Topic: WCDT strips 3756-3760 (4th June to 8th June 2018) (Read 33968 times)

Dandi Andi · « **Reply #100 on:** 07 Jun 2018, 23:57 »

I love the "ART" drawn on the wall with what is obviously crayon. It is arguably a reasonable deconstruction of art. I'd call it Dada, but it makes too much sense to be Dada.

jesslc · « **Reply #101 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 00:16 »

So was I the only one who expected Arthur to carve open the fruit to show the resemblance? If he had carved eyes in it, I'm not sure we would be able to tell the difference

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 07 Jun 2018, 22:35

Somewhere, maybe someplace in DISCUSS, I personally could really use a clarification of whether "problematic" means something that's a problem, in which case it's either mild or severe, or whether it's a polite word for "bigoted", or whether it means "You did an oops there".

The way I see it used most often these days as a "yellow flag" type warning about media. Which is great in my opinion because I personally like to know if I'm likely to encounter sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/other problematic things in a book/show/webcomic/etc so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I want to read/watch it. For example: If I were to recommend QC to someone I would say (among other things) "It's good but some of the early strips are problematic". I would then elaborate more on the aspects that I see as problematic if requested.

It's not just for indicating bigotry but it's probably most frequently used for that. To give a (recently discussed) non-bigotry example: for some people, Faye's violence towards her friends and the way that has been depicted in QC, is a very problematic thing to see in media. Other people are not so affected by seeing that.

What I see as problematic and what someone else sees as problematic in the same piece of media is almost certainly not going to be exactly the same. Our different life experiences shape our views on these things but I think the word is still useful because it opens up the discussion. There are many things that I adore despite their problematic aspects (don't get me started!) but I recognize that for someone else the problematic aspects may outweigh the enjoyment they would get out of the thing and that's okay. It's about allowing people to make their own informed decision about things.

Thrillho · « **Reply #102 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 00:24 »

People are reading WAY too much into my previous reply.

I have literally never heard of this artist. I don't even look up who does the guest strips.

I was literally using a word that applies to people having criticised them.

Problematic is a loaded word, particularly on here, but I meant it in a literal sense, not in a '18th century misogyny in a masterpiece of literature' sense.

She raised ire among some forumites. Others like her work. That is a problem. She is a problematic choice. I do not mean she is a problematic person. I don't even remember her name despite it being further up in the thread.

Man between Tova thinking I was the one originally listing the thing and reactions since, my post is getting an awful lot of traction on a topic I know nothing about.

Tova · « **Reply #103 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 01:16 »

Sorry again for overlooking the original post and dragging you into (as it turned out) a protracted conversation over something in which you were only tangentially involved.

Zebediah · « **Reply #104 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 03:41 »

“Why did you even pick the name Melon if you didn’t know what they were?”

“I just thought it was a cool word! How was I supposed to know they were a real thing? I mean, humans have words for all kinds of things that don’t really exist, like ‘rabbit’ and ‘tortellini’ and ‘misdemeanor’!”

BenRG · « **Reply #105 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 03:44 »

Quote from: Zebediah on 08 Jun 2018, 03:41

“Why did you even pick the name Melon if you didn’t know what they were?”

I'm wondering if she's an ex-AnthroPC Companion and 'Melon' was the weird name chosen for her by her first owner. She's kept it because she liked it but had never bothered to find out to what it was referring.

Zebediah · « **Reply #106 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 03:54 »

If that’s the case, I just wonder who Gordon matched her with. When you have an AI with no grasp of consensual reality, do you match her with someone who is really grounded, or someone who is as far out there as she is?

HughYeman · « **Reply #107 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 04:00 »

Quote from: fayelovesbubbles on 07 Jun 2018, 20:19

Has it been confirmed that Pintsize went to poker night to tell the other AIs about Faye and Bubbles? Just curious.

I seem to be the only one who takes Pintsize's words of that night at face value, which I still find a bit surprising. After all, the budding, and finally blossoming, relationship between Bubbles and Faye affected me like no other fictional characters ever have, and I'm not alone. That Pintsize could have been likewise touched seems authentic.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #108 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 04:40 »

I totally get what you mean. Faye and Bubbles' relationship is something I've found very moving, in a way I haven't found much else in a comic moving before. I am probably way too emotionally invested. Them kissing was an EXPERIENCE for me.

