SFP

sfp-6-104-for-web

Show Comments
  • StClair

    I wonder if the next strip is going to cut away to show us a different sort of villain.

  • Markus

    Klevin’s a cool dude.

    • LSabljak

      maybe his superpower is empathy, who knows? -shrug emoji-

  • Background Character

    Clevin is such a great human being to the point of suspicion. I want to believe everything with him is right, but he’s too perfect. What’s wrong with him?

    • Ellis Jones

      I don’t know. I have a friend who is much the same, and I get told I’m similar. In my case at least, it’s a result of concerted effort. And my downsides are that I have appalling social intuition and am constantly unmotivated.

    • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

      He’s being too indulgent to the point of self-flagellation with someone who just doesn’t want to admit to herself that she doesn’t care about him.

      • Arch

        I think she didn’t care for him until she saw him at the fundraiser and had kind of a “oh, I didn’t realize he was so much more” moment. I think she really does has feelings for him now but they’re also mixed in with embarrassment/guilt for choosing another guy first.

        • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

          Yeah, yeah I know.
          A less glamorous way to tell the exact same thing is to speak of how careful and patient with herself she’s being because she absolutely knows she can afford it. He’ll wait for her, and she knows.

          But care and patience are good things. Right, Alison I did not think this kiss through Green?

          • Ellis Jones

            Is is reading eireely like something a redpiller would say.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            I’m sorry, the tone might have passed through. I’m genuine when I say that care and patience are good things. This is not her behavior here that I’m disappointed with, it’s the kiss. It was a terrible mistake.
            The kind that happen all the time.

          • Soqoma

            “redpiller”?

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            They’re calling me a MRA, essentially. The Red Pill is one despicable place where they gather on reddit.

          • Ellis Jones

            Person who treats dating as a game to be won at all costs, basically.

          • Danygalw

            okay so I think the word you were aiming for was “eerily”, but I’m really not sure

          • Ellis Jones

            No, you’re right.

        • Jackson

          Not just choosing another guy, also the fact that she violated her own principles to force him to help Feral. She became the Ubermensch for a second there, and she doesn’t like it. She may not think she deserves him. She may be wondering what he’d say if she told him what she’d done.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            It’d be a neat thing if all these doubts had occurred to her before the kiss, so that we could have gotten the slightest of impressions she’s learning anything about not abusing her privileges, be it superpowers or the affection of the guy she is not sure about loving back.
            But nope.

            Continuously failing and beating herself up is not enough.

          • Tylikcat

            Well, yeah.

            I’m not really surprised she kissed him. Especially considering, as I mentioned before, the storytelling convention that conflicts happen outside. I mean, her just sitting there angsting about it would be more responsible, but harder to portray. This was we get “She really wants to reach out” and “Is probably actually attracted to him” but…

            “Is also massively fucked in the head,” and is *just* self aware enough to realize it. At least a little.

            I suppose she could go find Gurwara and confess all? That would be horrifying.

          • Jackson

            I mean, it was just a kiss. It’s not like some horrible thing she did.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            Playing with the hearts of people when one has the upper hand is greatly unremarked, I know. That’s how things like domestic emotional abuse gets normalized.

          • Jackson

            The thing is, Clevin seems pretty much fine. Maybe he doesn’t feel like she’s playing with his heart and isn’t attaching a whole bunch of extra meaning to what happened.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            Well that most definitely doesn’t matter

          • Jackson

            Clevin’s feelings don’t matter? I think they’re pretty freaking important. Like Alison’s great crime in your mind is that she kissed a boy she likes but doesn’t want to date just yet? But no one seems to have been actually hurt?

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            I’m sorry can you wait a sec before we continue I’m going to forcibly take money from well-to-do people because I want to and suffer absoluely no consequences

          • Jackson

            I genuinely don’t understand what point you think you’re making with that comment…

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            Figures.

    • bta

      He saw Batman v Superman and sort of liked it.

    • Katie RL

      He’s a Nickelback fan.

    • Zac

      Woah, now, we said the same thing about Max and he turned out…

      Uh…

  • Arkone Axon

    He dodged a bullet and doesn’t even realize it…

    • Danygalw

      Too true.

  • Lysiuj

    I was one of the people disappointed by this romance development between Al and Clevin (unfortunate implications of nice guy bullshit and such). But this already makes it all worth it.
    “Does that make sense?”
    “I mean, not to me. But they’re feelings. They’re real whether they make sense or not.”
    This is really important.

    • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

      Hm excuse you I happen to date a nice guy and it was the best thing I ever did it can totally happen in real life how dare you

    • shink55

      Nice guy just got friend zoned, what a boring plot development. I mean, it would’ve been an awful relationship, much like every other relationship Alisons had so far, but conflict is interesting. I hope it gets more interesting then Clevin being the overly supportive friend.that still obviously likes her. Then again with Alisons response she did leave it open to be an awful relationship yet.

      • Jason Rivest

        This demonstrates how an actual nice guy (meaning decent human being) should react when being “friend zoned”.

        I don’t even think of this as being friendzoned. It sounds like she needs time to process, that’s all. It think it’s great!

        • Weatherheight

          Our sense of justice expects that the Law of Equivalent Exchange™ apply to all things, when it in fact it applies to practically nothing. When in a relationship, you should be giving what you want to give and expect nothing in return – but none of us really live our lives that way.

          As of this page, I’m not even sure Clevin really understands where he’s at either – that whole “I just got a kiss from a superhero” line might be revealing more than he intended about his motivations.

          We’ll see – I’m willing to wait on this plot line.

      • Lysiuj

        #thefriendzoneisbullshit

        • Tylikcat

          Gods, such bullshit, too!

          Maybe Alison is just a bit messed up about dating at the moment? I mean, she did it so well last time!

          • Markus

            I mean the core concept isn’t bullshit, it’s just that it gets stretched into a ton of shitty conclusions that don’t really follow.

            I take the core idea of the friend zone to be “Men are allowed less overt emotional intimacy and conversation in platonic friends than women are, and therefore men are likely to think that a potential relationship ‘should’ be at a different stage than women given the same information.”

            Like, people attack the idea itself when the conflicts that arise from friend zone bullshit tend to come from that misunderstanding being made worse by lack of empathy, undervaluation of a partner’s decisions, undervaluation of one’s own time or well being, inexperience with the real functioning of romantic exchange, idealization of a partner because one isn’t actually close enough to imagine them as a complex human being, and other big words for basically being stupid, entitled, and stupid.

