Page 2 of 4

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:16 pm
by ChuckNorris
Sigh... Well, I was hoping this wouldn't happen (Though I think I knew it would). I guess all I've gotta hope for now is that Psimax doesn't come back for a cheap death

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:39 pm
by biggmac
Ahhh. Re-tail therapy. Always makes me feel better.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:54 pm
by Wolfie
biggmac wrote:Ahhh. Re-tail therapy. Always makes me feel better.
I'm glad someone else had the same pun run through their head.

And *shakes fist at Ruby* your timing is too good

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:55 pm
by boneguard
So much speciism. When will we earn to Love and let love.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:05 pm
by AntMac
biggmac wrote:Ahhh. Re-tail therapy. Always makes me feel better.
I laughed out loud. :lol:

Ah, poor Minmax, people don't approve of his hearts choice, that is going to be difficult for him.

What I want to know is, what logical reason is motivating Ruby?. Intelligence is the core of the Kins actions always. What does she know about this sort of love affair, that makes her act like what seems like a bigot or prude?. I will be all disappointment if she is just being un-intelligent in this one aspect of her life, a mere contemptible bigot, it seems so un-Kinlike.

Sometimes cultural taboos are for a good reason, we ought to consider. ( I am not being funny when I add this next bit. I could have chosen someone else's taboos, but that might be insensitive, right? ) My people were once cannibals, and we had an iron-clad cultural taboo against eating anything above the neck, in fact it went so far as to be taboo to so much as touch the head at a meal. Turns out there may have been a sound reason for this being so, what with kuru, which was in populations in our line of descent, etc.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:53 pm
by Tofu
I wish Morikane (?) were here to shade/colour Kin's new tail. I'm going to be confused at all the colour mark changes with our beloved characters. Transparent, remade from IME psionic magiks, just normal ime effects and baseline standard world stuff are all likely to confuse. Ah well ... just saying he brought something good to the webcomic.

On another note, Ruby has issues with people, she might recall what's been suppressed through her tattoo, which would be good character development, cos she thinks she has never failed to achieve her goals - arrogance could be her downfall.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:56 pm
by DrinksTooMuchCoffee
Look, you can be nice to the stupid monkeys, but don't wrestle with them naked. :P ;)

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:37 pm
by Sockmonkey
Weren't the MMs from Ruby's reality and those of the other Kins total jerkwads?

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:56 pm
by Ciaran
Some of the expression are weird, but I beleive Tarol has talked about not liking to draw side views of faces, so thats not my nit-pik. Some of my favorite moments in the comic are the looks that characters exchange. Tarol obviously puts a lot of work into them, and it tells me a lot about the characters' relationships. In panel 3, Kin's eyes are not prtraying the same emotion. Hold a finger over Kin's left eye (on the right side of the page) so as to block it from view. She looks sorrowful, or like she's empathizing with another's sorow. Now cover her right eye and she looks very perturbed about Ruby's comment, which is how I would fel about it.

I don't want to complain Tarol, your character's expression are my favorite part of the comic!

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:12 pm
by AntMac
Ciaran wrote: Some of my favorite moments in the comic are the looks that characters exchange. Tarol obviously puts a lot of work into them, and it tells me a lot about the characters' relationships.
I don't want to complain Tarol, your character's expression are my favorite part of the comic!
I couldn't agree more. Some of the looks Kin and Forgarth exchange over Minmax are as good as a paragraph of description, and they are worth looking at again and again.

Very humane and endearing Kin looks sometimes. When she dealt with scorpion Kin, it was as good as a epic to read into her facial expressions, I think.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:16 pm
by Liesmith
I dunno, Ciaran, it looks fine to me. It looks like she's giving a sighing "are you kidding me with this BS?" look to Ruby. If you cover each eye, they *do* look like they're giving different emotions...but I checked a few other panels and saw the same thing; I think it's just a quirk of a 2D face.

Personally, I'm very happy that we finally got to see Kin's GFY face in panel four.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:44 pm
by DrinksTooMuchCoffee
I think I recall some documentary thingy saying that real human faces do display different emotions on each side of the face and the left side is the more genuine side. Also that's the side dogs have evolved to look at on humans. :)

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:50 pm
by EatsAbug
The near-invulnerability aspect has to come into play soon - when PsiMax is restored and teleports back while Ruby and Kin are out of the room arguing.
PsiMax's eyes and head will be near-invulnerable - MinMax is going to need another way of killing PsiMax this time.

MinMax says something is green. PsiMax comes back - "Remember me?" Sword is drawn.
PsiMax pins everyone and probably kills Sapphire and Onyx to keep them from messing with his machine again. Assumes our Kin is dead.
Begins preparations to destroy the Maze.

Ruby distracts him - and dies. Kin grabs him again. PsiMax fails his Splishk attempt, and goes unconscious. MinMax finishes him somehow.

Kin uses he machine to change PsiMax's vulnerability to 'everything'. The party gets the teapot and leaves.
Maze resets. PsiMax tries to kill his party and fails to even affect them - and they remember every time he killed them. Oops!

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:10 pm
by jakesdad
One error on the part of Reality 80 Kin--Ruby in the last panel.

"Can I speak privately with you?" means "do I have the physical capability to speak with you privately?" Can I do it?