They actually met because of Pintsize, so maybe in some small way he feels proud of himself for having brought them together. Once he gets his pervy little speculations about their relationship out of his head (inevitable, this is PINTSIZE).

Zebediah · « **Reply #109 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 04:48 »

To address the other point: I don’t think Pintsize told the other robots about Faye and Bubbles. Whether that really was out of unprecedented decorum or a rare fit of self-preservation is open to question. But as far as we know he’s told no one, and only went to poker night to get out of the way.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #110 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 04:53 »

Oh!!!! Duh! I didn't even think about that.

He is a gentleman at the most unexpected of times.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #111 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 05:05 »

"For the first time in my existence I have chosen to exercise basic decorum."

WOW. I'm slow!!! I totally didn't understand what he was talking about at all!

Yikes...haha! I can't believe how that just went over my head. He was trying to get out of the way.

And probably wasn't surprised at all when they came home and...yeah. He was like "Welp, here it comes" and went on his way to the poker game.

Tova · « **Reply #112 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 05:06 »

He may be a horrible little robot, but he's not an asshole.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #113 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 05:13 »

I think that deep down, Faye and Claire have some affection for the little perv. And Marten too, obviously.

I am not sure about Faye's mom. Yes, Bubbles is polite, and yes, southern women like politeness, but I'm not sure that's going to be enough to overcome the prejudices that she's certain to have.

I'm just not sure she's going to be on board with the whole "Faye and Bubbles" thing, and it's certain to cause tension between Bubbles and Faye and perhaps even a fight. Not looking forward to that!

We already know how Bubbles feels about Evie, so that's going to be fun too. /s

HughYeman · « **Reply #114 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 05:13 »

Quote from: fayelovesbubbles on 08 Jun 2018, 04:40

I totally get what you mean. Faye and Bubbles' relationship is something I've found very moving, in a way I haven't found much else in a comic moving before. I am probably way too emotionally invested. Them kissing was an EXPERIENCE for me.

Speaking only for myself, I am keenly aware that my obsession is unhealthy, or at least indicative of emotional imbalance. I've never been a shipper. I shipped those two at least an order of magnitude harder than I've ever shipped before. As with everything I've done with my spare time over the last two years, it is clearly a reflection of my desperate need to distract myself from general existential dread, and anxiety and sadness over personal losses.

Of course that does not detract from the source material. There are reasons why my mind latched into those two. Jeph has done extraordinary work in crafting two characters whose journey together resonates so profoundly in me.

to;dr: Just because I'm obsessed doesn't mean the thing I'm obsessed about isn't amazing.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #115 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 05:15 »

Yeah, I have it to an unhealthy degree too and I admit that.

I really never cared too much about the relationships in QC. I think this is the best job Jeph's ever done of building something. Building tension. Creating a compelling story for Bubbles.

I am invested in the Brun/Clinton thing. I really want them to happen. Besides them and Faye/Bubbles, I've never had feelings one way or the other about the couplings.

HughYeman · « **Reply #116 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 05:39 »

Quote from: Zebediah on 08 Jun 2018, 04:48

To address the other point: I don’t think Pintsize told the other robots about Faye and Bubbles. Whether that really was out of unprecedented decorum or a rare fit of self-preservation is open to question. But as far as we know he’s told no one, and only went to poker night to get out of the way.

Agreed. I think he just left it with that single statement, since none of the other players seemed inclined to probe his meaning. I think he was genuinely touched. And that seems fitting to me.

This brings me to a question I've been wondering about for years. You know when an author writes a joke or some other form of payoff that depends on a release of tensions or expectations that they've spent years building up? Is there a word for that? The best example I know of is the Aubrey/Maturin novels. There are a dozen books full of Jack saying to an agonized Stephen "Come, there's not a moment to be lost!" and dragging him away from whatever precious botanizing he's engaged in. Then there's a scene where Stephen bursts in on Jack and says that exact thing, and it's hilarious because of all that stored-up tension. It's like the discharge of a literary capacitor, and the books are full of that sort of thing. It's amazingly impactful in the right hands.

