Sinfest

here it is [1]

what the fuck

Okay

I get that the patriarchal establishment is oppressive and limiting

but slavery?????????

???.jpeg

That's some serious Dude, Not Funny! territory there

To give the context : after Maverick and the assassinbots find each other after escaping from Devil Inc ([1]) one guy, who briefly owned Kill Bot 1 [2] decides to get her himself [3]. He (somehow) turns into a demon [4], bomfs the girl he want and take her hostage to make the others back off [5]. He gets promptly defeated by his hostage a first time, but stands up again and try to fight for real, only to be put down by Tangerine [6]. The Fembots suggests to "deactivate" him permanently, but Fuschia propose an alternative solution [7] which, as seen here [8], consists in turning him into a frog and making him forget his previous existence.

People in this forum tends to consider this an unforgivable crime committed by fuschia / the Fem Bots / the Sisterhood, an dthe proof that the author would condone any crime as long as it is committed by female characters.

Having just read all of Sinfest, mostly to see by myself what the fuss was all about, I have a few problem with that point of view.

First, fuschia basically intervened to save the guy's head (he would most likely have been blasted away if not for her)

Second, the girls just (temporarily) defeated a guy who introduced himself by bomfing one of their own (and bomf is basically lethal for Fem Bots) try to claim her as property and demonstrates that he would not back off, even after being knocked unconscious. In most universe, finishing would be, while certainly not heroic, at least understandable, especially from a group of, y'know, trained killers.

Third, we don't actually know if he was actually amnesiac before turning into a frog. While he does look different, it might just be him being confused instead of angry. Even if he was put in the Lethe before waking up, it has been established before that the let does not always result in complete memory wipe [9] : transforming him might be considered "the only way to be sure"

Finally, concerning the author intention, I would like to point this post: [10] Buddha (one of the few absolute good guys of the verse) shows up and save the frog's flank. While the author is definitly not on the morphed guy's side, it kind of shows that he doesn't hate him enough to turn him into a meal.

edited 24th Aug '16 11:59:19 AM by jaff

I have no idea who any of the fembots are supposed to represent.

I can't tell if this is a bad parody of slavery, or a bad parody of feminism

When your work isn't parody, but seems to have all the elements of being so, there is something wrong at work here.

edited 24th Aug '16 11:46:12 AM by blkwhtrbbt

Litterally or metaphorically?

EDIT : Sorry, you just answered.

So, metaphorically, apparently no one have ever heard any comment from the author, so it is definitely open to interpretation.

It seems almost everyone here believe the Fem Bots are a (bad) metaphor for women oppression, but on the other hand people seems to assume that everything that happen (or might happen) in sinfest only serves to advance the author feminist agenda

edited 24th Aug '16 11:56:41 AM by jaff

On a lighter note, I would like to commemorate the sinfest thread finally reaching page 666.

It's the sinniest page of them all!

It seems almost everyone here believe the Fem Bots are a (bad) metaphor for women oppression, but on the other hand people seems to assume that everything that happen (or might happen) in sinfest only serves to advance the author feminist agenda

That's pretty much it.

The interpretation of what Tats is trying to say is complicated by the fact that there are actual, flesh-and-blood women in the Sinfest universe, so if fembots are a metaphor for women, then what are the women? And if fembots are metaphors for oppressed women, shouldn't we assume that real women are not oppressed?

In addition, fembots can exist in two states: one in which they are not women, but mere machines ("fake," as Clio told Slick), and one in which they are sapient and sort of like women although they retain many machine characteristics.

It was a muddled metaphor from the beginning, and the author has made it worse by changing the rules several times in the story.

... Or it could be a reference to the Buddhist concept of Samsara (which is possibly hinted at by Buddha's intervention here ), where one can regress from a "higher" realm to a "lower" realm (and vice versa) for one reason or the other, usually tied to accumulating negative/positive karma.

I could go along with that, except ... Sinfest includes Hell. For that matter, Sinfest includes Satan. So if that's what Tats was doing with John the Frog Guy, he changed the rules on us on us once again.

edited 24th Aug '16 4:18:19 PM by Hexapodia

Well

to be fair

The "machine" was actively fighting him. To be able to disagree implies some degree of will/self-awareness.

First, fuschia basically intervened to save the guy's head (he would most likely have been blasted away if not for her)

Hey, let's solve the issue of capital punishment by simply lobotomizing prisoners instead of executing them! What a good idea! We won't kill them, we'll just destroy their brains!

Second, the girls just (temporarily) defeated a guy who introduced himself by bomfing one of their own (and bomf is basically lethal for Fem Bots) try to claim her as property and demonstrates that he would not back off, even after being knocked unconscious. In most universe, finishing would be, while certainly not heroic, at least understandable, especially from a group of, y'know, trained killers.

Another inconsistency, of course. How and why did John turn into a devil, and how did he gain his powers? And if turning into a devil and being able to bomf go along with being evil, then how is Tange able to bomf?