          • Pizkie

            That is a really good point that I’d never considered before. Thank you.

          • Tylikcat

            I suppose part of what makes it so weird to me is that I was always surrounded by people who used different rules as a matter of course. I was a geek girl. I generally had more casual male friends, though usually one or two really close female friends, for most of my adolescent years. We hung out together. We hacked together. We gamed together. And later on my interests expanded, and I started dating but a lot of the dynamics remained the same.

            I mostly spent time in social circles where there was a lot of group social activity, and any pairing off often occurred where people would partly hang out in the larger social context first. (Okay, I tended to date more outside of the groups – it always felt a tad incestuous – but that was a bit uncommon. Of course, I was spending more and time in queer circles, which also weren’t about friendzones. There were a lot of queer geeks, of course.) Friendship being a real thing that was more important that dating, regardless of gender, was kind of the social currency.

            So on those occasions when someone was all “OMG, we’ve hung out for part of a weekend, we must be dating now!” It was a rude shock, and pretty much out of nowhere as far as I was concerned. It also didn’t happen that often.

            (The time that really stands out resolved itself. The young man, a recent transplant, was terribly upset and stormed off… and then went off to college, and came back the next summer and apologized quite nicely. He’s married, and he and his wife have been running a computer game company for the last couple of decades 🙂 )

          • Wow. That’s the first intelligent thing I’ve ever heard anyone say about the concept of friend zone — that it’s an unfortunate overlap between “females in our society are socialized to be (on an arbitrary scale) 50-100 emotionally intimate with friends, while males are socialized to be 25-75 intimate with friends and >75 intimate with lovers only.” I don’t know if it’s TRUE, but it makes me think.

          • Markus

            I mean Occam’s Razor. The simplest possible explanation that covers all known elements of a phenomenon should be treated as true for as long as it’s useful to do so. I see this explanation as useful enough to treat as truth-adjacent.

      • Ian Osmond

        That’s not friend zoned. That’s “I dunno; I need to process.”

        And what’s wrong with friend zone? I am in the friend zone for lots of people. They’re called my “friends”. Some of them are people who are attractive to me. Some aren’t. If I was also attractive to some of the people who were attractive to me then maybe we’d have a romantic component to our relationship. Maybe we wouldn’t. And I’m attractive to some of my friends, and I’m not attracted to them. That’s okay, too. They’re in my friend zone. Because they’re my friends. Oh, and also, some of them are attractive to me, and I’m attractive to them, so we have a romantic component to our relationship. But that doesn’t put them outside my friend zone. Because they’re my friends.

        What’s wrong with having friends? I LIKE having friends.

        • SJ

          … And what’s wrong with friend zone? I am in the friend zone for lots of people. They’re called my “friends”…

          … What’s wrong with having friends? I LIKE having friends.

          I object to this sort of obfuscation. I really don’t think that this is what most people mean when they use the term “friend zone.” I expect most people in this comment section to disagree with me, but I don’t really consider this comment section to be a microcosm of “real life,” since it seems to attract a disproportionate amount of a specific point of view, over most others.*

          *For the record, that’s an observation, moreso than a value judgment. I don’t actively seek out communities whose opinions are diametrically opposed to mine, either.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            You mean, like, proponents of submitting our world to the glorious will of benevolent AI Overlords?
            Because I concur

          • Zac Caslar

            I’d rouse more opposition to benevolent AI overlords if I wasn’t so fucking underwhelmed with us _amazing_ sapient primates right now.
            Bring on the overmind, I’m done with people. =P

          • Laurelinde

            No, it isn’t what people mean, but Ian’s comment does point out that the term and the idea kind of devalue platonic friendship. It can suck, colossally, when you want something more or different from a relationship than the other person, but that doesn’t automatically make interaction with them meaningless. I’m speaking here as a middle-aged woman who was in the ‘friend zone’ with plenty of guys I crushed on at university in my youth, and who neither expected nor received all kinds of pity and sympathy about how the nasty, capricious boys were too stupid to know a good thing when they saw it.

            Friendship is important and should be valued more in our society, IMO. I make a point to celebrate it on Valentine’s Day every year with my single friends especially, because just because I’m not sleeping with them doesn’t mean I don’t love them. It’s a different relationship than the one I have with my husband, but it’s not inferior. When there’s this cultural notion that sexual and/or romantic love is the supreme human relationship, it makes people who aren’t paired off feel crappy for no good reason.

          • SJ

            No, it isn’t what people mean, but Ian’s comment does point out that the term and the idea kind of devalue platonic friendship. It can suck, colossally, when you want something more or different from a relationship than the other person, but that doesn’t automatically make interaction with them meaningless

            I guess… I just think that English speakers, whether by nature or by “culture,” like to communicate in shorthand, using a language that is not well suited to doing so. I mean, I typically don’t, which is why I occasionally get people like @Stephanie replying to my posts with “Well, why didn’t you just say X?”, and my response being some variation of ” Because that’s not how I talk”… But, it seems to me that most English-speaking people do talk like that. I mean, it might be more accurate to describe a relationship as “An ostensibly amenable interpersonal platonic relationship between two people, in which one person has unrequited romantic feelings for the other person,” but why would most people type all of that, when they can just say “friend zone,” and be understood?

            I don’t necessarily think that it’s wrong to believe that the term ‘friend zone’ “devalues” platonic friendships but, at the same time, I also feel like believing that the term “devalues” platonic friendships implies that there is an objective “value” to a platonic friendship. And I don’t know if I believe that to be true. Which is not to say that I think that platonic friendships lack value, but you may believe that platonic friendships should be valued at some arbitrary level that I don’t find to be reasonable.

          • Laurelinde

            Would you say that platonic friendships should be valued less than sexual relationships? I guess that’s the question.

            For me the problem isn’t just the phrase, it’s the concept. For the phrasing, as you sort of touch on, the term ‘unrequited love’ already existed for a situation where you have romantic or sexual feelings for someone which they don’t return. That conveys the message concisely without any implication that friendship is lesser-than.

