|
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
quote [ A Tale of Erotic, Robotic Romance ]
I'm shocked this has never been posted. excellent story for a comic with no dialouge, interesting, fluid artistic style...and fucking steampunk porn. How can you go wrong?
[art] [by swiggy@7:12amGMT] [+10 Classy Pr0n] |
Comments
 |
NuncEstBibendum
said @ 7:31am GMT on 8th Jul
VERT !!! |
|
yevelse
said @ 8:58pm GMT on 8th Jul
VERT is new (old?) fap |
|
Dalej
said @ 7:45am GMT on 8th Jul
hahahah, culiningula nasum :) |
|
assbastard
said @ 7:58am GMT on 8th Jul
[Score:1 Insightful]
Just when I thought the story was wrapping up, IT GOT SO MUCH BETTER! Also, the author is talented, smart and fucking hawt. Trifecta! |
|
puravida
said @ 8:28am GMT on 8th Jul
You're right, the story does get better! This is crazy, it's like cute, has a hot story line... and the art is very simple too... And no dialogue! Pretty awesome. |
|
Krutz
said @ 9:17am GMT on 8th Jul
[Score:1 Insightful]
So I'm guessing the husband jerks off to the menage a trois (avec le garcon metallique) then attacks them all with a hammer? |
|
swiggy
said @ 9:21am GMT on 8th Jul
[Score:1 Insightful]
|
|
Resplendent_Elk
said @ 2:39pm GMT on 8th Jul
The artist has drawn gay porn before, so I'm expecting a foursome with no boundaries. Homo-robosex, here we come. Hmm... Homo-robosexual... Hobosexual? |
|
Barnabas_Truman
said @ 6:13pm GMT on 8th Jul
HOBOCORE! |
|
DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69
said @ 11:53am GMT on 8th Jul
That's some shitty programming, doesn't even obey the first law of robotics. |
|
Naruki
said @ 12:00pm GMT on 8th Jul
Er, those laws are retarded, so of course it doesn't obey them. |
|
DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69
said @ 12:11pm GMT on 8th Jul
Do not harm any human being is retarded? Please explain. |
|
Vernes
said @ 1:01pm GMT on 8th Jul
Because the definition of "human being" is not absolute. Go through some of Isaac Asimov's stories. A lot of his stories revolve around this problem. Resulting in robots going haywire, or make a very calculated and unfortunate conclusion. |
|
Krutz
said @ 4:33pm GMT on 8th Jul
I've read pretty much all of his stories and that's never an issue, except in cases where those programming the robots are attempting to modify the 3 laws (i.e. programming the robot to make value judgments if there are two people in jeopardy, picking the more valuable). The only other story I can think of where that comes into play is when the Zeroeth law is created, and that's by only one robot. |
|
Barnabas_Truman
said @ 6:17pm GMT on 8th Jul
One of my favorite problems with the Three Laws (can't remember where I read it): If every robot's top priority, above all else, is not to allow a human to come to harm, then if, for example, a war started, every robot in the world would immediately drop whatever it's doing and rush to the area to stop the humans from fighting and confiscate their weapons. Now I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing... but it also leads to somewhat negative consequences such as the robots setting up a "nanny state" and forcibly preventing humans from doing anything even remotely dangerous (like, say, going outside their house, or turning on the stove, or operating any sort of machinery) because they might come to harm. |
|
Krutz
said @ 7:23pm GMT on 8th Jul
[Score:1 Interesting]
Indeed, that was one of the premises Asimov used. In "Little Robot Lost," there was a space-based outpost with an area that had exposure to radiation. The levels were low enough that humans could operate there for short periods of time, but any robots in the vicinity would dash in to "rescue" the workers. Unfortunately, the radiation was enough to fry the robot's positronic brain. So, unbenkownst to US Robotics, the station started tinkering with the 3 laws so the robots wouldn't 'rescue' the workers anymore. An odd side-effect was to make the robots arrogant in their speech, referring to humans as 'inferior.' When one worker got fed up and told a robot to "get lost," it did so, in a cargo ship full of other robots. The story pitted a "robopsychologist" against this modified robot that US Robotics couldn't allow to escape "into the wild." She had to figure out how to make one slightly differently behaving robot reveal itself among all of the other robots, when it had an incentive to prove itself superior to humans by remaining hidden. Anyway, I don't think Asimov ever put his robots in a war setting, and indeed, many of his robot tales had the overarching idea that robots (or in the end, a specific robot would "care" for humanity, but in a much more subtle method than the stark one you postulate). |
|
Barnabas_Truman
said @ 10:26pm GMT on 8th Jul
"Little Robot Lost" is one of my favorites, and Susan Calvin is awesome. I want to be a robopsychologist when I grow up. |
|
PontifexPrimus
said @ 8:56pm GMT on 8th Jul
[Score:1 Interesting]