One more thing: As far as John was aware, he was in the right and the girls were thieves. He had no way to know that the fembot was anything other than a machine, and his property. Even though the supposed Good Guys knew that the fembot had gained sapience, they didn't even try to inform him of that. "Too bad, John — you broke a law that we just made up without telling you! So we declare you guilty and we're going to execute you!"

You know, this puts the girls on a lower moral plane than abortion clinic bombers.

edited 24th Aug '16 4:20:53 PM by Hexapodia

(Sorry for putting this out of sequence — I split one post into two.)

The "machine" was actively fighting him. To be able to disagree implies some degree of will/self-awareness.

Or it could imply re-programming. Which is exactly what Clio was doing to the non-sapient fembots.

@ hexopedia

I agree with your statement. Mind wiping a guy and turning him into a frog and mind wiping him again is the same as killing him. Maybe even worse, because getting killed and leaving a corpse would at least have given his family closure.

edited 24th Aug '16 7:06:17 PM by hayate666

Back to Slick and Squig: http://www.sinfest.net/view.php?date=2016-08-25

And once again, the stoned out of his mind pig gives better advice than anybody else in the comic.

That's kind of hilarious, actually.

Also, this is how you deal with your inner hollow. Ask Ichigo Kurosaki, he's been there, done that, more than once, as I recall.

Well Squiggly's the only person who gives a shit about Slick in universe.

Not just Hollows, it's how you deal with Shadows in Persona as well.

Slick better get a Persona out of this

Don't know anything about persona, but Slick better get the ability to shoot a cer- err, Bomf, after this.

edited 24th Aug '16 10:27:57 PM by Raylas

Dude, if Slick got a persona he could summon a mythological creature representing his Id to smite his foes. Who needs bomfing!?

Given that it's Slick, his Persona would probably be Mara. http://imgur.com/gallery/wU139

edited 24th Aug '16 11:34:34 PM by Metalix

@ Hexapodia : well

It was a muddled metaphor from the beginning. That. Exactly. Everyone assume that the fembots are a metaphors for something feminist, and then revels on how it doesn't work as such. However, after reading Sinfest at last, there is one thing that strikes me:

When he wants to talk about feminism, he brings feminist freedom fighting super bikers.

When he doesn't like a film, he makes a flat parody of it, or literally changes the title to "pro-war propaganda" or such.

When he wants to talk about black persecution, he have one of his black SJW tell a bystander about it (and the bystander being completely oblivious, of course) or use death to directly tell us that "unarmed black teenagers" are the main victims of violence.

What I mean is that, when Tats wants to talk about social justice, he isn't exactly subtle about it (or good, but that's another matter)

So, I really don't see why the Fem Bots should be twisted and not so clever metaphor for human struggle instead of, y'know, simply what they are shown to be. Super advanced, sentient robots, who are treated like slave with a few freeing themselves and trying to free the other while being tracked down as malfunction by their creator. Fictional characters in a world of fiction.

And if turning into a devil and being able to bomf go along with being evil, then how is Tange able to bomf? Tange is a devil. She's been bomfed into a devil by big D himself.[1]. And no, I never said that the fact he was able to bomf was proof he was evil. On the other hand, the fact that the very first thing he tries is shooting the girl (sorry the "machine") he want to get pretty much indicates that he is an ass. As for why he turns into a demon, I admit it is unclear, my main bets would be that either he had an inner demon all along (like Slick or Monique), or he spontaneously changed by giving up to sin hard (in his case, most likely wrath).

As far as John was aware, he was in the right and the girls were thieves. Yes, the girl was a thief who stole herself away from him. Nice tip: people usually think they are "in the right". You buy someone and force him to work to death for you? It's okay, you have a receipt. You invade a neighboring country, slaughther the population and steal their lands and goods? It's okay, you declared war.

But you are technically correct: the guy considers that it his right to own, control and hurt a creature that he clearly did not view as some interchangeable piece of hardware (he previously rejected the replacement Devil Tech proposed him), and the law probably agrees with him. From the Fem Bots point of view, on the other hand... Well, when "the law" declares that you are a piece of hardware with no conscience or right, and more precisely a malfunctioning one that needs to be destroyed at all cost, it is usually the moment to stop bothering with the law and focusing more on survival / victory.

So, Fem Bots are fundamentally evil by a moral standard that consider any group fighting for freedom/survival against "the law" with anything bigger than Gandhi "passive resistance" a dangerous terrorist

edited 25th Aug '16 1:10:46 AM by jaff

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

Fictional characters in a world of fiction.

A world of fiction from which Tats lectures us, and from which he expects us to draw moral lessons and become "woke." But if we can't question the premises of the fiction, then which fiction should we follow? Should we look to the fictional lessons of Jack Chick Comics for guidance? (There's too much similarity between that stuff and Sinfest these days for my taste.) For that matter, what's to keep us from adopting the morality of The Turner Diaries?