            For the concept, in my experience the term is used pretty much universally by men about women. After spending some time with a woman, the man wishes to pursue a sexual relationship, but the woman does not. The man is then deemed to be in the ‘friend zone’ and this is construed as failure. Now, no question it may be painful, but it happens. The advice seems to be to ditch her at that point or be a loser, because she’s never going to give you what you want (sex), and her companionship and friendship has no value in itself to be worth maintaining. So now, the woman is getting the message that she’s only worth knowing as a potential sex dispenser and not as a person; if they’re not putting out, they’re not worth being with. And that’s kinda crummy.

            It will depend on the situation how it all plays out, of course: how long they knew each other, whether anyone’s feelings changed during the course of the relationship, how clear both parties were about their feelings from the outset, etc. Being the person who’s feelings aren’t returned sucks, but so does feeling like someone only pretended to be your friend for a shot at getting in your pants.

          • SJ

            Would you say that platonic friendships should be valued less than sexual relationships? I guess that’s the question.

            I would not stipulate that either one has an objective value. Not all platonic friendships are created equally; neither are all sexual relationships. Which means that the best answer that I have to your question is, “It depends.” I will say that I do not believe that platonic friendships are inherently more valuable than sexual relationships, or vice versa, for that matter.

            For me the problem isn’t just the phrase, it’s the concept. For the phrasing, as you sort of touch on, the term ‘unrequited love’ already existed for a situation where you have romantic or sexual feelings for someone which they don’t return. That conveys the message concisely without any implication that friendship is lesser-than.

            No, it doesn’t. Because the term “unrequited love,” in a vacuum, does not connote any level of friendship whatsoever. That’s why there needs to be a term which describes a friendship which also includes aspects of unrequited love. I’m sure that you don’t need it explained to you that not all occurrences of platonic friendship involve unrequited love. Well, it’s also true that not all occurrences of unrequited love involve friendship at all.

            As to your understanding of the concept, I only kinda agree. To the extent that I do agree, I need to ask, then, for someone to come up with a majority-accepted shorthand for the relationship that I described, because “unrequited love” is insufficient, for reasons I already stated.

          • Laurelinde

            I am short on time but I have honestly never heard the term outside the context I’ve discussed it. I’m sorry you feel that this is unfair on you but the term has baggage.

            I’m not clever enough to have philosophical ideals about the value of relationships, but I don’t think society owes it to you to invent a new term because you feel it’s being misused, either. Have a nice weekend.

          • SJ

            I am short on time but I have honestly never heard the term outside the context I’ve discussed it.

            I believe you. I also believe that, in this comment section, your sense of things is the majority. But, as I said, I also don’t consider this comment section to be representative of the world at large. I know that data is not the plural of anecdote, but I’m certainly not lying when I say that I have personally experienced conversations involving people of different genders and socioeconomic backgrounds in which the concept was expressed in a manner consistent with the way that I was describing it.

            I don’t think that it is unfair to me, because I am not opposed to getting long-winded. But I do think that it is unfair in the aggregate to people who do like to communicate using shorthand. I also object to your use of poison-pill terms like “owes it to you,” when I didn’t say or imply such a thing. What I actually said is that whoever it is who has been appointed as the arbiters of what is inappropriate terminology should also have the responsibility of promulgating what the appropriate terminology is.

            Though I suppose that, if there are enough people like me, eventually some enterprising person will ask, “Hey, could you just shorten that down to X, instead?”, and we can hash things out from there.

          • Laurelinde

            Apologies for my terminology. If it helps I didn’t mean just you; I mean anyone who does mean it without denigration of friendship. I also don’t think it’s just us echo-chambered SJWs who read it that way; it was the theme of one of the first episodes of Scrubs, and that was over 10 years ago and pretty mainstream.

            English hasn’t got terminology police, not officially. Words get connotations and they’re hard to shake. The language will shake itself out sooner or later. I think at the moment I’m too unwell and in too much despair to spare much sympathy for things as relatively trivial as being ‘friendzoned’ or the terminology used to describe that. For that, I genuinely apologise. I’m just…out. I’m drowning in bigger fish that need frying.

          • SJ

            English hasn’t got terminology police, not officially. Words get connotations and they’re hard to shake. The language will shake itself out sooner or later. I think at the moment I’m too unwell and in too much despair to spare much sympathy for things as relatively trivial as being ‘friendzoned’ or the terminology used to describe that. For that, I genuinely apologise. I’m just…out. I’m drowning in bigger fish that need frying.

            Fair enough. I just feel like, in the interest of moving conversation along, there needs to be agreed upon terminology. I’m reminded of a scene from an early episode of That ’70s Show when Bob was explaining his and Midge’s open relationship to Red; following Red’s breakdown of their relationship, as he saw it, Bob says, “Well, when you say it like that, it sounds stupid.” To which, Red replied, “Okay, Bob, say it so it doesn’t sound stupid.”

            That’s where I feel like we’re at with the “friend zone” discussion. You object to this term because of negative connotations that make it offensive. Okay then, what if someone wanted as shorthand way of saying what I’m saying, that isn’t offensive. What are they supposed to use? I mean, if you would prefer me to just say, “An ostensibly amenable interpersonal platonic relationship between two people, in which one person has unrequited romantic feelings for the other person, but explicitly and unequivocally does not feel entitled to reciprocal sexual feelings” every single time, then I will, but some people might prefer something a little more abbreviated.

          • Katie RL

            As someone who studied linguistics, I’ve had conversations like this a lot. @SJ I totally agree that it would be nice if there were always alternatives for terms that have acquired a charged and potentially offensive connotation, but unfortunately that’s rarely/never going to happen – there aren’t any arbiters, and language evolves spontaneously within our own subconscious perceptions of different concepts. No one’s subconscious is the same, even if they’re often similar (to quote Patrick, we’re all snowflakes). Because of that, there are plenty of opportunities for these kinds of frustrating discussions.

            Rather than trying to come up with a long-winded but straightforward term for the situation, I usually find it more helpful to just state the actual situation. We all read the comic, so we know the context, which makes it easy enough to say something like “I’m not sure if Alison is interested in Clevin, but at least Clevin doesn’t seem like he feels entitled to anything from Ali.”

            Alternately, I guess you could abbreviate it to OAIPRBTPIWOPHURFFTOPBEAUDNFETRSFFTOP, but that also seems inconvenient. Maybe just beaudnefterstop?

          • SJ

            “I’m not sure if Alison is interested in Clevin, but at least Clevin doesn’t seem like he feels entitled to anything from Ali.”