You should check out the humanoids series by Jack Williamson. It's basically this idea taken to the extreme: to keep mankind from hurting themselves the robots take over and force everyone to live a safe, sheltered life. Can you recount all the things you did today that aren't exactly good for you, and the things you should have done that you didn't? It's a really interesting nightmarish vision... |
|
spite48
said @ 10:04pm GMT on 8th Jul
It would be a bad narrative, but a chilling thought: wouldn't humans be safest if they all spent their lives in a state of tended unconsciousness? |
|
foobar
said @ 12:14am GMT on 9th Jul
Safest perhaps, but I don't think you could coherently argue that you wouldn't be harming them by putting them in such a state. |
|
Misanthrope
said @ 1:59pm GMT on 9th Jul
Mental/emotional anguish might be an alien concept to robots. |
|
Barnabas_Truman
said @ 7:56pm GMT on 9th Jul
Only if we don't program it in. If we are advanced enough to program machines to reason we can probably program them to at least recognize emotion. |
|
krupa
said @ 6:31am GMT on 9th Jul
It probably wouldn't be, depending on the robots level on understanding of concept of "danger" and "harm". But hey, thanks for the tip! I'll get the book and read it. |
|
Naruki
said @ 9:13am GMT on 9th Jul
You should also read Roderick by John Sladek. He does one of the best critiques of Asimov's 3 laws I've seen. |
|
kishi
said @ 4:08pm GMT on 8th Jul
Looking at the clothing of the people, I suspect it was built before Asimov wrote them. |
|
pestilence
said @ 12:07pm GMT on 8th Jul
i don't want to have sex with a robut |
|
cb361
said @ 1:32pm GMT on 8th Jul
Pervert. |
|
MrChaos
said @ 3:17pm GMT on 8th Jul
Actually shortened to "Vert!" in the comic. |
|
Resplendent_Elk
said @ 2:37pm GMT on 8th Jul
[Score:2 Insightful]
Robophobe! |
|
danshyu
said @ 12:22pm GMT on 8th Jul
I feel bad for the inventor... |
|
pestilence
said @ 12:39pm GMT on 8th Jul
[Score:2]
me too! that lady is a psycho bitch. hopefully that's how we're supposed to feel though maybe this comic was intended for a robot audience |
|
Spyike
said @ 10:26pm GMT on 8th Jul
+1 Series 1 Flight of the Conchords |
|
pestilence
said @ 10:54pm GMT on 8th Jul
hey, i thought the second season had a lot of great songs a playlist thereof |
|
Roulette1337
said @ 5:26pm GMT on 8th Jul
Wife just comes off as a selfish bitch who only cares about sex to me. |
|
Rainbow Randolf
said @ 5:34pm GMT on 8th Jul
You don't give it to your lady enough and she'll find someone else. Simple as that. Also, if you give it to her just enough and don't pay attention to other things because you're too focused at being talented at humping they'll find someone else. ...women are fucked up. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 8:13pm GMT on 8th Jul
Sound to me like you just need to give your lady more orgasms. |
|
Rainbow Randolf
said @ 9:04pm GMT on 8th Jul
"giving it to your lady" for me automatically means giving orgasms. The sex just isn't as good if my lady doesn't get there. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 9:40pm GMT on 8th Jul
I thought that was a myth! :p |
|
hellboy
said @ 6:56am GMT on 9th Jul
She needs physical affection. The husband is too preoccupied to give it to her, and pushes her into the arms of a robot - which would be fine for all concerned, once she gets over her reluctance, except that they fall in love. It's a classic case of unintended consequences. I don't think the wife's at fault at all - maybe you should think about why you feel so judgemental towards someone who wants sex. |
|
relm
said @ 7:28am GMT on 9th Jul
HE BUILT THE ROBOT FOR HER TO FUCK why does no-one remember this |
|
pelon
said @ 5:08pm GMT on 8th Jul
This is a ... masterpiece. |
|
Transfer
said @ 5:22pm GMT on 8th Jul
I think you mean, This is a Triumph! |
|
OrionJc
said @ 6:00pm GMT on 8th Jul
Triumph of free spirited German engineering? |
|
Galley
said @ 1:55am GMT on 9th Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
I'm making a fap here: HUGE BONER |
|
pelon
said @ 8:32am GMT on 9th Jul
I bonered this: right? |
|
Misanthrope
said @ 2:02pm GMT on 9th Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
It's hard to overstate my masturbation. |
|
insanemonkey
said @ 10:22pm GMT on 9th Jul
Faperture science |
|
Misanthrope
said @ 2:02am GMT on 10th Jul
We fap to what we must |
|
Skyacen
said @ 10:09pm GMT on 8th Jul
nice |
|
Barnabas_Truman
said @ 11:00pm GMT on 8th Jul
Chester? I barely know'er! |
|
spaceghost
said @ 9:57am GMT on 9th Jul
So the moral of the story is don't make a sex robot ( or buy her a really good dildo/vibrator) if you want your wife to love you any more and especially if you want to ever have sex again. |
|
Misanthrope
said @ 2:04pm GMT on 9th Jul
Don't marry a horny chick unless you're sure you'll be able to keep up? |
|
hellboy
said @ 5:46pm GMT on 9th Jul
[Score:1 Underrated]
Have you read all the way to the end? |
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
