HOME | DD
Hipper-Reed — Ch.6 pg.120
by-nc-nd
Published: 2010-12-20 22:09:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 35597; Favourites: 100; Downloads: 179
Redirect to original
Description
If this page looks a bit "washed out" it's because I colored it using nothing but the airbrush instead of base colors bucketfill tool.The next page after this is back to base colors with the background looking pretty similar to this one as far as the textures are concerned. So let me know what you think of this style of coloring versus the base coloring style I normally do
Also, I know I didn't expressly mention this in the comic (since it would be needlessly breaking the fourth wall), but the setting for the last few pages still took place during the day. It was just a very DARK place.
Beyond that, hope you enjoy.
If you want to browse through more of this comic, go here: [link]
Feel free to commission me. Details, contact info and prices are on my Deviant Art Journal here: [link]
Related content
Comments: 56
It looks like Michelle is under the influence of Angel's 'Happy' spell. The coloring in breathtaking, and I'm not just saying that because of the sudden transitions from colored to black and white to 'different kind of colored'.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Thank you, I really hated that grayscale you did, this looks so much better. More finished.
It is creepy, frankly way more creepy then that soul sucking priest and I diffidently think that he is the lesser of the two evils. Don’t try to convince me for you can’t. I already know where this is going, you will try to make Angel into the better, and the most preferred of the two.
That won’t work however, it will just destroy the integrity of the entire story, she needs karmic retribution.
The ideal end is if you frame it. Want to know what I mean by that, note me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
*shrug* Angel is better than that priest, but only barely. Someone who's been mind controlled like that can still be released, but someone who's been killed and drained like that is probably gone for good.
She's far from being "good", and the more she uses her power selfishly, the wider the abyss under her will be when it comes time for her to pass on that power.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you’re saying that it is better to enslave a person, then to kill them. =>
A man that kidnaps a girl and lock her in his cellar for a number of years are better then a man that merely kills someone for any reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Once you're dead, you're dead. But someone enslaved can be freed.
It doesn't make the latter "better" or "worse". You might as well make a value judgment on whether a poison that's instantly lethal is "better" or "worse" than one that indefinitely cripples or debilitates. Nobody in their right mind is going to want either.
Same thing here. This is a Morton's fork, except that Angel's actions are portrayed as being less repulsive than the priest's.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No Angel's action are portrayed as MORE repulsive then the priest, that's my entire point. they are more repulsive, not only in and off themselves, but primarily through their underlying intensions.
The priest kills for “food”. He needs them to survive and thrive. His actions are do different then that of a lion hunting a gazelle (or perhaps the hyena stealing the gazelle afterwards). Either way, he does it because HE HAS TO DO IT. He could do it more responsibly, no doubt about that; but self preservation is still a very legitimate reason.
Angel’s action is completely different. She doesn’t have to do anything, she does it, she does it for revenge, and in a mad powerflip. She not he, is the true monster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even if he had no choice at all in having to drain energy to survive (which I find doubtful - that did not have the appearance of eating for sustenance, that had the appearance of stealing years to artificially extend his own life), he has lots of choices in how he goes about it. He could have picked an animal, for example. He also deliberately chose to "consume" someone who came to him looking for guidance and reassurance because of his position in the community.
I also think you're speculating beyond any possible knowledge by saying that he did so because of self-preservation. And even leaving that aside, self-preservation justifies things like stealing in order to eat. It doesn't justify (say) killing and eating people, especially if other choices are available. It's a reasonably safe bet that the priest's action was more taking advantage of an opportunity, so he had other choices. Self-preservation does not apply here.
Angel, by comparison, is by no means good. She doesn't have to do anything, she is doing some things because of a twisted sense of revenge, others merely because she can, some even out of a misguided belief that she's doing "good". But she isn't draining people and killing them to increase her own power. She isn't "cultivating" them for later "consumption". And that makes a difference.
Angel is out of control, and she isn't acting at all responsible. But she had this job dumped on her without any warning, training, or guidance, or even asking for it. Even someone with the best of intentions would probably be screwing up right and left. And someone like Angel, who doesn't have the best of intentions, is doing an even worse job. She's anything but a "good" witch.
