Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The Day We Met - Chapter 5, Page 16 (Patreon)

Published:
2026-08-27 16:56:58
Imported:
2026-08
Tags:

Content

Still a struggle to format these wordier pages, sometimes :')))

Files

Comments

Nic B

I have never followed a comic like this before, I cannot wait for the next page. I need to see these 2 work it out!

TheSublimeIbanez

It's moments like these where a week is far too long

Zemmywemmy

He probably deserved it so it’s okay Indie we still love you

Mitchell Gawrych

I hope eventually they both realize that this is wayyyy more than “friendship”

Stormi Husky

Broooo I was not expecting this to go so frantic so fast!! My bois are extremely scared to have this conversation, especially Indy dropping a bomb on Pen admitting it was true. He's so terrified and Indy is not wanting to let him leave without giving context, im scared too!! 😭😭

attor42

I don't want this relationship to end!!! I still need my Indy plush!

admiral boots

This is probably the most interesting choice you could have made here falco and I'm so profoundly invested at this point I'm seeking professional help Also they are both just so babygirl I cannot handle it 😭😭😭

Stormi Husky

For damn sure, we all know they'll acknowledge that they have deep connection and chemistry. Certainly gonna take quite sometime but we'll get there long before the comic will end Im sure of it <33

Rhyeth

The Prodigy made a song about this.

StormShadow_64

Honestly the struggle to get structure into the word filled pages perfectly sums up how these two must feel. Tons of words to say, and not one good way to get it out there. So happy I stumbled across this comic!

Borealis Bobcat

The very fact that Indy wants to explain himself PROVES this is more than a friendship! He wants to let Pen know everything about him. To see who he is. You don't do that to just a 'friend'! And for GOD SAKES PEN !!! Communication is healthy !!!! Stop fleeting !!!

Amy

I am going to go insane waiting for the next page lmao

CRGKevin

Really liking how the background colors start to change in this one, more of a stylized reflection of mood rather than a purely “realistic” representation of where they are

TakenDreams

Pen, sit your ass down (with love💜)

Mat

I did not hit her, it is not true. I did not hit her, I did not, oh hi Mark

drewduer

Yesss give me all your imperfect characters

Jasper

Frrrr

Pinky

Ooof pen I've been there, it's hard to realize that your desire to be accommodating and not pushy can also come across like you don't care, I'm glad Indy was insistent though! Best way to get past an over thinkers brain

Tanner Possberg

Oh good, another week of anxiety over these adorable goobers. Also, did anyone else see the 'Three Wolf Moon' shirts from makeship and falco? Did I miss a post or something announcing those?

Xan_Khajiit

Don't worry! The format looks great!

SeigeTheProot

Ahhh not another week of this wait Also we know pen carries a knife I wonder what Indy would carry if he did

Brent Frey

PEN, DONT BOLT!! Gwaaaahhhhhh

Coffe&crazy

I NEED THE NEXT ONEEEEEE RAHHHH CLIFFHANGERSS (I love it, please take youre time and breaks as you need them; you need them and I want the best for you not just the comic)

Random old smuck (edited)