I bring it up because Pintsize's reaction is one of the best examples of this I've ever seen. For all these years we've seen him refuse to be anything but an annoying little perv, and because of all that inertia, his quiet act against type is literally singular. That payoff has been coming for over a decade, and Jeph can never give us that payoff again. That he chose to discharge that once-in-a-lifetime literary capacitor for Bubbles and Faye seems perfect to me, because I can't imagine there ever being a better opportunity to touch us by way of Pintsize being touched.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #117 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 05:52 »

Quote from: HughYeman on 08 Jun 2018, 05:39

the discharge of a literary capacitor

Can I just say this is awesome.

HughYeman · « **Reply #118 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 07:23 »

I have a noob question. Is there a shorthand for the following, or a general consensus on our assumptions in this regard?

"I am aware that the question I'm about to pose has an obvious real-world answer. If I have to preface everything I post with that acknowledgment, this is going to get really tedious. Yes, there are architectural reasons for x which usually boil down to 'It's easier for Jeph to draw x than y.' And. It's fun to talk about in-universe reasons, and that's what I would like to do here."

I ask because I'd like to talk about Arthur's face in this strip, and about AI faces in general

Stoutfellow · « **Reply #119 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 07:35 »

In some circles, a distinction is made between "Doylist" and "Watsonian" explanations. ("Why didn't they do this?" "It wasn't in the script!": Doylist. "They didn't know about this other thing.": Watsonian.) So what you're asking for is a Watsonian explanation of something that has an obvious Doylist explanation.

HughYeman · « **Reply #120 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 07:41 »

Quote from: Stoutfellow on 08 Jun 2018, 07:35

In some circles, a distinction is made between "Doylist" and "Watsonian" explanations. ("Why didn't they do this?" "It wasn't in the script!": Doylist. "They didn't know about this other thing.": Watsonian.) So what you're asking for is a Watsonian explanation of something that has an obvious Doylist explanation.

Perfect!

Bad Superman · « **Reply #121 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 08:29 »

Quote from: Tova on 08 Jun 2018, 05:06

He may be a horrible little robot, but he's not an asshole.

So Pintsize is a Transhumanist.
Or, at least, he likes some of its ideas. Who would have thought?

HughYeman · « **Reply #122 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 09:08 »

OK, so here is my Watsonian question: Does Arthur have a tongue?

I believe he doesn't, because there is no visual distinction between his "tongue" and the other facial features of Pintsize, Punchbot, O'Malley... or heck, of *any* of the other AI's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we've ever seen any interior features of an AI's mouth, so we don't know whether they have interiors. As far as we know, there's nothing but a highly malleable colored surface layer over a white sub-layer that keeps foreign objects* and dust and grit out.

In strip 3304, May realized "I could fill my mouth with lube and let a dude go to town." So presumably at least that model has a space inside the head into which the inner layer could stretch.

Anyway, I think the "tongue" is no different than the eyes and mouths we've seen all along: a gap caused by stretching of the outer colored layer to expose the inner white layer.

I find this question fascinating because it speaks to the level of visual shorthand we comics readers have internalized. I've spent decades reading comic books and comics, so I've got all this wetware that extrudes visual elements such as mouths and tongues from simple two-dimensional shapes. I see stuff that's not there in the panels, and every once in a while I step back and realized that people who don't have that wetware must not have the slightest clue how anyone could, say, be moved to tears by a web comic about an ex-military AI in a gynoid battle droid body falling in love with a human woman.

In short, we've got a robust semiotics suite, and the implications are fascinating. For instance, two people on the Patreon forum asserted that that feature we see on Arthur's face is a tongue, though I believe they have no justification for this. But neither do I have any justification for my assertion. It speaks to the interplay between artist and audience, and I can't help but think that at least some of it is intentional on the part of the artist. I mean, Jeph's representation of human faces has changed radically over the years, but Pintsize's face has stayed more or less the same, so it's not unreasonable to ask—perhaps even from a Doylist perspective—whether Arthur has a tongue.

