never heard of anybody rioting over a mere story.) All vicarious outlets are equally "moral". The only immoral way to vent one's anger is to arbitrarily hurt others.

tl;dr : Grow the hell up, and realize that sometimes a story is _just_ a story.


----------



## cpam (May 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> this seems well thought out. and you read the back story, i like that about people. most would see a few strips and think wtf this is straight out homicide but you read the back story, what are your thoughts and your plan for dealing with said "situation". also the characters balance each other out.



Iâ€™m not really certain _how _I would resolve it.  The problem isnâ€™t simply resolving the situation, but doing so in a way thatâ€™s true to the nature of the strip.  I guess the question to ask is, what is the purpose of the story?  What is it trying to tell us?  Who are we supposed to sympathize with?

Are we supposed to sympathize with the squirrel?  Sheâ€™s not only proven herself to be incapable of thinking for herself, but also of being manipulated repeatedly â€“ not just by her abusive husband, but by the two main characters who have talked her into saving herself by killing the husband.  She seems like a likable person, but hasnâ€™t shown any strength of character throughout the story.  The only way she can do that now is to walk away from the situation, from the husband, and from the two main characters trying to â€˜helpâ€™ her.

Whatâ€™s the storyâ€™s purpose?  Is it to show how miserable a bastard the husband is?  Itâ€™s done that in spades.  At this point, _any _solution would satisfy the story.  But is the purpose to _learn _something from the incident?  Does the wife learn anything at all from the experience?  Does the husband?  Can they reconcile?  Would they even try?  Would either ever trust the other if they did?  Maybe the experience ends up in an uneasy draw, where neither is completely happy; permanently stuck with one another in an unhappy marriage, no longer abuser and victim, but neither are they content or pleased with each other, and neither want to leave.

Thereâ€™s also the tone of the story to consider.  It walks a very dangerous line between humor and drama; too far either way and itâ€™s in trouble.  I would have suggested going over the top with black humor and have them proceed with _trying _to kill the husband, but failing each time, and with each failure being more spectacular than the last.  (Comedy, after all, is about failure, not success.)  But so much time has been spent on the history of the squirrelâ€™s relationship and the humiliations sheâ€™s suffered, that any humor now would be jarringly out of place.  I would say that at this stage the story has to end on a dramatic note of some sort.  Maybe she decides against killing him, but he forces her hand and she does it anyway in genuine self-defense.  (I find that a little too pat, myself, but thatâ€™s _one _venue.)

Then again, is the story meant to enlighten?  Is there a desire to genuinely educate the reader?  In that case, it would need a more positive approach to illustrate genuine avenues opened to abuse victims with names of organizations and maybe some realistic statistics of success offered... and the squirrel would _have _to up and leave her husband of her own free will and have the bastard arrested.  I tend to favor this one, but I donâ€™t know that it would fit within the context of the strip.

Itâ€™s a prickly problem.  One thing I can guarantee: whatever happens, if the main characters follow through with their plans to have her murder her husband and succeed, then the strip becomes a â€˜Mary Sueâ€™.  I donâ€™t think _that _would be desirable.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (May 23, 2009)

Took me forever to get past the early ones, with their bad art and diarrhea-of-the-mouth characters, then I kinda liked it for a while. But it began to annoy me how hard it was obviously trying to be "EDGY" and "PROVOKING," I've found. 

Now their self-important moralistic wanking just annoys me. It had so much potential too. Sad, really.


----------



## cpam (May 23, 2009)

_"You're suspicious of them because you don't understand humanity--or, for that matter, society.
Society is a shell game, a three-card monte played with one's very character taking the place of cards. Every single interaction with another person is a kind of mini-game in which the sole objective is, ultimately, to represent yourself as being directly or indirectly better than somebody else.

In short, sociopaths not only depend on society--they're the ones best suited to it."_

Thatâ€™s an amazingly cynical view.  _Every _single interaction is a competition?  Your relationship with your parents?  With your girlfriend/spouse/significant other?  With your friends?