Comment edits

2026-09-05 04:00 Now that Indy has admitted that he hit Alan, I have no doubt some here will immediately start looking for a reason why Alan somehow brought it on himself. He provoked him. He said something cruel. He pushed him too far. He knew exactly what to say to make Indy angry. None of that makes hitting him acceptable unless Alan posed a serious threat to Indy (which I seriously doubt) and even then self defense must be proportional. And Autumn Fever gives us a very useful comparison here. Pen is shown having emotional outbursts. He is rude to Indy, snaps at him, treats him unfairly, and behaves in ways that could understandably frustrate or upset him. He also acts overtly sexually toward Indy, including sending him sexual images while he was at work, which could have caused serious consequences for him. And we still do not know where the story will ultimately go. Now ask the obvious question. Would any of that justify Indy hitting Pen? Would it be acceptable for Indy to get angry enough to knock Pen to the floor and leave him bleeding because Pen said something hurtful, acted irrationally, embarrassed him, or crossed a boundary? Of course not. And this is not a false equivalence or a straw man. The point is not that Pen and Alan behave exactly the same way. They do not. The point is that the same standard has to apply to both of them. If Pen can be rude, emotional, provocative, unfair, or sexually inappropriate without deserving to be hit, then Alan can say something vicious, hurtful, insulting, or provocative without deserving to be hit either. You cannot have one moral standard for Pen because people like him and another for Alan because people do not. The size difference makes this even more serious. Alan is only slightly taller than Pen. You can see that clearly when Alan stands directly in front of him. Their overall size and build are very similar. Now compare either of them to Indy. Indy towers over Alan. He has to look down to meet his eyes. He is much larger, much heavier, and physically stronger by a very large margin. We have already seen Indy stand his ground against larger, older, more physically imposing predators, and they were the ones who backed down. Alan is nowhere near Indy’s physical equal. So when Indy hit him hard enough to put him on the floor bleeding, that needs to be understood for what it actually was. Indy could have seriously injured him. He could have caused a concussion or a permanent brain injury. Alan could have fallen differently and struck his head on the floor or another hard surface. One badly placed blow followed by a bad fall can kill someone. Indy did not have control over how Alan landed. That is the part people tend to forget when they talk about someone “only hitting somebody once.” One blow can be enough. If Alan had hit his head and died, there would be no taking that moment back. Alan would be dead, and Indy would have to live with the knowledge that he killed someone he once likely loved, trusted, lived with, slept beside, and shared an intimate relationship with. It would have destroyed Alan’s life completely and changed Indy’s forever. And whatever Alan had said five seconds before would not change that. This is also why the “he provoked him” argument bothers me so much. That exact kind of explanation is commonly used by people who commit domestic violence. “He pushed me too far.” “She knew how to make me angry.” “He wouldn’t stop.” “She said something horrible.” “I just lost control.” Those statements may explain anger. They do not excuse violence. People are allowed to make you angry. People are allowed to say horrible things. People can be cruel, selfish, irrational, manipulative, insulting, jealous, or emotionally destructive. You still do not get to hit them. If an argument is reaching the point where you feel yourself losing control, especially when you are physically much stronger than the person standing in front of you, then the responsibility is yours to remove yourself from that situation. Walk away. Leave the room. Go outside. End the conversation. Let both people cool down. Come back later. Talk to a counselor, your doctor, or a psychiatrist. And if the relationship has reached a point where the two of you cannot be around each other without things becoming destructive, then end the relationship mutually. There are many choices available before violence. Being the stronger person physically also means carrying more responsibility, not less. Indy knows how strong he is. He knows Alan cannot physically match him. That should make restraint more important. There is another part of this that should not be minimized either. If Indy and Alan were in fact in a relationship being hit by a stranger is frightening, but being hit by someone you loved, trusted, slept beside, opened yourself up to emotionally, and shared physical intimacy with is something else entirely. This is someone who was once supposed to be safe. Someone you allowed close to you in ways most people are never allowed. When that person becomes the source of physical fear, the damage is not only physical. And saying that does not mean I hate Indy. I do not. I care about Indy. I care about Pen. And I care about Alan too. I also do not believe Indy is a bad person. Good people can do terrible things. What matters is what they do after they have done them. Do they minimize it? Do they blame the person they hurt? Do they say they were provoked? Do they explain why it was somehow understandable? Or do they take responsibility for it? There is a tremendous difference between saying, “Alan said something horrible and I lost control,” and saying, “Alan said something horrible. I was furious. But I hit him. That was my decision. I was wrong. I am much stronger than he is and I could have seriously injured or killed him. There is no excuse for what I did.” That is accountability. And accountability is not about deciding that someone is irredeemably bad. It is about being honest enough to admit when you have done something seriously wrong, accepting the harm you caused, making amends where you can, changing your behavior, and making sure it never happens again. That is what tells me far more about the quality of a person than pretending good people never make terrible mistakes. The same fairness also needs to be extended to Alan. He may be troubled. He may have difficulty expressing himself in healthy ways. He may make bad decisions. He may say things that are unfair or hurtful. He may carry anger, jealousy, insecurity, or unresolved feelings badly. None of that means he deserves to be beaten. He is still a person. Just like Indy and Pen, he has feelings, fears, motivations, desires, hopes, attachments, and ambitions. He has an inner life that exists beyond the worst thing he has said or done. You do not have to excuse Alan’s mistakes to recognize that. You only have to remember that being difficult, troubled, angry, jealous, or emotionally unhealthy does not make someone less of a person. And it certainly does not make them deserving of violence.