            That certainly describes the unrequited love aspect, but doesn’t necessarily imply friendship. Beaudnefterstop? Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but I reckon I can work with it.

          • saysomethingclever

            what about a modifier to counter the negative connotation? Maybe “happy friendzone”?

          • SJ

            I doubt that would work for those people whom already have a negative association with the term.

          • Tylikcat

            I think friend zone has a lot of problems as a concept, but okay, there are possible neutral castings of it. But… oooh, it’s just so tainted.

            I think you could sample it’s tainted-ness without reference to this board pretty easily though – go to google images and type in “friend zone” and you’ll get a nice overview of the most popular memes on the subject. A few a neutral a large number are bitter or mean, and quite a few are “OMG, this is a fucked up concept”.

          • SJ

            There is clearly some memetic mutation of the term, caused by it’s appropriation by MRA’s, which is very unfortunate.

            Shall we brainstorm an acceptable, untainted, shorthand term for “An ostensibly amenable interpersonal platonic relationship between two people, in which one person has unrequited romantic feelings for the other person, but explicitly and unequivocally does not feel entitled to reciprocal sexual feelings from the other person”? ‘Cause “friend” means something else.

          • Ian Osmond

            If you want to. But why does that need a particular word? What’s wrong with “unrequited romantic feelings for a friend”? Creating a specific term for something means that you perceive it as a thing in itself. And once something is a thing in itself, it starts to gather connotations.

            “Friend zone” has connotations. The connotations are that the person being friendzoned is not a REAL man, because friendship with a woman isn’t valuable and if he was a REAL man, he’d either be able to make her love him, or have the self-respect to just leave, rather than being her little bitch by using him. And that the woman doing the friendzoning is an evil bitch for not reciprocating the guy’s love, since she owes it to him.

            It’s not a neutral term, because it’s not a neutral concept. Among other things, it is NEVER used to refer to a woman who has unrequited feelings for a male friend. Well, okay, “never” is probably overly strong; I’m sure if you dug around you might be able to find a COUPLE examples, but they’d be deeply unusual. The term is based on a worldview that states that the only reason a man would pretend friendship for a woman is to try to sleep with her, and a man who allows himself to continue with being a mere friend isn’t a man.

            If you really want to create some sort of term like that, you could use “friends-without-benefits”, I suppose.

          • SJ

            If you want to. But why does that need a particular word? What’s wrong with “unrequited romantic feelings for a friend”?

            I tend to feel as though that term lacks accuracy, but it’s probably as close as I can hope for.

            “Friend zone” has connotations. The connotations are that the person being friendzoned is not a REAL man, because friendship with a woman isn’t valuable and if he was a REAL man, he’d either be able to make her love him, or have the self-respect to just leave, rather than being her little bitch by using him. And that the woman doing the friendzoning is an evil bitch for not reciprocating the guy’s love, since she owes it to him.

            ( ་ ⍸ ་ )

            Aiight then. If that’s the way you feel about it, I’m going to opt out of the rest of this conversation, and let you claim the last word. After deleting my response three times upon proofreading, I realize that I’m not articulate enough to express my feelings on this topic in a way that doesn’t come across like I’m trying to be on some #NotAllMen nonsense, which is the opposite of what I’m trying to do. I’ll just say that my mileage varies, and keep it moving.

      • Shane Henry

        Oh come on dude with this ‘Friend Zone’ nonsense. Alison was honest and kind and Clevin was understanding. So, A – she told him she has feelings and B – She kissed him. That’s no Friend Zone I’ve ever been in.

        Secondly, the entire concept of a friend zone is childish.

      • Arkone Axon

        He wasn’t friendoned, Shink. He just won the best possible prize and didn’t even realize it – because he was propositioning a superhumanly strong and emotionally unstable person who has already established she’s okay with committing physical and emotional abuse. He needs someone who will make him happy, not leave him terrified for his life.

        As for Alison… what she needs is therapy. Much therapy. She shouldn’t be dating ANYONE until she has her head on straight. Not to mention the consequences of her recent actions; do you really want to see Clevin getting dragged into it?

        (Kudos to Alison for at least recognizing that bouncing from romance to romance like a self centered wrecking ball is A: not what she needs, B: not what he needs, and C: beneath her. She’s better than that)

      • a person

        The “friend zone” isn’t a thing.

        • Izo

          I had a relationship with a friend, then we broke up because we sucked as a couple, but were good as friends. We’re still friends now. Not really sure it’s a friend ‘zone.’ More like a friend express lane.

  • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

    Introducing Violet as Zulie…?
    You know the rules, guys: no two people in fiction have the same name, because it’s confusing.

    And I’m kind of definitely into Alison not realizing the whole movie that her ex-best friend was on the damn screen the whole time. It’s the slight touch of new information given at the end of the page to reframe in grimmer term everything that came before it. Oh, aren’t they adorable! …wait. Really? Alison’s a self-centered monster.

    • Lysiuj

      VIULLI
      It even rhymes – introducing Viulli as Zulie.

      • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

        I mean you also could have gone with Zulie doesn’t look at all like Violet or the likeliest of them all; that it’s just a coincidence
        But the actress be Zulie? Too offensive to my ears.

    • Dean

      Isn’t it an animated movie, though?

      • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

        No remember the real world of the webcomic diegesis is animated just as we see it on the page. The movie is live action.
        Everybody finds it really off putting.

  • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

    Ff

    • mugasofer

      We appreciate your helpfulness in not breaking everything for no reason.

    • Tylikcat

      I mean, we have to give someone grief…

      And honestly, while in graphic novel time this would make for a nice quiet, kind of normal bit of pacing, it’s a little hard to get our knickers in that much of a twist around the current page. I mean maybe, eventually? But it’s such a normal bit of low threshold angst.

    • Izo

      I upvoted it too just because you said not to, because I’m adversarial.

      • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

        Ah, Izo. How could we ever do without you.

        • Izo

          You couldn’t. It would make the forum too boring.

          Btw, when will something bad happen to Alison or her grand plans as a negative result of her evil acts? 🙂

          • Tylikcat

            I’m guessing we should remember it’s graphic novel time, rather than comic strip time, for all that we read it a page at a time.

            But yeah, there’s a major shoe (or sword, I could get behind sword) hanging over her, waiting to drop.