But she's also not a true monster. That takes experience which she doesn't have, being an inexperienced teenager who had this power dropped in her lap with no warning, guidance, or training. Give her a year or two, and she probably would be, but as it currently stands, she's just on the road.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
” But she isn't draining people and killing them to increase her own power. She isn't "cultivating" them for later "consumption". And that makes a difference.”
Yes exactly, that makes a difference, that makes it WORSE. Having an agenda for doing something is better then doing something, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN.
Yes I believe that priest does what he does to extend his life, aka TO SURVIVE. At present we don’t have the technology to “transfer” life like that, but it is very likely that he has to drain humans to survive in human form.
And why kill the man that came to him for consolation? There are many reasons, first and foremost easy pray.
It is a very common concept and a necessary one if we are to remain sane, that we do not bestow personhood upon our food. If you eat meet, which is natural to do if you are a human, you must realize that your food used to be a sentient being, killed for your pleasure of consumption.
Yes he may be able to survive on animals, even maintain a human form with one, but if they aren’t as tasty that’s another reason not to do it.
I’ll like you to look up one of the new webcomics I have found called “Flipside” start at chapter 17, and read to chapter 18.
Tell me what you think.
Ps. It’s a very good webcomic so it should be interesting for you regardless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're basically arguing that someone who has an agenda and methodically commits murder (and the moral equivalent of cannibalism) is better than someone wandering around causing non-lethal mayhem for the heck of it. And that argument does not fly.
As for your argument about the priest, there are several major problems with it.
1. You don't actually know anything about the priest except what's been shown in the comic. Thinking something to be very likely when you don't have any solid information to base it on is like building a house on sand.
2. Survival is not the same as artificially extending one's life at the cost of others. I've read books where mages were able to do so by draining the remaining years out of people they killed, but never did anyone, in or out of the book, try to argue that it was justified for survival.
3. Most animals are sentient. Self-awareness is nothing special. But there's an enormous difference when you talk about a sophont, an intelligent being capable of reason and communication. To treat a provably intelligent being as a food animal is an atrocity.
4. Luring someone into a relationship of trust merely so you can betray them is a crime, and it is certainly a betrayal.
5. The argument "don't grant personhood to your food" is sophistry. Personhood isn't something one can grant to another, it's something that a being is able to claim.
6. This argument can be used to justify vampirism, but there's a reason vampires in fiction are almost always hunted down when they're discovered. Vampires who were to actually be part of society would not predate on other members of that society (they would get sustenance from a blood bank or from animals). The priest is effectively part of society because of his position as a preacher. There is no justification for that, because it undercuts everything society stands for.
Give me a link to the webcomic and I'll take a look at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Link: [link]
Let’s start with 5). Personhood. First you must realize, and that can be a bit difficult, that it is impossible to cognitively “see” a subject. Our senses is only able to see objects, subject sight requires metasensing awareness. It is to feel the “sight” of the other, as Sartre says. That’s why behaviorism is so popular in the natural sciences, there you can completely ignore the subjects and focus solely on them as objects.
A problem with the Nazi regime was that they didn’t saw Jews as subjects. In doing that they denied them personhood, and removed them any moral value. You see, only persons can have moral value, it doesn’t matter what you do to an object if you or another subject doesn’t need it.
The resistance did the same to the Nazis, they denied them personhood, they saw them only as monsters, as something that must be destroyed.
There is an very apt quote from Nietzsche that I really like in this:
“When you fight monsters, you must look into it that you do not yourself become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.”
Therefore personhood is granted. It is something each one of us grant, to every subject we meet, whom we see as a subject, and not merely a number, or a hindrance. Think about it, and I am sure that you will find examples of someone, a government official or an employ at a big firm most likely, that did not see you as a person, but merely as “another-one”. It something is all too easy not to do.
Now to 3). 5) explain it partially. Except for that think of it this way. All food must either be hunted or raised at a farm. If it is raised at a farm it is raised for the explicit purpose of later consumption. This livestock doesn’t have a change, and is completely dependent upon its masters. It is of course a master’s duty to treat his slaves responsibly and with the respect that they deserve.