*Oh nuts. As I was writing this, I remembered that Punchbot swallowed his car keys, so that sort of throws my theory out the window. Drat. I mean, "brutal self-own, ell em ay oh."

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #123 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 09:26 »

I wonder if I run afoul of this forum by asking if AIs have tongues and if not, how the Faye/Bubbles kiss was with one person lacking a tongue. Several people have asked if Bubbles has lips.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #124 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 10:46 »

It connects with the issue of how they speak. A voice synthesizer and speaker would be easier to implement than a tongue and vocal folds.

Mr_Rose · « **Reply #125 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 11:49 »

Yep. But a tongue and vocal cords are the best way to simulate human speech.

HughYeman · « **Reply #126 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 11:52 »

Heh. I didn't even want to get into this aspect, because my post was long-winded enough. But yeah, those last two posts represent my thoughts. Clearly chassis designers put a lot of effort into facial verisimilitude, which includes a moving jaw. And if you're going to have a moving jaw, then do you just go ahead and do a tongue, vocal cords, etc.?

dutchrvl · « **Reply #127 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 12:50 »

Quote from: HughYeman on 08 Jun 2018, 11:52

Heh. I didn't even want to get into this aspect, because my post was long-winded enough. But yeah, those last two posts represent my thoughts. Clearly chassis designers put a lot of effort into facial verisimilitude, which includes a moving jaw. And if you're going to have a moving jaw, then do you just go ahead and do a tongue, vocal cords, etc.?

You have all posed very valid questions that I have also wondered myself.

While I know it's very unlikely considering the early chassis version that Winslow tried back in the day, I have come to think of the AIs in QC as slightly less progressed versions of the androids in the HBO show 'Westworld'.

For anyone who hasn't seen that show, basically androids in that show started out as mostly mechanical inner workings but always with highly sophisticated and near-perfect outside appearance/feel (including tongue/lips and other aspects), and later on are fabricated completely(I think) out of organic material pretty much indistinguishable from humans in every single way.

So, in the QC universe, I personally prefer to imagine the androids as having mechanical/electrical inner workings, but having outside feel/appearance (including lips/tongue/hair) etc. more-or-less indistinguishable from humans. While I understand that there may be question marks as to why they would be developed that way, it kind of makes sense to foster widespread acceptance by the non-android population.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #128 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 14:54 »

>acceptance

I wonder how many are being designed by people like Ambassador Momo to be bridges between inorganic and organic life forms.

specter177 · « **Reply #129 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 16:08 »

Quote from: HughYeman on 08 Jun 2018, 11:52

Heh. I didn't even want to get into this aspect, because my post was long-winded enough. But yeah, those last two posts represent my thoughts. Clearly chassis designers put a lot of effort into facial verisimilitude, which includes a moving jaw. And if you're going to have a moving jaw, then do you just go ahead and do a tongue, vocal cords, etc.?

I'd guess the moving mouth thing is more to keep them away from being too creepy looking. Human looking robots today even have moving mouths, despite using speakers, even if they're not quite as refined. Air over vocal chords seems like WAY more complexity than needed, especially since robots still sound, well, robotic-ish, based on how Jeph draws the text bubbles.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #130 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 17:00 »

Er. Faye called Bubbles’ voice “pretty,” which makes me think she doesn’t sound “robotic.”

Her voice must be very special, given she has a different font, and Faye and Marten imitated her voice.

HughYeman · « **Reply #131 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 21:03 »

Quote from: specter177 on 08 Jun 2018, 16:08

I'd guess the moving mouth thing is more to keep them away from being too creepy looking. Human looking robots today even have moving mouths, despite using speakers, even if they're not quite as refined. Air over vocal chords seems like WAY more complexity than needed, especially since robots still sound, well, robotic-ish, based on how Jeph draws the text bubbles.

That's a good point. I had the same thought about the appearance of the speech balloons, and promptly forgot about it until you mentioned it.

HughYeman · « **Reply #132 on:** 08 Jun 2018, 21:16 »

Laughing my ass off. Here's why.