2026-10-04 05:00 Now that Indy has admitted that he hit Alan, I have no doubt some here will immediately start looking for a reason why Alan somehow brought it on himself. He provoked him. He said something cruel. He pushed him too far. He knew exactly what to say to make Indy angry. None of that makes hitting him acceptable unless Alan posed a serious threat to Indy (which I seriously doubt) and even then self defense must be proportional and only be used as a last resort! And Autumn Fever gives us a very useful comparison here. Pen is shown having emotional outbursts. He is rude to Indy, snaps at him, treats him unfairly, and behaves in ways that could understandably frustrate or upset him. He also acts overtly sexually toward Indy, including sending him sexual images while he was at work, which could have caused serious consequences for him. And we still do not know where the story will ultimately go. Now ask the obvious question. Would any of that justify Indy hitting Pen? Would it be acceptable for Indy to get angry enough to knock Pen to the floor and leave him bleeding and crying in pain because Pen said something hurtful, acted irrationally, embarrassed him, or crossed a boundary? Of course not! And this is not a false equivalence or a straw man. The point is not that Pen and Alan behave exactly the same way. They do not. The point is that the same standard has to apply to both of them. If Pen can be rude, emotional, provocative, unfair, or sexually inappropriate without deserving to be hit, then Alan can say something vicious, hurtful, insulting, or provocative without deserving to be hit either. You cannot have one moral standard for Pen because everyone likes him and another for Alan because everyone doesn’t. The size difference makes this even more serious. Alan is only slightly taller than Pen. You can see that clearly when Alan stands directly in front of him. Their overall size and build are very similar. Now compare either of them to Indy. Indy towers over Alan. He has to look down to meet his eyes. He is much larger, much heavier, and physically stronger by a very large margin. We have already seen Indy stand his ground against larger, older, more physically imposing predators, and they were the ones who backed down. Alan is nowhere near Indy’s physical equal. So when Indy hit him hard enough to put him on the floor bleeding, that needs to be understood for what it actually was. Indy could have seriously injured him. He could have caused a concussion or a permanent brain injury. Alan could have fallen differently and struck his head on the floor or another hard surface. One badly placed blow followed by a bad fall can kill someone. Indy did not have control over how Alan landed. That is the part people tend to forget when they talk about someone “only hitting somebody once.” One blow can be enough. If Alan had hit his head and died, there would be no taking that moment back. Alan would be dead, and Indy would have to live with the knowledge that he killed someone he once likely loved, trusted, lived with, slept beside, and shared an intimate relationship with. It would have destroyed Alan’s life completely and changed Indy’s forever. And whatever Alan had said five seconds before would not change that. This is also why the “he provoked him” argument bothers me so much. That exact kind of explanation is commonly used by people who commit domestic violence. “He pushed me too far.” “She knew how to make me angry.” “He wouldn’t stop.” “She said something horrible.” “I just lost control.” Those statements may explain anger. They do not excuse violence. People are allowed to make you angry. People are allowed to say horrible things. People can be cruel, selfish, irrational, manipulative, insulting, jealous, or emotionally destructive. You still do not get to hit them. If an argument is reaching the point where you feel yourself losing control, especially when you are physically much stronger than the person standing in front of you, then the responsibility is yours to remove yourself from that situation. Walk away. Leave the room. Go outside. End the conversation. Let both people cool down. Come back later. Talk to a counselor, your doctor, or a psychiatrist. And if the relationship has reached a point where the two of you cannot be around each other without things becoming destructive, then end the relationship mutually. There are many choices available before violence. Being the stronger person physically also means carrying more responsibility, not less. Indy knows how strong he is. He knows Alan cannot physically match him. That should make restraint more important. There is another part of this that should not be minimized either. If Indy and Alan were in fact in a relationship being hit by a stranger is frightening, but being hit by someone you loved, trusted, slept beside, opened yourself up to emotionally, and shared physical intimacy with is something else entirely. This is someone who was once supposed to be safe. Someone you allowed close to you in ways most people are never allowed. When that person becomes the source of physical fear, the damage is not only physical. And saying that does not mean I hate Indy. I do not. I care about Indy. I care about Pen. And I care about Alan too. I also do not believe Indy is a bad person. Good people can do terrible things. What matters is what they do after they have done them. Do they minimize it? Do they blame the person they hurt? Do they say they were provoked? Do they explain why it was somehow understandable? Or do they take responsibility for it? There is a tremendous difference between saying, “Alan said something horrible and I lost control,” and saying, “Alan said something horrible. I was furious and I hit him. That was my decision and I was wrong. I’m a lot stronger than he is and I could have seriously injured or killed him. There’s simply no excuse for what I did and I’m sorry for it.” That is accountability. And accountability is not about deciding that someone is irredeemably bad. It is about being honest enough to admit when you have done something seriously wrong, accepting the harm you caused, making amends where you can, changing your behavior, and making sure it never happens again. That is what tells me far more about the quality of a person than pretending good people never make terrible mistakes. The same fairness also needs to be extended to Alan. He may be troubled. He may have difficulty expressing himself in healthy ways. He may make bad decisions. He may say things that are unfair or hurtful. He may carry anger, jealousy, insecurity, or unresolved feelings badly. None of that means he deserves to be beaten! Alan is still a person. Just like Indy and Pen, he has feelings, fears, motivations, desires, hopes, attachments, and ambitions. He has an inner life that exists beyond the worst thing he has said or done. You do not have to excuse Alan’s mistakes to recognize that. You only have to remember that being difficult, troubled, angry, jealous, or emotionally unhealthy does not make someone less of a person. And it certainly does not make them deserving of violence.
2026-08-27 19:30