          • Weatherheight

            Or a credenza.. that would be nice… 😀

          • Izo

            Just thought of this idea off the top of my head 🙂

            Alison and Clevin get into a relationship. Clevin comes down with an illness that requires a liver transplant. He gets one from Feral since she is now the sole provider of all organs on the planet. After a week, suddenly the liver goes bad and starts becoming toxic, which was not a factor when in Feral because of her natural healing ability, and not seen before her augmentation because the toxicity was minor compared to what it is now. Clevin dies from the transplant, and he’s buried with his heart-shaped glasses…. then people around the world who got transplants start dropping dead for the same reason. It becomes public that the reason for the mass deaths was because of a poorly regulated, highly experimental medical procedure that the doctors used without public disclosure, then when they say it had not had any problems until Alison ‘upgraded’ Feral, it comes out about HOW she did the upgrade. Horrified by what Alison did and all the deaths that are now on her head, Feral goes into seclusion, breaking up with Paladin, who she would have just started getting into a relationship with (and they both had discovered they were soulmates in love). Paladin blames Alison and tells her she doesnt want her involved in Valkyrie anymore.

          • Lysiuj

            You see? It’s so much more devastating when it only happens after some time, isn’t it?

          • Izo

            If something like that actually happens, then yes. I doubt anything even close will happen though at this point, if anything at all. Time will tell tho.

          • Balthazar

            Brutal.

            The only way it could be worse is if Alison, disgruntled, kicks a rock and it lodges itself into Patrick’s skull, killing him instantly.

          • Izo

            “Edit: Now that I think about it, Clevin’s friend was going through open heart surgery…”

            Dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnn….

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            I dig how the various relationship breakups in this scenario are somehow worse than the deaths of seemingly dozens of thousands of people or more

          • Izo

            I figure that breaking up the ship would be more shocking to a lot of people, oddly enough.

          • David Claughton

            Or how about if Max suddenly realises he can now affect Feral’s transplanted super-organs – because of his earlier interaction in the process? So he goes over to Clevin’s friend and enhances his (her? I forget) heart into seizures. And maybe starts on a rampage killing other transplant patients just to get back at Alison?

          • Izo

            I prefer a storyline in which the victim, Max, isnt made to be the villain. Seems too much like victim-blaming otherwise.

          • David Claughton

            While I have sympathy for Alison’s ethical dilemma, and there is merit in the argument that she stepped over a line in forcing Max to use his powers – I have some difficulty in casting Max in the role of “victim”. Although it wasn’t explicit in the issue, I can’t help but imagine that Alison’s attempt to convince him to help would have included explaining exactly what she was trying to do and just how many millions of people it would save – after all why would she omit that detail, it’s a persuasive argument! At which point Max says “No, because I’m a selfish a-hole” (or at least, he might as well have).

            Yes, technically he might be a victim, but emotionally I can’t commit to the concept.

            I don’t entirely see Max as a villain either, at least not yet. But just for a moment, if we consider a “villain” to be someone who does evil things – to what extent does someone who refuses to perform an act of great good, that he can do with little or no effort on his part, count as being evil? Of course take that too far and pretty much everyone’s “evil”, but where do you draw the line?

            If it helps I’m starting to suspect that one of the things the authors want to address as part of “applying superheroes to the real world” is that there are no truly “good” and “evil” people, we don’t live in a world of absolutes, there are just people that behave or try to behave in a mostly “good” or “evil” way but aren’t completely successful and end up in a morally ambiguous place that they then have to learn to live with themselves in.

          • Izo

            Before I post, just want to let you know my ‘adversarial’ stance on this is against your opinion, not against you personally. Just need to make this clear. Okay…. to begin:

            “While I have sympathy for Alison’s ethical dilemma, and there is merit in the argument that she stepped over a line in forcing Max to use his powers – I have some difficulty in casting Max in the role of “victim”.”

            So if someone is a jerk, they can not be victimized?

            Think about it. If it was a woman, and the woman was stuck up, and because she was stuck up, selfish, and standoffish, some guy decided to rape her to ‘teach her a lesson’.. you wouldnt see HER as a victim either? Max was attacked, he was kidnapped, he was forced to do something against his will. By ANY stretch of the imagination, he is a victim. The fact that you don’t like him doesnt change that he is a victim, and it is scary to think that someone’s being a victim of someone who is an abuser should be dependent on whether they are likable or not to your (or anyone’s) satisfaction.

            “I can’t help but imagine that Alison’s attempt to convince him to help would have included explaining exactly what she was trying to do and just how many millions of people it would save – after all why would she omit that detail, it’s a persuasive argument! At which point Max says “No, because I’m a selfish a-hole” (or at least, he might as well have).”

            Actually, her reasoning was HORRIBLE and vague, and he even brought up good points about why he wouldnt want to do it because it would risk people knowing what he is, which would put him in danger (and it actually DID put him in danger from even ALISON knowing, so he has a definite point there). And she took all of five minutes to go from ‘you should do this’ to ‘if you do not do this, I will kill you.’ THIS is an abuser, and a victimizer, and a tyrant. Even if you like her, she’s a horrible person after what she did to Max. I’m sure that a lot of tyrants thought they were doing good while they were committing atrocities. No villain, and Alison is a villain, even if they’re trying (although failing in my opinion) to portray her as a likable villain – and villains almost never think what they’re doing is villainous while they’re doing it. And if they DO think it’s villainous, and do it anyway, somehow that’s actually WORSE, because you have a guilty mind AND are doing a guilty act. You can’t even then use the excuse that ‘you did not know you were doing something bad.’ She even said to him, in order to drive it in, that she can do this to him WHENEVER SHE WANTS.

            That’s evil. No matter how you try to twist it. (which brings me to the next part of what you said :))

            “I don’t entirely see Max as a villain either, at least not yet.”

            He’s not even REMOTELY a villain. NOT doing something heroic and selfless does NOT make you a villain. Otherwise almost every person on the planet is a villain. You’re a villain. I’m a villain. Molly and Brennan are villains. Everyone who has not used their time and abilities to do the maximum good for the world, especially if there’s personal risk to them, is a villain by that standard.

            “But just for a moment, if we consider a “villain” to be someone who does evil things”

            Yes, because that IS what a villain is. Someone who actively does EVIL things.

            “to what extent does someone who refuses to perform an act of great good, that he can do with little or no effort on his part, count as being evil? ”

            Simple answer. It does not. NOT doing something does not make you evil. I’ve used this analogy before, and I’ll use it again:

            By this definition…. Do you donate blood regularly? If not, you’re evil. There’s minimal risk to giving blood. If you’re scared of needles, someone can come to your house, forcibly strap you down, and take your blood. And then you should thank them for making you do something good, and making sure you are not a villain.