While itâ€™s true there are adversarial relationships in all walks of life, not _all _of them are competitions.  I find my relationships with my friends to be quite pleasant with a good deal of give and take, where generosity of spirit and willing helpfulness is the rule rather than the exception.

"_Humanity, by and large, buys into this game--but humans are animals too, and the base instincts to kill, rape, fight, and so on are all still there."_ 

Thatâ€™s a rather _severe _overstatement.  Man has the capability for these things, but not the instinct for them.  He has a basic fight-or-flight instinct, as do all animals, which is a survival trait.  He needs to kill for food, or to defend himself, but there is also the inherent need to band together and work cooperatively as a unit.  Social scientists have been learning that selflessness is of itself a survival trait, because the individual needs the group in order to survive, and putting the group above the individual is ultimately in his best interests.

And, too, whatever base impulses Man may have, he also has the capability to ignore them and rise above them.

_"They will never go away, so people generally learn to deal with them in non-destructive ways. Tell me, do you find football philosophically offensive? Because watching it is fundamentally no different than watching an action movie, reading horror stories, or enjoying a webcomic about a paid-suicide agency. (Personally, I'd argue football is worse, because unlike the other vents, real people get hurt in football; and, with the exceptions of religious tomes and Smeyer's inexcusable tween-lit defecations, I've never heard of anybody rioting over a mere story.) All vicarious outlets are equally "moral". The only immoral way to vent one's anger is to arbitrarily hurt others."_

I _donâ€™t_ find football to be offensive, as itâ€™s just a competitive sport.  Itâ€™s the sitting on the sidelines and watching the game that I find questionable, and watching from home I find deplorable.  The spectator gains nothing but the thrill of watching others exert themselves and suffer injuries for their game.  The TV viewers are worse than the arena spectators, who are at least getting out to mingle and socialize.  But, again, itâ€™s a vicarious thrill thatâ€™s bought at someone elseâ€™s pain.  Itâ€™s why Iâ€™ve never been a sports fan, or been interested in any game I wasnâ€™t personally playing.

And even so, itâ€™s an incredibly minor affair concerned to reading about somebody committing a murder in order to enjoy the act through someone elseâ€™s actions, and not really comparable.

_"tl;dr : Grow the hell up, and realize that sometimes a story is just a story."
_
If, as you say, a story is _just _a story, then it has no value, no worth, no soul, and no point.

A story â€“ _any _story â€“ _must _have a point, even if itâ€™s something as inane as â€˜donâ€™t step on banana peelsâ€™.  The author must have an idea or a concern that he wants to address, no matter how he approaches it.  Especially if his efforts have any meaning to _him_.

And while I might not agree with where heâ€™s going with the story, I think the creator behind *Suicide For Hire *_has_ had a point to make.  And Iâ€™ll bet _he _feels that it isnâ€™t _just _a story.


----------



## Adrimor (May 23, 2009)

cpam said:


> Thatâ€™s an amazingly cynical view.  _Every _single interaction is a competition?  Your relationship with your parents?


Um, _yes._ What do you think adolescence is all about?



> With your girlfriend/spouse/significant other?  With your friends?


Absolutely! You're competing with the other people your significant other might want to be with--regardless of whether it's passively or actively, knowingly or obliviously. As for friends, well--in addition to the kind of indirect competition just mentioned, you can compete with your friends as well.

Let me clarify: You might not be competing with the person you're interacting with, but you're competing with someone--hence, indirect competition.



> While itâ€™s true there are adversarial relationships in all walks of life, not _all _of them are competitions.  I find my relationships with my friends to be quite pleasant with a good deal of give and take, where generosity of spirit and willing helpfulness is the rule rather than the exception.


Way to misinterpret what I said. Though that was my fault for not specifying earlier what I meant by indirect competition.



> Thatâ€™s a rather _severe _overstatement.  Man has the capability for these things, but not the instinct for them.  He has a basic fight-or-flight instinct, as do all animals, which is a survival trait.  He needs to kill for food, or to defend himself, but there is also the inherent need to band together and work cooperatively as a unit.  Social scientists have been learning that selflessness is of itself a survival trait, because the individual needs the group in order to survive, and putting the group above the individual is ultimately in his best interests.