MetalExveemon

Poor Indy baby. :( While what he did was wrong, I still feel compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt.

KingMyth

Sure Pen, a "Friendship". If thats what you want to call it

Vim the Protogen

I’m practically vibrating with excitement for the next page!

Alex

A bag of chips or a gas station sandwich.

OR-69

I’m not convinced he did anything wrong. I’m obviously concerned, but I want to hear his side of it before passing judgment.

MetalExveemon

These are all EXCELLENT points (and dang, long comment, lol). You really dropped some uncomfortable truths, but they needed to be said. However, there are some things I don't quite agree with: You said, "People are allowed to make you angry. People are allowed to say horrible things. People can be cruel, selfish, irrational, manipulative, insulting, jealous, or emotionally destructive." I don't believe that people are "allowed" to make one another angry or emotionally hurt one another. I mean, true, people can be that way (all the negative things you listed) but I don't believe that that can of behavior should be any more "allowed" than hitting somebody because it can almost as harmful; words and behavior can be traumatizing. (I *DO*, however, agree that people should not hit one another for the reasons you listed, and that simply removing one's self from the situation is the actual solution.) There is also something else to consider: -We do not know for sure yet whether Alan is or ever was Indy's boyfriend. Indy has yet to confirm that statement. It is obvious that the two are very familiar with one another, but the exact nature of their relationship is still unknown. -Alan said that the reason Indy hit him was because he, Indy, believed Alan was cheating. While that still wouldn't justify Indy becoming violent, it does give a different context than "he said something hurtful." If what Alan said was true, then what exactly was it that made Indy believe it was true? Does Indy have a jealous streak? Or did Alan lie and actually did cheat? -When we first see Alan with Indy (when Pen sees them by the fountain), Alan is the one who became physical first: he grabbed Indy's arm. Indy's response was to yank his arm away and snarl... and Alan only looked surprised. He didn't flinch or back away either. He didn't seem at all scared by Indy's canines. Not only that, but once Indy noticed Pen and started staring at the tufted deer, Alan shot Indy a look that seemed... well, jealous, before stepping away. -When Alan interacted with Pen, he seemed oddly performative. He approached with a big smile and acted cheerful, before turning awkward and dropping the alleged fact that he is Indy's boyfriend, and then started dropping some rather dark and personal information/suggestions about Indy, before telling Pen to stay away, and then finalizing their interaction by cheerfully giving his number (along with a smiley face no less). All of this strikes me as manipulative behavior that makes me question just about *everything* he told about Indy - except of course the hitting part. Indy himself confirmed it, but everything else is still up in the air.