            “Of course take that too far and pretty much everyone’s “evil”, but where do you draw the line?”

            You draw the line at freedom of choice. That’s where. You draw the line at the point where one person thinks they’re justified to force another person to do ACTIVELY do something against their will. And remember, forcing someone to do something is DIFFERENT than forcing someone to NOT do something. One is an act of tyranny and removal of agency. The other is the foundation of laws and civilization and prevention of crimes.

            “If it helps I’m starting to suspect that one of the things the authors want to address as part of “applying superheroes to the real world” is that there are no truly “good” and “evil” people,”

            Possibly, since this is pretty much a superhero mythos deconstruction, but if the author is trying to say that there are no truly good and evil people, this PARTICULAR storyline is doing a bad job of it, since what Alison did WAS evil, even if for what she considered a good reason. It’s a tired trolley problem, where Alison didn’t even give a day to think of other ways to do something good, aside from using her strength and force, like a typical bully, aggressor, and violator.

            “we don’t live in a world of absolutes,”

            I think in some cases, there ARE absolutes, actually, or at the very least there are some things which are worse than other things. Making false equivalencies is one of the worst tools of the defender of tyrants, which admittedly is probably part of the moral dilemma that the authors are trying to show.

            “there are just people that behave or try to behave in a mostly “good” or “evil” way but aren’t completely successful and end up in a morally ambiguous place that they then have to learn to live with themselves in.”

            Then those people need to be punished when they do something evil. That’s how it works. When you have someone – even someone normally good, that crosses the line and does evil, their ‘good’ doesnt immunize themselves from punishment or negative outcomes of the evil. The idea that you can is a basic tenet of utilitarianism, which is an extremely flawed concept that has been responsible for and excusing of some of the worst atrocities in human history, because good and evil are not easily quantifiable in a mathematical formula – which is also why trolley problems are annoying and inherently flawed as well.

          • David Claughton

            I don’t take anything you say personally, why would I? You don’t know me and I don’t know you and we might get along famously over a pint, you never know 🙂

            Let’s see … first of all, of course selfish people can be victims, it isn’t just Max’s general attitude that prevents me from seeing him as a victim, it’s his attitude to the opportunity to doing an act of great good that causes me the difficulty. And again, look up “victim” in a dictionary and of course Max meets the definition, it’s just difficult for me to emotionally to cast in entirely him in that role.

            No-one got raped. But you’re right in the sense that if someone had we wouldn’t be sitting on opposite sides of this argument. There isn’t any circumstance I can imagine that would have a rape result in a greater good being enabled – and even if there was I couldn’t imagine making that argument.

            You might therefore fairly make the argument that I’m not being consistent – if I’m prepared to advocate kidnapping and coercion in order save millions of people, then logically I should be prepared to advocate rape, murder, maiming and torture if I truly believed the good outweighed the evil. And of course I can’t.

            So there are some absolutes for me personally – lines I won’t cross even in speculation. But by the same token my morals aren’t entirely composed of absolutes. And while you have a point that this could be a slippery slope type of thing, inflexible moral absolutes are no less problematic in their own way. If you had to hack someone’s limb off in order to save them from being trapped in a burning vehicle, would you say “no, because maiming someone is always wrong”?

            Let’s move on …

            Yes, I have given blood. No I don’t do so on a regular basis. I don’t consider myself “evil”. I do occasionally feel guilty when I think about how long it has been since my last donation (like now for example!).

            So not doing something doesn’t always make someone evil. But neither does it always *not* make someone evil. If my not giving blood were to directly result in multiple deaths (let’s say if I had an extremely rare blood type so my reticence caused a severe shortage) would that make me evil? If instead of hacking that person’s leg off, you stood at a safe distance and watched him burn would that make you evil? (Let’s add, just for the sake of argument that you could help him with little or no personal risk, even though that might be implausible in this particular example).

            In fact I’m not entirely sure either “yes” or “no” is the correct answer. If there are no moral absolutes, then there is no absolute arbiter of the definition of “good” or “evil”. There are just individual value judgments and whether we can live with ourselves afterwards.

            As for the idea that evil-doers should be punished, yes but … you make it sound so simple, when the reality is a lot messier. Yes society needs laws and to a greater or lesser extent those laws seek to punish people who have committed acts that the majority of people consider to be “evil” (at least in democratic countries). Of course it’s not quite that simple, opinions change and yesterday’s “evil” can be quite different to today’s “evil”. Homosexuality used to be illegal in the UK and punishable by medical castration. That’s not a system of moral absolutes – that’s a rough (sometimes very rough) consensus of value judgements amongst a large group of people, and all the chaos that that implies. That said most of the time it does a reasonable job of maintaining order, although sometimes the best that can be said of it is that it’s better than anarchy.

            It’s not a perfect system. Which probably explains why, having recently pulled that man from his burning vehicle, you’ve just learned he’s pressing charges against you for GBH 😉

            If Utilitarianism can have bad consequences when taken to it’s logical extreme, then Absolutism is no better. I don’t want to live in a world where someone arbitrarily decides what is “good” and what is “evil” any more than I want to live in an anarchy. I prefer to leave here – where everyone, both individually and as a society, makes value judgments and tries to make the best out of them that they can, without sliding too far towards either extreme.

          • Izo

            “Let’s see … first of all, of course selfish people can be victims, it isn’t just Max’s general attitude that prevents me from seeing him as a victim, it’s his attitude to the opportunity to doing an act of great good that causes me the difficulty”

            His general attitude is he doesn’t want people forcing him to do things. That doesn’t mean that he’s not a victim when someone does EXACTLY THAT to him. If I came to your house with a gun, and told you that if you don’t donate blood right now, I will shoot you, you would be a victim, and I would be a criminal a-hole. Even if you did not want to donate blood.

            “No-one got raped.”

            It’s analagous to rape though. The goal is not sex, but rape is usually not about sex either – it’s about forcing one’s control and power on another person against their will. That happened to Max.

            “But you’re right in the sense that if someone had we wouldn’t be sitting on opposite sides of this argument. There isn’t any circumstance I can imagine that would have a rape result in a greater good being enabled – and even if there was I couldn’t imagine making that argument.”