First off, if that were true, selfishness would no longer exist. It does--and yet, in modern society your argument no longer even applies. Those with the most money--and thus the greatest ability to survive--are amoral and selfish far more often than not. Society now teaches that those are desirable traits--and, unlike basic emotions such as lust or aggression, the way one person views others is almost entirely a matter of upbringing and socialization. Hell--by your logic, Communism should have _worked!_ But it didn't, largely because the people in charge were greedy and corrupt--in a word, _selfish._ (It is important to note that communism itself does not call for a dictatorship--those almost always come after communism's been established.)

And your mention of "social scientists" seems quite baseless, and I'd really like to see your sources. The idea that our instinct is to be selfless is ridiculous, because the justification you use is entirely dependent on the idea of rational self-interest--and people simply are not rational. By and large, the human race is far too short-sighted to be called "rational", not to mention selfish.

But here's the funny part. Are you familiar with Kohlberg's stages of moral development? What you describe as "a survival trait" is not that at all, because it happens at a stage that many people never reach.







Stage five is where selflessness really comes into play--"do the greatest good for the greatest number of people". But since people don't progress through the stages without realizing their current stage is insufficient, the "survival factor" idea is groundless. Humans are born selfish, and many never mature past that--and selfishness, particularly in this post-evolution stage of humanity, does not automatically guarantee a failure to survive.

Now, I mentioned that people are not rational. We do, however, manage to fake it well enough as long as we have an outlet for our more dangerous forms of irrationality--but you would argue that we're wrong for even doing that!

Have you ever seen a horror movie? It doesn't matter which one, though _Scream_ is the most genre-savvy, because they all have common themes--the least-immoral characters, often forming a family unit of some sort, will survive, while the promiscuous or otherwise "sinful" characters die. While schadenfreude and an innate attraction to the morbid are inherent aspects of human nature, we also need to maintain our sense of right and wrong, so we settle on a compromise: Good people live, bad people die. The same principle can be applied to any kind of fiction in which there is killing. And, in a society of crime and punishments, is that really a surprise?

As long as there are emotions, there will be aggression to vent, and sadistic urges to sate. Instead of relying on all the psychiatric double standards to argue against basic human nature, you need to realize that every feeling is essentially normal, and that the only issue is how each person chooses to deal with them.



> And, too, whatever base impulses Man may have, he also has the capability to ignore them and rise above them.


Two quotes come to mind:
"Serenity now, insanity later." --Seinfeld
"For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world but loses his soul?" --Matthew 16:26
Emotion is man's third most basic instinct, the first being survival and the second reproduction. All of the things you've said are "wrong" in this discussion fall under the category of emotion. To sever yourself from your emotions entirely is to become a sociopath. To suppress the "destructive" emotions is to bring other mental illness upon oneself. Either way, you're advocating true insanity over controlled irrationality with this statement.



> I _donâ€™t_ find football to be offensive, as itâ€™s just a competitive sport.  Itâ€™s the sitting on the sidelines and watching the game that I find questionable, and watching from home I find deplorable.  The spectator gains nothing but the thrill of watching others exert themselves and suffer injuries for their game.  The TV viewers are worse than the arena spectators, who are at least getting out to mingle and socialize.  But, again, itâ€™s a vicarious thrill thatâ€™s bought at someone elseâ€™s pain.  Itâ€™s why Iâ€™ve never been a sports fan, or been interested in any game I wasnâ€™t personally playing.


Here are the problems with that argument:
One, the football players know the risks of their job and choose to do it anyway.
Two, it's not even about the injuries; it's about competition. The spectators are more concerned with showing how much better their team is than the other team; and, while I realize you don't actually understand humanity, competition is another important part of human nature that has been tempered to better suit society's needs.

We're already more collective-oriented than you realize--and without turning into the Borg, no less.



> And even so, itâ€™s an incredibly minor affair concerned to reading about somebody committing a murder in order to enjoy the act through someone elseâ€™s actions, and not really comparable.