If food is hunted it is different. It is initially free. If a pray is intelligent and moves into a dangerous territory census of the risk, it is more legitimate to hunt them, then an unthinking beast.
This does not apply to the sucker or what-do-we-call-him that served as snack. Therefore the action is somewhat condemnable, but remember that it is so, not because he is intelligent, but exactly because he is not.
I also like you not to use self invented words, sophont is hardly legitimate and not part of any official dictionary, but I understood what you meant, you meant “sapiens”. But speak clearly next time.
4) Yes it is a betrayal, but that’s what a predator do to its pray.
1) I think I have seen enough to make judgment and I don’t actually base my judgment on anything not shown.
2) Survival is survival. Extending your life by killing the bear charging at you, or merely killing it for food, has no essential difference from killing it or anything else for other substance that allows you to live for another day. If you believe it does, explain the difference.
6) I did not justify his actions, I explained to you why they are natural, why you, in his situation would do the same. Explained why something took place, and justifying why something took place is not the same thing. In 2005 after the London bombing, several attempts was made to explain why it happened, England’s participation in the American crusade ageist Islamism in Iraq and Afghanistan was on the top of the list.
Their was a big uproar because England’s alleged “crimes” in the war could in no way justify the attack. The problem was, it was never tried to be justified, just explained.
You must lean to see the difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not interested in worrying about original point numbers, so I'm just going down the list:
1. That argument is only useful for justifying doing whatever one wants to other people because they're "sub-human" (or non-persons, if you prefer). The short rebuttal is that no person or group can deny personhood to any other person or group, they can only pretend it doesn't exist so they can justify whatever actions they wish to commit without being bothered by their consciences. And also, anyone who makes the argument that some other person isn't actually a person is leaving themselves open to some other (presumably stronger) person doing the same to them if they want. The only way out of that particularly vicious cycle is to short-circuit it.
The other half of that isn't particularly valid either. Yes, it's easy to think of other people and their problems of being less "real" because it doesn't directly affect one. It's the old "tree falls in forest" question, restated. But just because something doesn't seem real doesn't mean it isn't real; just because a million murders are a statistic doesn't make those deaths any less terrible or terrifying to the people who were killed. It doesn't matter that it's easy to fall into that particular trap. It's easy for a person to take a gun and start shooting other people in the head; does that make it right?
2. My father grew up on a farm, and I know all about how that process works. So what? A description of the mechanics of ranching doesn't justify treating sophonts as food.
I read a science-fiction book once which involved an alien species which treated any spacefaring species it was able to conquer as food animals, complete with ranches. I can conceive of no more terrible and tragic fate for beings able to think. It should be noted that the species which did this was wiped out as thoroughly as possible. Leaving aside the object lesson, the point is that such treatment only justifies one's eventual execution, at the hands of the "non-people" (or those acting on their behalf) so callously treated.
Also, next time check on Google before you accuse me of using a self-invented word. Sophont has been used in sci-fi for more than four decades. Your unfamiliarity with it is beside the point; it's been used by science-fiction writers more famous than either of us is ever likely to be, so it doesn't matter that it's not in a dictionary.
3. Arguing that a predator "betrays" its prey only justifies things like con jobs and graft and other such things used to enrich one person at the expense of others. If you accept the validity of such things, you lose the right to complain if and when it happens to you.
4. You can't make any kind of judgment without having as many facts as it's possible to gather. Simply put, you have almost no facts to support your argument - only that he can consume people with his hand and that he seemed younger after the fact. So, did you consider the possibility that he isn't old at all, and that the appearance of age is just that, an appearance? Did you consider the possibility that he's not doing this because of survival needs, but merely to increase his own power? We've never seen him eat normal food - does that prove that he does not eat something else for regular sustenance?
5. Shooting a bear that is charging at you and intending to kill you, or shooting a bear so you'll have enough to eat over the winter, is a lot different from shooting a bear for sport. The action is fundamentally the same in all cases - you shoot the bear. Yet, survival only justifies the former two reasons, not the latter.