Alex

It's very obvious to me you weren't raised by a narcissistic parent, who physically and mentally abused you for 20+ years, and who tried to make you commit suicide. And good for you, honestly! I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Mine is a different case than the one presented here, I know. Or at least, I hope. But there's no reason to defend a manipulative/abusive piece of shit. If they're met with violance for being a piece of shit, then good. They deserved it. Even better if it's done by their victim. Call it justice, karma, revenge, whatever you want. My parent certainly would've deserved it for all the things they did to me. They (AFAB, shorter and physically weaker) tried really hard for years to get me (AMAB, taller and stronger) to hit them in self-defense or out of desperation, so that they could call the cops on me, but I never gave them the satisfaction. Nor did I ever try to take my life, to give them the sense of victory over their victim. Alan seems manipulative as fuck to me, and has red flags all over him. He could've literally done the same to Indy that my parent tried doing to me. Emotionally manipulate Indy into hitting him, so that he could further blackmail, extort and abuse him. And because of these signs and red flags, unless or until proven otherwise, I refuse to defend Alan in any way. You reap what you sow.

G255D

Not defending Indy here but I will say that there is no such thing as absolutes or even measured responses in some cases. It's not wrong to hit someone, that is the lie we want to believe because we don't want to consider the alternative - people get hit all the time - sometimes by literal punches but most times by verbal/emotional/manipulative abuse. If you verbally/emotionally abuse me past a certain point I very well may convert that abuse into a physical response. There is no judgement here just shades of grey - would I punch someone if they pushed me beyond my limits - yes not only would I but I have. Do I feel regret about it - not in the least - I make it a point that others know where I am long before anything like that would happen not to mention distance myself - I am talking about people that go out of their way to mess with me. People like to play the victim in that scenario I have noticed not taking any responsibility for their own part in it. In the case of Alan here - he crossed a boundary in that interaction that was not his to cross - if you are able to cross one boundary like that and justify it then you are able to cross others.

MetalExveemon

Dang. I'm really, really, REALLY sorry that you had to go through all that. :( You didn't deserve it, and I hope you're far, far, FAR away from that monster. And most importantly, I hope you're getting all the help and healing that you need, and that you're living a MUCH better life now.