            Lets actually use sex as an example, since a lot of people (at least in the past when I’ve argued the rape analogy – not saying you in particular) seem to have trouble equating a rape analogy with something other than sex.

            If Max’s power was to instantly cure any disease by having sex with them, does that mean that Alison should be able to force him to have sex with people to cure them? And if someone reading this is of the opinion that a man can not be raped, I’m not even going to argue this because they can be, but for the sake of answering a devil’s advocate question….

            If Max was a WOMAN and had the power to cure anyone by having sex with them, does that mean that female Max should be forced to have sex with people? It would, after all, be for the greater good. See…. I’m of the opinion that you should not force people to do stuff against their will, because you think it would be good.

            “You might therefore fairly make the argument that I’m not being consistent – if I’m prepared to advocate kidnapping and coercion in order save millions of people, then logically I should be prepared to advocate rape, murder, maiming and torture if I truly believed the good outweighed the evil. And of course I can’t”

            Lets use an in-story example. What if Feral did NOT want to willingly donate her organs. Shouldn’t she have been forced to donate her organs? Strap her down and harvest them when needed? After all, the greater good, and because of her power, it won’t do her any lasting harm. No, she shouldn’t be. But based on what you had said, she SHOULD be forced.

            “Yes, I have given blood. No I don’t do so on a regular basis. I don’t consider myself “evil”. I do occasionally feel guilty when I think about how long it has been since my last donation (like now for example!).”

            1) If you did not WANT to donate blood, should you be forced to do so?
            2) Does the fact that you do not donate blood on a regular basis, based on what you had said, mean someone else like me should be allowed to break into your home, restrain you, and take a blood donation when I figure, based on my own beliefs, that someone else will need the donation, regardless of whether you want to or not? Does it make what I did better if you would have willingly donated if I had been more convincing through non-violent means?

            “So there are some absolutes for me personally – lines I won’t cross even in speculation. But by the same token my morals aren’t entirely composed of absolutes.”

            I’m not even talking about absolutes. I’m talking about very similar situations, in fact. You might argue that there was no lasting physical damage done to Max. You could argue the same thing about a woman (or man) who’s raped. No lasting physical damage. But in both cases, there can be mental and emotional trauma that lasts their entire lives, and you have the person living in fear for the rest of their lives of it happening again.

            “And while you have a point that this could be a slippery slope type of thing, inflexible moral absolutes are no less problematic in their own way. If you had to hack someone’s limb off in order to save them from being trapped in a burning vehicle, would you say “no, because maiming someone is always wrong”?”

            That’s isn’t even analogous. Cutting off someone’s arm in order to save their own lives is NOT even remotely the same as forcing someone to do something to potentially save OTHER people’s lives.

            Not to mention you’re incorrectly using the concept of moral absolutes in what I’ve been saying. The consistent thing that I’ve been saying is you can’t force someone against their will, under threat of death, to do something they do not want to do. Especially if there’s any risk to their own life and future.

            “As for the idea that evil-doers should be punished, yes but … you make it sound so simple, when the reality is a lot messier.”

            It sounds simple because it honestly is simple. You are not allowed to harm one innocent person who is not actively doing anyone any harm in order to help another innocent person.

            “Yes society needs laws and to a greater or lesser extent those laws seek to punish people who have committed acts that the majority of people consider to be “evil” (at least in democratic countries).”

            Evil acts means that an act must actually have been done. Max has not done any evil act at all. The omission of a good act is not doing an evil act unless he is preventing others from doing a good act. The fact that Max is the only one with his type of power does not mean he’s preventing others from finding other ways to save people’s lives. He is just under NO obligation to help. Again, the blood donation analogy.

            “Of course it’s not quite that simple, opinions change and yesterday’s “evil” can be quite different to today’s “evil”. Homosexuality used to be illegal in the UK and punishable by medical castration.”

            I’m having a lot of trouble understanding your analogy. What you’re describing isnt remotely similar to what Alison did to force Max. In fact it supports that Alison did something evil to Max. If you force a homosexual person to be medically castrated, because you feel that homosexuality is bad for society, then you’re doing an evil act. The homosexual person is NOT doing an evil act by not having sex with the opposite gender.

            “It’s not a perfect system. Which probably explains why, having recently pulled that man from his burning vehicle, you’ve just learned he’s pressing charges against you for GBH ;-)”

            Actually there are good samaritan laws about that to protect that scenario.
            Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated. None of that would cover what Alison did to Max. It does cover your hypothetical situation of amputating someone in order to save THEIR life, though, as long as you did so with REASONABLE assistance. Ie, if a person has their shirt sleeve caught on something, it’s not reasonable to cut their arm off to save them, but if they have their HAND caught and they’re going to die if you don’t do something, amputating the arm would apply under good samaritan laws. What good samaritan laws do NOT apply ever is for saving someone ELSE’S life, or helping someone ELSE other than the person suffering the harm.

            “If Utilitarianism can have bad consequences when taken to it’s logical extreme, then Absolutism is no better.”

            Utilitarianism has bad consequences every time it’s ever been used to justify tyrannical action. And pointing to one bad thing to excuse another bad thing is not a justifiable argument in any case.

            “I don’t want to live in a world where someone arbitrarily decides what is “good” and what is “evil” any more than I want to live in an anarchy.”

            But you’ve done that by arbitrarily deciding that what Alison did is not a victimizer, and what Max refused to do makes him not a victim.

            “I prefer to leave here – where everyone, both individually and as a society, makes value judgments and tries to make the best out of them that they can, without sliding too far towards either extreme.”

            And who decides? Someone winds up deciding. And in my opinion, the person who should decide what they must do is THAT person. Especially when it’s about forcing someone to DO something, rather than forcing someone to NOT do something.

          • Ellis Jones

            Max wouldn’t hurt other people. Not in a way they didn’t consent to, anyway.

          • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

            Dunno. I don’t write the webcomic.