I was thinking about specter177 said about the speech balloons, and what fayelovesbubles said about her voice, and I was going to say that, because of the former, I imagine Bubbles as sounding noticeably—but probably not egregiously—synthesized. I was going to say maybe like GLaDOS, but warmer. Then I thought of Marten's early reactions to her, and I modified that to "like GLaDOS but warmer, and *much* more terrifying." And then it hit me. She could sound like anything. She could sound like ED-209.

You guys. Bubbles could sound like ED-209.

"You're so warm."
"YOU ARE TOO."
...
"WE STILL OUGHT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION."
"Yeah."
"PERHAPS... LATER, THOUGH."
"Yeah."

I've been giggling over this off and on for hours, and will continue to do so.

SilentSooYun · « **Reply #133 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 02:46 »

Quote from: Zebediah on 08 Jun 2018, 03:41

“Why did you even pick the name Melon if you didn’t know what they were?”

“I just thought it was a cool word! How was I supposed to know they were a real thing? I mean, humans have words for all kinds of things that don’t really exist, like ‘rabbit’ and ‘tortellini’ and ‘misdemeanor’!”

Maybe it was a misspelling of "mellon", as in "Pedo mellon a mino"
So her name means Friend

specter177 · « **Reply #134 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 03:04 »

Quote from: fayelovesbubbles on 08 Jun 2018, 17:00

Er. Faye called Bubbles’ voice “pretty,” which makes me think she doesn’t sound “robotic.”

Her voice must be very special, given she has a different font, and Faye and Marten imitated her voice.

I should have said synthesized, not robotic. That's not exclusive with sounding "pretty," but I assume it sounds distinctly not exactly human.

jwhouk · « **Reply #135 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 08:46 »

I've thought about this.

Considering, roughly, the time that Bubbles "emerged", her voicebox could only be modeled after one person.

Angelina Jolie.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #136 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 10:10 »

Angelina Jolie doesn’t work for me...if this ever became an animated series which I’m sure it won’t.

SpanielBear · « **Reply #137 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 10:58 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 09 Jun 2018, 08:46

I've thought about this.

Considering, roughly, the time that Bubbles "emerged", her voicebox could only be modeled after one person.

Angelina Jolie.

Please.

Gina Torres, obviously.

HughYeman · « **Reply #138 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 11:20 »

Tricky. Bubbles has such a particular combination of character traits: formal, gracious, somber, fierce, fiercely honorable... and adorably goofy. I've been wracking my brain, and so far I've thought of only one actress I'd trust with the role: Donna Murphy. She was one of the few good parts of the otherwise execrable "Star Trek: Insurrection" and she was an exquisite Abigail Adams in "Liberty: the American Revolution".

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0614220/

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #139 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 12:14 »

Never heard of her. I think there are a lot of actresses who could pull off Bubbles...imho.

Mr_Rose · « **Reply #140 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 12:58 »

Quote from: HughYeman on 09 Jun 2018, 11:20

Tricky. Bubbles has such a particular combination of character traits: formal, gracious, somber, fierce, fiercely honorable... and adorably goofy.

You basically hit all the high points of Inara from Firefly/Serenity there, so what about Morena Baccarin? Just downshifted an octave or so.

Morituri · « **Reply #141 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 13:01 »

FWIW, as far as Erica Moen:

I see her as somebody who did some mistaken things, learned that they were mistakes, and doesn't do them any more. Everybody has learning experiences, right? I don't have a problem with her, and consider some mistakes to have been pretty much inevitable and expected given the subject matter.

She does straight-talk about sex and physical issues and relationships, pretty unfiltered. And she tries to do it honestly, in a way that people just learning these things about themselves can relate to.

It's easy to avoid offending people if you use the formal conventions and make yourself sound like a lecturer that nobody will relate to or trust. People ignore TONS of those sites, because they make everything sound boring and sound like lectures from distant people who have nothing at stake and don't give a damn. Moen gets support from educators and even rights groups, and wins awards, because she does NOT engage at that arms-distance that makes all those other sites unrelatable and thus ignored.