But enjoying the depiction of a fictional killing is really the same as enjoying that of a real one?
Let me clue you in: In any kind of fiction with a real plot, it isn't just about the killing. It's never just about the killing. If done by an antagonist, it's usually to show how evil he is; if done by a protagonist, it's usually because the one killed deserved it.



> If, as you say, a story is _just _a story, then it has no value, no worth, no soul, and no point.
> 
> A story â€“ _any _story â€“ _must _have a point, even if itâ€™s something as inane as â€˜donâ€™t step on banana peelsâ€™.  The author must have an idea or a concern that he wants to address, no matter how he approaches it.


What a childish assertion. First off, you're confusing tropes with morals. Secondly, you're forgetting to account for the "twist" factor, which comes into play whenever an author decides to make a fairly common thing distinct. Thirdly, I'd hazard a guess that you've never actually _written_ anything. When writing, a story will, in many cases, go where it wants to*, and the writer might not even realize any of the implications it brings--which the readers then seize upon and assert as being the actual intent of the work.

A classic example of this is the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy. Over the years, many readers have pondered the symbolism of the One Ring of Power. How could they avoid that, though? It brings ruin to all who possess it, yet all desire to have it. As a result, countless analyzers have interpreted it to represent technology--and yet, J.R.R. Tolkien _himself_ had denied that he meant it to do so. Now, who would you expect to know what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote _Lord of the Rings_--the readers, or Tolkien himself?

To recap, implications aren't the same as points. Just because you can interpret something to mean X doesn't mean it actually does mean X. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar*.

* I really hope you're at least more capable of understanding figurative language than you are of grasping human nature.



> And while I might not agree with where heâ€™s going with the story, I think the creator behind *Suicide For Hire *_has_ had a point to make.  And Iâ€™ll bet _he _feels that it isnâ€™t _just _a story.


Perhaps, given the amount of preaching the characters do in the recent pages...
Be that as it may, I'm quite certain that he _isn't_ trying to argue that suicide and/or killing people is good.

Please stop trying to rationalize your immaturity with normative statements. The very nature of an ideal is to be beyond reality's potential.


----------



## Corto (May 23, 2009)

I don't even know who's defending the comic and who's attacking it anymore.


----------



## Lobo Roo (May 23, 2009)

Adrimor said:


> Thanks for getting my hopes up >.> Then again, it's not like mods really need _another_ way to vicariously vent aggression.
> You're suspicious of them because you don't understand humanity--or, for that matter, society.
> Society is a shell game, a three-card monte played with one's very character taking the place of cards. Every single interaction with another person is a kind of mini-game in which the sole objective is, ultimately, to represent yourself as being directly or indirectly better than somebody else.
> 
> ...




We're slowly veering off topic (ever so slowly, haha) but I just had to say - it's so nice to hear from others who think I do, especially here. No fun to be crazy alone, I suppose.


Oh, and to clarify, I'm on the side of defending the comic. It's just a story - and if the writer and readers do live through it vicariously, I doubt any of you would prefer they just live the comic flat out, right? Read about it and laugh, or go out and act it out? You choose. 

Personally, emotions irritate me and get in the way of actually getting shit done, and there are people I'd love to beat the shit out of or kill for kicks. Am I going to? No. And that's were the important distinction is - thoughts and actions.


----------



## Adrimor (May 23, 2009)

Lobo Roo said:


> We're slowly veering off topic (ever so slowly, haha)


That's because this is a low-traffic thread ^_^



> but I just had to say - it's so nice to hear from others who think I do, especially here. No fun to be crazy alone, I suppose.


Hey, no problem.  



> if the writer and readers do live through it vicariously, I doubt any of you would prefer they just live the comic flat out, right? Read about it and laugh, or go out and act it out? You choose.


THIS.



> Personally, emotions irritate me and get in the way of actually getting shit done, and there are people I'd love to beat the shit out of or kill for kicks. Am I going to? No. And that's were the important distinction is - thoughts and actions.