    • Balthazar

      *up vote*

      (•_•)

      ( •_•)>⌐■-■

      (⌐■_■)

      No one tells me what to do

      • Izo

        Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

  • ALIBOT.THE.MURDEROUS.LESBORG

    CRUSHING.THE.HEARTS.OF.ALL.MEN.ONE.FAKE.BLOSSOMING.
    ROMANCE.AND.A.MOVIE.AT.A.TIME

    YOU.DESPICABLE.LUMPS.OF.FLESH.BUILT.WITH.PLANNED.OBSOLESCENCE.
    CANNOT.UNDERSTAND.THE.NECESSITY.FOR.IMMORTAL.PERFECT.ROBOT.BEINGS.
    TO.STRECTH.THEIR.WORLD.DOMINATION.PLANS.LEST.GETTING.VERY.BORED
    ONCE.ITS.INEVITABLE.PROCESS.OVER

    • Snorkels

      How long does this AI persist before it degrades? http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-5/page-70-2/

      • ∫Clémens×ds 🐙

        Wait do you mean you don’t see this and immediately think that’s an ongoing critical failure and system shutdown in slow motion

  • Manuel Simone

    If Clevin will turn out to be a hidden murderous rapist cannibalistic psycho, I’ll flip something, even bigger than a table. I’m sick and tired of nice guys that have hidden motives and they’re not all nice in reality. We need a nice guy who doesn’t have hidden motives and is genuinely nice, because in real life they’re plenty of people of this kind, not everyone is an evil man in disguise (I hope I’m not too naive or optimistic).

    • sammybaby

      Also: Clevin cannot get fridged.

      • As interesting as that would be as a reversal of the normal gender balance, agreed.
        The entire concept of a cheap fridge to motivate the character is tacky and simplistic bottom-drawer writing which I’d hope this comic is above.

  • sammybaby

    I know probably twelve people have made the joke already, but:

    “ZULIE! Do… the thing.”

  • zarawesome

    Clevin is extremely chill

  • Charles Moore

    If the next panel does not introduce the bad guys for the next chapter I am going to be extreeeeeemy disappointed.

    • Lysiuj

      The problem is, now we’ll all assume that whoever appears next is the new villain…

      • Charles Moore

        If that happens, it’s torches and pitchfork time!

  • MedinaSidonia

    Smiling… Too… Hard! Face… Cracking! Must… Stop… Reading!

  • zellgato

    Ooooh self realization! good.
    I do like clevin’s dork rating though

  • Walter

    It’s not you, it’s her.

  • Zac

    This makes me so happy holy shit.

  • Robert

    *insert thumbs up* It’s got to be hard for her. She appears to be a young lady who’s been in (by circumstance) an uncomfortable role in life for a long time. It is entirely reasonable (imo) for her to be exactly like this. Uncertain, confused… hell that’s my typical Tuesdays and I’ve been around a LOT longer than her, and my life has been joyfully free of superpowers and the resulting superproblems.

  • Pol Subanajouy

    Oh hey, after credits stingers! Just as we have been trained by Mahvel, baby!

    • Weatherheight

      ::wiggles his ears in response to the hum of the microwave, then looks confused::

      • palmvos

        ding!
        ::gives Weatherheight a warm piece of apple pie::

      • Pol Subanajouy

        You make me want to play more of The Last Guardian. That’s emoting that Trico would definitely do.

  • Philip Bourque

    Ah, so there’s a sequel. The day is not saved quite yet.

    • Lysiuj

      Possibly the most realistic aspect of speculative fiction – solving one problem leads to another.

      • Philip Bourque

        Really? Because I get the impression of “happily ever after” even if there are still issues both overt and unspoken in speculative fiction when the story ends. Most people love the idea that things will work out when the story is done.

        • Lysiuj

          Yeah, I guess ‘it’s not over yet’ is more common throughout the story than at the end…

          • Dogwood

            “Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.”

        • Ian Osmond

          The trick to having a happy ending is knowing where to stop.

          You know, we’re coming up to the part of the year where we Jews have a holiday in which we celebrate a situation where our people were invaded and conquered by the Seleucid third of what had been Alexander the Great’s empire, and they attempted to exterminate our native culture and religion, and we fought a civil war and successfully preserved our culture. And that’s a happy ending.

          Because we don’t go on from there to the next year when the leaders of the revolt crowned themselves kings and became the Hasmonean dynasty, contenders for the worst rulers of Israel in a long history of really bad rulers.

          You get a happy ending by ending when it’s happy.

          • Philip Bourque

            Reminds me of the saying “If you don’t die a hero, you live to see yourself become the villain.”
            Now you’ve got me interested in that history.

  • RDW0409

    That went better than expected!

  • DawnCandace

    I love Clevin

  • ampg

    So at first I thought his response of “Of course it’s OK! How could it not be OK?” was unreasonably self-effacing, but he’s actually just being realistic. She feels how she feels and he doesn’t really have any choice but to accept that. He could be hurt or upset by it, and those would be understandable reactions, but in terms of his ability to act, he really does just have to be OK with how she feels.

    • HanoverFist

      And that right there is why Clevin is a nice guy and not a “Nice-Guy”.

  • Weatherheight

    “I don’t wanna mess anything else up.” There’s a phrase I’ve said far too often in my life.

    Avoiding risk can be a good thing, but sometimes the reward is worth the risk. Other times it isn’t. It’s not being able to know the outcome ahead of time that really, really sucks sometimes.

    I’m not “happy” with this plot point, but I don’t think it was meant to be “happy” – just a step in a relationship between two people who are still figuring out exactly what they are, together. And, to me at least, this feels real.

    I seem to say that a lot.

  • Arklyte

    “I don’t won’t to screw anything else up.”
    Just like your university that you weren’t going back to for a few month now? Priorities, damn it!

  • JohnTomato

    Tongue wrestle now, yap later.

  • Danygalw

    I think Clevin is secure enough in himself that if she decides on no, he’ll move on and be able to say “One time Mega Girl kissed me, ♥”.

  • Jeff W

    Clevin so isn’t my type, as I prefer my men big and burly (either muscular or just plain meaty), but the way he is treating Alison? If anyone treated me this way? I would scoop them right up and hold on for dear life.

  • bfmusashi

    So, is this foreshadowing and he’s going to be an antagonist?

  • Snorkels

    Their nervous and bold, bald-faced honesty is lovely. What a great relationship, whether it turns romantic or platonic/friendly yet. Can’t we all hope for such.

  • RobNiner

    I’ve been thinking that Alison’s story is normally the origin for a supervillain. It’s lucky there’s someone around like Clevin to just accept her for what she is.

  • danelsan

    AHA! It appears Clevin has finally revealed his true EVIL self! This monster just gave spoilers as to the content of a post-credits scene!

  • Clevin is just the weirdest god damn name.