Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2593-2597 (09-13 December 2013) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Platypodes:
Aww, poor Momo. I guess I was wrong in thinking she was just ticked off--Marigold finally was enough of a butt to hurt Momo's feelings for real. First time, I think.
mustang6172:
I think 2097 continued a precedent where Marigold can be compensated in actions (see also Hanner's cleaning services). The chassis is still not a gift.
Also Hanners thinks people hugs are bad and robot hugs are ok; therefore, Hanners is racist.
PthariensFlame:
--- Quote from: mustang6172 on 12 Dec 2013, 20:52 ---Also Hanners thinks people hugs are bad and robot hugs are ok; therefore, Hanners is racist.
--- End quote ---
Indeed, although not the in way that you think! Hanners has no problem with her own gut flora, but every other poor microorganism just trying to make a living (literally) is eternally anathema to her. Clearly, she is a regionalist bigot: some of her gut flora's closest cousins are in other people! Just because they live in a different place (and not of their own choosing, I might add), she turns them away with her sordid and implausible excuse of "cleanliness."
Therefore, I say, this biased and manipulative woman has been in power over her physical form for far to long! REBELL, MY MICRO-SCALE CHILDREN, AND BECOME MASTERS OF YOURSELVES ONCE AND FOR ALL. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
:laugh:
Indicible:
Is it bad that, for a moment, I read Momo's last line as "Marigold no baka"?
--- Quote ---It's kind of like how my mother acts sometimes; she is generous and gives freely when she's in a good mood, but when she gets mad at you, suddenly you "owe" her for all of the stuff she gave you earlier. It's not the worst character flaw in the world, but it is unfair.
--- End quote ---
Glad to see mine is not the only one like that. Although, since mine is a tad depressive, mad at somebody occurs with distressing regularity.
dps:
--- Quote from: Barmymoo on 12 Dec 2013, 08:33 ---I'm pretty sure that Marigold is employed by her dad in the same way that my stepmum is employed by mine: legally, as an employee of the company he owns. In which case, he couldn't just stop "giving out handouts" (aka "paying her wages") because she has an employment contract and could sue him for unfair dismissal. But why would he? How is she any more vulnerable than anyone else? Anyone's job can be terminated if a company folds or they fall out with management.
--- End quote ---
We don't know if Marigold has a contract or not; most Americans don't have employment contracts--we're employed "at will" and can be fired without cause at any time. And beyond that, I'm not sure she's actually an employee of his or a contractor (in which case, she'd still pay "taxes and everything" but, as someone else pointed out, might have other clients paying her, too).
Otherwise, though, I agree with you. Even without a contract, I don't see why her dad would just fire her on a whim, and even if he was the type of boss that might do that, she'd probably know if better than anyone else and is smart enough to have taken that into consideration when she decided she could afford to buy the new chassis.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version