6. Considering that you don't know that those actions are natural, or why he did them in the first place, you'll have to excuse me for not accepting your "explanation". I'd accept Hipper-Reed saying something like that, but not some random reader of his comic. I'll grant that you've come up with an interesting rationale, but it's an unprovable one at this point. We won't know unless and until the author says so.
Also, you called what you were saying a judgment two paragraphs earlier ("I think I have seen enough to make judgment"), only now it's an explanation and not a judgment? Before you worry about whether I know the difference between an explanation and a judgment, perhaps you should make sure that you aren't contradicting yourself, or giving the appearance of a contradiction.
----
Unrelated: America's crusade against Islam? Perhaps you'd like to justify that claim? A crusade has very specific connotations which don't really apply to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are a large number of Americans who are decidedly unenthusiastic about both wars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This discussion should be continued in private note-form.
To new listeners, be assured that I am right, it just takes up too much space to explain why here. Note me if you care to debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love this attitude: "be assured that I am right". More like "be assured that I think that I am right".
Is it any wonder that you've as yet failed to convince me of the validity of your argument?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What I or you think is irrelevant. Only right is relevant.
We moved it to notes, so let us continue it from there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you want to take it to notes, then take it to notes, and don't make statements in public like "be assured that I am right". That comes across as arrogance.
And I would think twice about making statements about how "irrelevant" what you or I think is, were I you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have a feeling Molly will be the hero
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Loving it. Glad we're back to Michelle and Angel too. I know the Preacher-Alien-Creepy-Guy-From-Hell is important, but I like the cute aspects of the story too.
And yes, color is SO much better, and, honestly, I don't really see this as more "washed" out than the other ones, it's just fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yay. Back to Michelle and back to color Anyway, I think I'd rather have my mind altered entirely then go along with this BS.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Colors definitely improve the comic. This page looks so much nicer! Sure, the fact that it has Michelle in it may make me a tad biased, but who cares?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree. The color just works better I think. I think the eye in general is more drawn to color than anything else. I think color is the first thing our minds receive when we "see" something. Then depth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I really really wish I had a bigger clue what's going on here. I get the kids were still playing during Sunday school, and that Angel called for Shelly and she responded.
But I'm getting confused on weather Shelly was scared of Angel and chose to suddenly play the part of sweet doll so Angel wouldn't ask many questions (like SHelly ENJOYING her time with the kids) or weather Angel turned on the 'puppet mode' where Shelly's mind can only see what's going on, but a set of programmed reactions is in control of her body, and WHY would Angel turn that on now. I know Angel is a slave to her whims, but since she was giving the pretense of a deal with SHelly I wonder what's going on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The deal was that Shelly wouldn't act out of "character". Since they're going home, there's no reason for Shelly to keep up that farce.
You're right, it's the Happy Spell again. And yes, part of it has to do with Angel's whims.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why is it called the happy spell, when it doesn't really make the person ACTUALLY happy? Angel said 'what you're really thinking' when we first saw this spell, implying Shelly's body is just on autopilot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think it's a 'happy' spell because it forcing her to act/react (atleast on the outside) as what Angel would see as happy, or at least how she thinks a happy little girl would behave.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There will be an answer soon. Honestly, the whole "magic" shtick isn't meant to be taken so . . . scrupulously. It's phlebotinum for this story. It's not science fiction, hard or soft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just like 'Magic A = Magic A' keep things from becoming 'hey wait a minute!.'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Understandable. Like I said, just wait a page or two and your question might be answered. Yes, Angel can't tell exactly what Shelly is thinking. Yes it's called the Happy Spell. There's a reason for this. Just be patient
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think that the foreground does really well with it, but the background doesn't seem to match styles. If you put in a few thin black lines in the background, that might unify the two.
Again, that' foreground objects: A+
Background objects: C
Generic background colors in the last two panels: A
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Looks pretty nice to me. I like this color method.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank *you*
has been an enjoyable read so far and it'll take more than different coloring methods to change that
my rating:
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
lol she really knows how to make an entrance, doesnt she?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nice i like this style! also, Angel's got Michelle trained well lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Contrast between what?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This page and the last one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>