Emotions do have their time and place, to be fair. Moralizing about them, however, is as useless as a Glade plug-in in a gas chamber.



Corto said:


> I don't even know who's defending the comic and who's attacking it anymore.


Moral Orel up there's attacking it, I'm defending it with walls of text, and Lobo Roo just made a much more concise argument than I seem to be capable of.


----------



## Irreverent (May 23, 2009)

Lobo Roo said:


> No fun to be crazy alone, I suppose.



Well, with you and Adrimor, I appear to be among friends! 




> Oh, and to clarify, I'm on the side of defending the comic. It's just a story - and if the writer and readers do live through it vicariously, I doubt any of you would prefer they just live the comic flat out, right? Read about it and laugh, or go out and act it out? You choose.



Well said!

And with that, I'm off to catch up the comic.


----------



## Adrimor (May 23, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Well, with you and Adrimor, I appear to be among friends!


Huzzah! We have a mod on our side!

Together, we shall be called the Lithium Triumvirate, and...I dunno, cover Alkaline Trio songs or something.

(I should really put more thought into pointless names...)



> And with that, I'm off to catch up the comic.


Godspeed, brother!


----------



## blackfuredfox (May 24, 2009)

Adrimor said:


> Moral Orel up there's attacking it, I'm defending it with walls of text, and Lobo Roo just made a much more concise argument than I seem to be capable of.



hey i am also defending the comic, it is my most visited website. but as for sanity i aint "right" but am not a Charles Manson, its more subtle insanity.


----------



## Adrimor (May 24, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> hey i am also defending the comic, it is my most visited website. but as for sanity i aint "right" but am not a Charles Manson, its more subtle insanity.


I forgot about you, somehow. My apologies.

I'm not Charles Manson either, to be fair >.>
A wannabe Marilyn, maybe, but not Charles.


----------



## blackfuredfox (May 24, 2009)

thank you, Marylin is "out-there" and you do remind me of him, and found a guy like my insanity level, Hannibal Lector minus the canibalism part but the polite and ingenius insanity while remaning calm, like Hunter.


----------



## Dyluck (May 24, 2009)

Suicide for Hire is like reading a really shitty novel but there are ridiculous looking furries drawn into the margins.


----------



## Adrimor (May 24, 2009)

David M. Awesome said:


> Suicide for Hire is like reading a really shitty novel but there are ridiculous looking furries drawn into the margins.


Now, that's a viewpoint I can respect. No moralizing, no armchair psychology, just a straightforward opinion.
But, to be fair, I could substitute in the name of any other furry webcomic and it'd still be true. Let's face it--furries aren't known for being brilliantly original.

I mainly like that I can't summarize SFH's plot with the seven words "lololol draw faggot buttsecks yiff furries lol".
Now, I _can_ summarize it with "lololol furries with guns killing teenagers lol", but hey--I like that set of words better.
YMMV, of course.


----------



## Irreverent (May 25, 2009)

Adrimor said:


> Godspeed, brother!



I'm current.....whew....took a while to catch it up.  Damn but I love Hunter and Arc.


----------



## Lobo Roo (May 26, 2009)

Yeah, I'm still catching up after a long time away. I always read webcomics until I run out of comics, and then don't have the attention span to keep checking them, heh.

I need to bookmark this one though so I don't forget about it again, though - it's probably my favourite.

Oh - and most of the time I only tend to be conscise because it's all my attention span allows. Too much digression and it's like "Blah blah blah...SOMETHING SHINY!"


----------



## Irreverent (May 27, 2009)

Lobo Roo said:


> Oh - and most of the time I only tend to be conscise because it's all my attention span allows. Too much digression and it's like "Blah blah blah...SOMETHING SHINY!"



Who isn't? 

That's why I was fun to find a quiet corner, a couple of tall pints and catch the web comic up.

The cancer/retail arc was thought provoking (and introduces some odd plot twists) and the current arc has left me cliff hanging.


----------



## russetwolf13 (Jun 19, 2009)

Get's preachy and wordy, but I like it. It's got some balls to it.


----------

