Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3426-3430 (27 February - 3 March 2017)
brasca:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 27 Feb 2017, 01:53 ---I think that Hannelore has suddenly realised that hallucinogenic tea could technically be viewed as an illegal substance or at least potentially so. Is this an idle inquiry or is this a vice bust?
--- End quote ---
I don't think she'd make that mistake since she seems well versed in legalese even if she isn't a lawyer. I think she's doing this protect Bubbles in case the police aren't just satisfied in taking down Corpse Witch.
ZoeB:
Panel 2 is mirrored.
Panel 1,3,4 the cash register is on Hanners left, Ritko on her right.
Rather than redraw, just mirror. - and correct Bubbles Chair sign - then insert dialogue again.
Or keep and mirror the rest, depending on layout of the Cafe of Doom. I think that might be needed.
The expressions though are priceless.
Ritko might possibly have just been given a clue regarding the identity of the AI tea afficionado by the large combat android sized armchair marked "Bubbles Chair" in the corner. They teach that stuff, obsevation and deduction, in detective school, so I'm told.
Which also means she quite genuinely may have been trying to make conversation, even though on duty and wearing her badge. Tea aroma as opposed to donuts.
JoeCovenant:
DOLT WARNING!
I have only just realised that Roko is also an AI !
Her skin tone just never registered until this strip!
I mean... "Wha'...?"
jheartney:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 27 Feb 2017, 01:53 ---I think that Hannelore has suddenly realised that hallucinogenic tea could technically be viewed as an illegal substance or at least potentially so. Is this an idle inquiry or is this a vice bust?
--- End quote ---
Given that tea is legal for humans, the default assumption is that it'd be legal for AIs. I'm assuming from Momo's stance on "AI Civil Rights" that there's a presumption that humans and AIs get equal treatment before the law, so even if a statute were passed outlawing tea for AIs, it'd be vulnerable to constitutional challenge on equal protection grounds. To defend it, the government would have to show a valid interest in stopping AIs from sniffing tea, as in you'd need instances of either AIs or humans being harmed by it. From what we've seen, there would be no such instances.
oeoek:
--- Quote from: ZoeB on 27 Feb 2017, 04:43 ---Panel 2 is mirrored.
--- End quote ---
The viewpoint of panel 2 is just different, in panel 2 we are are on Hanners side of the counter, looking at the shop, and Hanelore has turned and moved bit. In all other panels we are on the other side, like customers.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version