But, face it, there's a reason for that arms-distance posture. She writes (and draws) about sex. If Moen stopped every time she was going to offend somebody, her work wouldn't exist. If she stopped every time people told her she ought to stop, her work wouldn't exist. She's really and truly not able to take anyone else's word about when to stop and where to draw the line, and still get anything done at all. So she's on her own. A few mistakes are to be expected.

I remember her being wrong once about how poly relationships worked, and being a little irked. But within the next two or three strips, she corrected herself based on reader feedback and research from sources they'd brought her, and apologized and totally owned her mistake. And there I forgave it, and she's never done it again. Lesson learned, as far as I can see. That's what an honorable person does when they find out they've made a mistake. But there are always going to be mistakes to learn from.

Undrneath · « **Reply #142 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 13:50 »

Quote from: fayelovesbubbles on 09 Jun 2018, 12:14

Never heard of her. I think there are a lot of actresses who could pull off Bubbles...imho.

If she were still alive I'd say the first lady of computer voices Majel Barrett-Roddenberry.

HughYeman · « **Reply #143 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 14:00 »

Quote from: Mr_Rose on 09 Jun 2018, 12:58

Quote from: HughYeman on 09 Jun 2018, 11:20
Tricky. Bubbles has such a particular combination of character traits: formal, gracious, somber, fierce, fiercely honorable... and adorably goofy.
You basically hit all the high points of Inara from Firefly/Serenity there, so what about Morena Baccarin? Just downshifted an octave or so.

Ooooh, good one. Can't believe I didn't think of her!

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #144 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 16:22 »

I had a looong list of actresses to play Bubbles. Adding Morena Baccarin, her voice could work too.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #145 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 18:07 »

From Hughyeman's signature,

Quote

"I would never leave unless you asked me to."
"I would never ask you to."

That was a commitment ceremony, without the ceremony. That's further than the other couples in the comic have gone.

They have cemented it in 3751 where they agreed to keep going in the face of mistakes and adversity.

If this falls short of a marriage it's only by a few inches and a couple of rings.

Faye's head is still going to explode when Bubbles proposes.

HughYeman · « **Reply #146 on:** 09 Jun 2018, 18:15 »

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 09 Jun 2018, 18:07

From Hughyeman's signature,
Quote
"I would never leave unless you asked me to."
"I would never ask you to."

That was a commitment ceremony, without the ceremony. That's further than the other couples in the comic have gone.

They have cemented it in 3751 where they agreed to keep going in the face of mistakes and adversity.

If this falls short of a marriage it's only by a few inches and a couple of rings.

Faye's head is still going to explode when Bubbles proposes.

My gosh, I still get a little quivery pre-tearing-up feeling when I think of it. There's so much packed into that panel.

Gyrre · « **Reply #147 on:** 10 Jun 2018, 14:07 »

Quote from: Zebediah on 08 Jun 2018, 03:41

“Why did you even pick the name Melon if you didn’t know what they were?”

“I just thought it was a cool word! How was I supposed to know they were a real thing? I mean, humans have words for all kinds of things that don’t really exist, like ‘rabbit’ and ‘tortellini’ and ‘misdemeanor’!”

I think we now know Melon's full name; Melon Rabbit Tortellini von Misdemeanor.

fayelovesbubbles · « **Reply #148 on:** 10 Jun 2018, 16:39 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuYYrb1SVxg

I keep thinking this song would be perfect if QC was an animated series, when Faye and Bubbles say "I would never leave unless you asked me to" "I would never ask you to" and then kiss. The chorus would play as they kissed.

Yeah, I keep hearing it at work and I think about this crap way too much.

I am weird. lol.

Edit: Yes, folks! Faye and Bubbles practically said vows with that.

I also feel like the episode should end with them kissing for the first time, and the next kiss would happen in the next episode. So the episode would end with that song and them kissing. So climactic!

Inconsequential · « **Reply #149 on:** 10 Jun 2018, 17:40 »

"...And your courage is one of the things I admire most about you."
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3753

That's when I knew these two were gonna be fine. That's one hell of a solid foundation for a relationship.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?

Author Topic: WCDT strips 3756-3760 (4th June to 8th June 2018) (Read 33968 times)