Lennon

Thank you. I appreciate that you took the time to respond thoughtfully. :) I would ask you to read my previous posts as well because I have already addressed many of the points you are raising here, including the nature of Alan and Indy’s relationship, the fountain scene, Alan’s conversation with Pen and the difference between context and justification. Admittedly, finding the relevant argument may require provisions and a compass, because my thought structure tends to be very long. :P I write this way deliberately as I want others to see exactly how I reached a conclusion, what evidence supports it, and where interpretation begins so there is as little room for misunderstanding as possible. Psychology is something of a specialty of mine, particularly how people communicate through wording, facial expressions, posture, and behavior. Writer Maui and artist Falco deserve considerable credit here as Maui’s dialogue is psychologically sound, while Falco’s facial expressions and body language consistently reinforce what the characters are experiencing beneath the surface. These details are not meaningless decorations. They are part of how the story communicates. Regarding my use of the word “allowed,” I was not saying that emotional abuse, manipulation, cruelty, or deliberately hurting someone is morally acceptable. My meaning was that other people possess agency. They may anger us, insult us, betray us or behave terribly and we remain responsible for how we respond. Words can absolutely cause trauma, but that does not make emotional harm and physical assault interchangeable. Being emotionally hurt does not give someone the right to enforce acceptable behavior with violence. A person who is being treated badly can leave, end the relationship, establish boundaries, or refuse further contact. He cannot strike the other individual and then transfer responsibility for that choice onto whatever was said beforehand. That distinction is especially important here because of the enormous physical disparity between Indy and Alan. Indy is considerably larger, stronger and capable of causing serious injury. One strike can cause a brain injury, a fatal fall, or permanent damage. Alan may have behaved horribly during their argument but he could not make Indy hit him. That was Indy’s action and Indy himself has now taken responsibility for it. As for whether Alan was Indy’s boyfriend, it is true that Indy has not yet confirmed the exact label. That does not mean Alan’s statement should be treated as doubtful simply because Indy has not yet provided his version. Alan’s statement is evidence. Indy’s silence on the terminology is not contradictory evidence. The story has already made it unmistakable that they share a close, emotionally charged history. Indy knew exactly what Alan might tell Pen, admitted that he hit him and said that the situation was not entirely as Alan described it. The precise way each individual understood their relationship may be an important source of conflict but uncertainty over the label does not make Alan deceptive. The cheating point also introduces possibilities that the story has not established. Alan said Indy believed he was cheating. We do not know what produced that belief. Nothing currently proves that Alan cheated, lied about cheating, or deliberately gave Indy reason to suspect him. Asking whether Alan secretly did cheat places an unsupported possibility beside a confirmed act of violence and risks making the possibility feel like evidence. If future pages establish that Alan cheated then that will become part of the relationship’s history. It still will not make him responsible for being beaten. Cheating can justify ending a relationship. It cannot justify assaulting the person who cheated. I also strongly disagree with the characterization of the fountain scene. Alan does not attack Indy. He grabs Indy’s clothing while pleading with him not to walk away. Indy violently pulls free, turns, bares his teeth and snarls directly into the face of someone much smaller than himself. Alan’s eyes widen and his body pulls backward. He plainly looks shocked by Indy’s response. Calling Alan “the one who became physical first” removes the action from its context and creates an impression of mutual aggression that the page does not show. Grabbing someone who is leaving can certainly cross a boundary, but it is not equivalent to striking someone, nor does it make Indy’s threatening response insignificant. Alan’s reaction also occurred after Indy had already hit him. The suggestion that Alan cannot have feared Indy because he did not respond in one particular way is not psychologically sound. People who have been hurt by someone they love do not necessarily cower whenever that person raises his voice or shows anger. They may freeze, confront, plead, minimize the danger, or continue seeking reconciliation. Trauma does not produce one mandatory facial expression. The supposed jealous look toward Pen is also an interpretation, not an established fact. Alan may have been jealous. That would hardly be surprising if he still loved Indy. Jealousy however does not prove that he is manipulative, dishonest, or dangerous. The claim that Alan behaved “performatively” with Pen is where speculation is being treated most strongly as fact. Alan smiled when he approached, became increasingly awkward while discussing painful personal information, warned Pen and then left his number. Those actions do not objectively establish a calculated performance. People commonly smile to appear polite, conceal discomfort, or manage an awkward social encounter. Alan’s composure visibly deteriorates as the conversation becomes more personal. That reads far more naturally as nervousness and emotional discomfort than as proof of a planned manipulation. The smiley face on the number is not evidence of sinister intent either. It is a small gesture that only appears sinister after Alan has already been presumed malicious. I do this often myself. :) Most importantly Alan told Pen that Indy hit him and Indy has now confirmed that Alan told the truth. That was the most serious and consequential claim Alan made. Yet instead of that confirmation causing some reassessment of Alan’s credibility your response becomes, “I now question everything he said except the part Indy confirmed.” That is precisely the interpretive problem I have been discussing. If Alan smiles, he is calculating. If he becomes awkward, he is performing. If he warns Pen, he is manipulating him. If he expresses jealousy, he is possessive. If he says Indy hit him, he is trying to portray Indy as violent. Then when Indy admits that he did hit him, Alan is still presumed dishonest about everything else. If every possible action Alan takes is automatically interpreted as evidence of malice then the conclusion is not being tested against the story. The story is being forced to fit the conclusion. Alan may eventually be revealed to have lied, cheated, manipulated people, or behaved terribly. Until then, I will not presume his guilt merely because a malicious explanation can be invented for every expression, word, and gesture. That is why I again invite you to read my earlier posts. They show that I did not invent these conclusions after Indy’s confession. I have followed the wording, facial expressions, and body language across multiple pages and explained my reasoning at considerable length, possibly enough to qualify as my own unofficial director’s commentary. ;) Disagreement is perfectly welcome, but confirmed facts, visual evidence, interpretation and speculation need to remain separate. At present Indy has confirmed the central allegation while the accusations that Alan cheated, lied, staged his emotions or manipulated Pen remain interpretations that the story has not established.