"May I speak privately with you?" means "do I have permission to speak with you privately?" May I do so?

Because all of these Kins are highly intelligent, I don't think this one would make a basic grammatical mistake. I know you could argue this is slang/common usage, but Kins don't slang. They are always extremely precise with their choice of wording.

P.S. Thanks to Mrs. Meeks, my high school English teacher for responding with "I don't know, can you?" every time I made this mistake.

P.P.S. Why do I hear violins playing when I read the last few panels, only to stop like a record slowing down in the final panel? :lol:

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:13 pm
by RocketScientist
Ruby is horrible.

And no, we are NOT amused!
► Show Spoiler
edit:
EatsAbug wrote:The near-invulnerability aspect has to come into play soon - when PsiMax is restored and teleports back while Ruby and Kin are out of the room arguing.
PsiMax's eyes and head will be near-invulnerable - MinMax is going to need another way of killing PsiMax this time.

MinMax says something is green. PsiMax comes back - "Remember me?" Sword is drawn.
And then the "sky" in the maze turns yellow like the sky where the GAP is? There's a yellow glow and what looks suspiciously like daylight coming through the "remember me?" hole.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:31 pm
by Psychorat911
GuessesWildly wrote:"When the serpent becomes your prey, friends will become enemies and love will fuel hate."



The love between Minmax and Kin is fueling hate in Ruby. They are friends now but Ruby's xenofobia will turn them to enemies. Ruby is the serpent.

This can only mean that Forgath's death is nearing. They are about to exit the maze and fight Kore.
At least we now know from who the green " hey names, remember me" comes from.

So my guess is since kin is the prey of minmax affection, when they comes face to face with the goblins,
the friends of kin(goblins) who are the enemies of minmax will make the profecy comes true .
... and the other profecy with the dwarf very soon after ;P

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:47 pm
by vonpenguin
Sockmonkey wrote:Weren't the MMs from Ruby's reality and those of the other Kins total jerkwads?
Ruby's Minmax and Forgath didn't care about her situation and joined GoblinSlayer anyway. Sapphire's tried to help her deal with the trauma but because they later died she doesn't know they existed, Onyx's I can't recall but the fact she kept Forgath's pet means she likely liked him at least.

Which means that Ruby hating Minmax may be influenced by her existing bigotry but to a much larger extent is probably because she was wronged by someone with the exact same face.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:07 am
by Simon
Aww man, what is she up to? I hope she has a good reason for stopping them! (hopefully it's not about the kiss, but about the tail growing back or something).

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:22 am
by Cero
Finally registered, in order to say...

I love how Minmax is all 'Dammit, so close.' in the last panel.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:58 am
by Starfire
Does anyone else wonder when Kin will secure her leash again? It's kinda just hanging out there for anyone to grab; that doesn't bode well...

My theory on Ruby is that she's about to show Kin the machine again and how it's not behaving like a good psi-gear-thingy. I don't think it has to do with the almost kiss; that was just coincidence.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:32 am
by Moroser
Starfire wrote:Does anyone else wonder when Kin will secure her leash again? It's kinda just hanging out there for anyone to grab; that doesn't bode well...
lol, I just entered the forum to wright about the leash. You shouldn't worry that much though. Minmax and Forgath already earned Kin's trust, and the other Kins are very unlikely to use the power of the collar against each other. Our Kin has more important things to worry about atm.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:58 am
by Depai
With regards to the expression Kin is pulling in panel 3, THunt tweeted that it was heavily influenced by Ellen Page's "Bitch please" expression. So I'm guessing Kin is merely thinking "Bitch please, I want my tail"
"This 'bitch please' expression is heavily inspired by fellow Canadian, @EllenPage http://t.co/ELIzFHpWV9"

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:29 pm
by Changes_everything
Moroser wrote:
Starfire wrote:Does anyone else wonder when Kin will secure her leash again? It's kinda just hanging out there for anyone to grab; that doesn't bode well...
lol, I just entered the forum to wright about the leash. You shouldn't worry that much though. Minmax and Forgath already earned Kin's trust, and the other Kins are very unlikely to use the power of the collar against each other. Our Kin has more important things to worry about atm.
If Thunt, like he did, clearly draws something like the leash being loose, he has a reason for it.
Thunt does not do anything without a plan.


Admittedly that plan sometimes just amounts to stirring speculation, but still.

We should be worried.

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:58 pm
by Thunt
jakesdad wrote:One error on the part of Reality 80 Kin--Ruby in the last panel.

"Can I speak privately with you?" means "do I have the physical capability to speak with you privately?" Can I do it?

"May I speak privately with you?" means "do I have permission to speak with you privately?" May I do so?

Because all of these Kins are highly intelligent, I don't think this one would make a basic grammatical mistake. I know you could argue this is slang/common usage, but Kins don't slang. They are always extremely precise with their choice of wording.

P.S. Thanks to Mrs. Meeks, my high school English teacher for responding with "I don't know, can you?" every time I made this mistake.

P.P.S. Why do I hear violins playing when I read the last few panels, only to stop like a record slowing down in the final panel? :lol:
Oh good point! I always forget that can/may rule, dammit! :wall:

Thanks!

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:48 pm
by BuildsLegos
Don't worry, we know you flubbed grammar and mis-colored Minmax's fingers for a reason.