Tange is a devil. She's been bomfed into a devil by big D himself.

Yes, but she isn't evil — she's one of the God Guys! A paradox! Or an inconsistency, take your pick.

Yes, the girl was a thief who stole herself away from him.

At what point did the fembot become a girl? We have the word of Clio herself that fembots are not girls!

So, Fem Bots are fundamentally evil by a moral standard that consider any group fighting for freedom/survival against "the law" with anything bigger than Gandhi "passive resistance" a dangerous terrorist

It's a matter of proportional response. What other measures have the girls tried? Somewhere there's a red line of acceptable-vs.-unacceptable response to evil, and the girls didn't bother to look for it.

I strongly suspect that Tats made the previously ordinary guy into a devil and gave him the ability to bomf — completely without precedent in the comic — precisely because Tats wanted to give the girls an excuse to annihilate him. The girls are good, therefore whenever they do something we'd consider bad, it has to be justified by "we were forced into it — the other guy was even worse!"

Why don't the Good Guys go to the police? Well, Tats has set up his universe so that the Devil apparently controls everything. Except for the cops who tried to stop Tange when she was shoplifting, there don't seem to be any police in this world, and those cops might have been the Devil's agents, too. (So how did Slick, Monique, Squig, and Crim live in peace and prosperity before Tats told us the Patriarchy had ruined everything? And why bother to have an Evil Mirror World if Satan already controls Slick's universe?)

Or ... Even after the rise of the Sisterhood, God and Jesus have been accessible presences in this world. In fact, Jesus was directly responsible for Fuchsia's escape from Satan's domination. So why don't the Good Guys hunt up Jesus and ask for his intervention? Or go directly to God, who has listened to Tats' characters in the past. (My guess is that it's either because Tats isn't a believer, or else he didn't want to offend someone close to him who believes in other stuff ... like Neo-Paganism. Would you be surprised if Tats were to pull some sort of Magickal Wiccan salvation for the rogue fembots out of his hat?)

By the way, am I the only one who's having trouble telling the fembots apart and keeping track of their backstories? They may be people now, but they don't seem to be very memorable as individuals to me. Maybe that's because of the way Tats draws them. Or maybe it's because they aren't really characters so much as strawmen ... er, strawpersons.

edited 25th Aug '16 3:00:48 AM by Hexapodia

Dude, if Slick got a persona he could summon a mythological creature representing his Id to smite his foes.

In a way, he's just done exactly that ... and the mythological creature who represents his id is Squig.

I think it's plausible that Tats' original version of Sinfest had Slick representing Ego, Crim representing Superego, and Squig representing Id. Sort of like Sigmund Freud meets Herman's Head.

edited 25th Aug '16 3:09:43 AM by Hexapodia

Yeah, I have trouble telling the fembots apart, too.

John was probably turned into a Devil guy because of lust. It is basically saying that having a sexbot (or visiting a prostitute for that matter) is a sin and will land you in hell.

On that note, feminism is just one of two obsessions Tats has of late. The other one is with prostitution. The fembots were introduced not so much for messages about feminsim (not directly, anyway), but for depicting prostitutes in situations Tats was apparently uncomfortable putting real women in. This is why Sinfest's Red Light District is now filled with fembots. Men buying fembots for themselves is probably supposed to be like hiring a prostitute and making her do things she does not neccesarily want for money. Having fembots in the role of prostitutes also allows Tats to show violence against them without actually involving living women.

And of course, since fembots don't need a break from work and don't have a life of their own, this all comes off as being about slavery rather than mere sex workers, yet another muddying of the waters (probably comes with the whole issue around sapient robots, see Data's trial in Star Trek TNG for example).

And then there is the theory on this forum that Sinfest is an extended reflection of Tats' (lack of) sex life, his interaction with prostitution, and his insecurities and guilt complex. This mainly stems from his depiction of plenty of scantily dressed women, prostitutes or otherwise, despite his constant railing against the objectification of women, and his admiration for one particular stripper (shown in the detailed, full page sunday strips that sometimes feature nothing but her dancing, with a darker stinger at the end to remind us that we are NOT supposed to like this, contrary to appearances).

And then of course there is his hypothetical radfem/Wicca girlfriend (possibly multiple persons) who drove him to all this in the first place. Which, combined with his prostitution fascination, raises a lot of questions...

I also think Tats IS capable of more subtle metaphors. The hamfisted anvilicious examples mentioned earlier are probably examples of spur-of-the-moment messages that Tats wants to put into his comic, and for which he can't be bothered to work it in in a more subtle way, instead opting for the direct approach. Just look at some of his Sunday strips, especially pre-Sisterhood ones, where he can say a lot without even using words. He can clearly do it when he puts his mind to it.

Don't forget that Tats is still a talented artist, and he CAN put together a decent story line (just look at Fyoosh pre-Sisterhood), even if he doesn't show it too often anymore. His soap box tendencies tend to get in the way of that nowadays.