Lennon

First off do not make personal remarks or assumptions about my upbringing, my family or what I may have experienced. You know nothing about my personal history and disagreement with my interpretation of a comic does not give you permission to speculate about it. I will not tolerate personal attacks of any kind, so please keep the discussion focused on the characters and the evidence presented in the story. Secondly, your own experience directly undermines the argument you are making. You believe your parent spent years deliberately trying to provoke you into striking them, yet you did not do it. You retained control of your actions despite extreme emotional pressure. You understood that hitting them would still be your decision and that it could have serious consequences. That is exactly my point. You are now inventing a scenario in which Alan may have done something similar to Indy, despite there being zero evidence of blackmail, extortion, calculated provocation, or any plan to make Indy violent. You then use that imaginary scenario to declare that Alan deserved what happened to him. A possibility you created is not proof of something Alan did. You are actually granting Indy less personal agency than you granted yourself. You resisted what you describe as more than twenty years of deliberate provocation, yet you are prepared to excuse Indy for hitting Alan based on a hypothetical provocation that the comic has not even established. If your parents wanted you to strike them so they could use it against you then hitting them would not have been justice, karma, or victory. It would have given them exactly what they wanted. Your refusal to do so was proof that another person could not force you to surrender responsibility for your actions. The same principle applies to Indy. Alan could have been cruel, dishonest, jealous, manipulative, or emotionally destructive and Indy would still have been responsible for choosing to hit him. If Alan physically attacked Indy and Indy used necessary force to protect himself, that would be self defense. Nothing currently shown suggests that this is what happened. You have already decided that Alan is abusive and manipulative and now every missing piece is being filled with the worst thing you can imagine. Alan “could have” provoked Indy. He “could have” planned to blackmail him. He “could have” intended to extort him. None of those accusations comes from the comic. They come from your personal experience being projected onto a different person in a different situation. Your trauma deserves compassion but it does not transform speculation into evidence and it does not give you special authority to declare that another victim deserved to be beaten. You say you refuse to defend Alan “unless or until proven otherwise,” but that reverses the burden of proof. You are presuming him guilty of abuse, manipulation, blackmail, and extortion, then demanding that the story prove he did not commit offenses the story has never accused him of committing. Meanwhile the one serious accusation Alan actually made has been confirmed by Indy himself. I am genuinely sorry for what you went through and I understand why those experiences may influence how you interpret situations involving manipulation and abuse. However, it is simply not fair to project your parent’s behavior and motives onto Alan without evidence. You may not like Alan and you are certainly not required to, but disliking him does not prove that he is guilty of the things you have imagined. You do not know what Alan may have experienced in his life either, what happened before he was struck or what he has endured since. Whatever pain and trauma Alan may be carrying deserves the same compassion and consideration that you understandably want given to your own experiences.

Dark Arkkon

Another cliffhanger! Aaaa! I can't handle it! Lol. For real though, this is excellent. The tension just keeps building, but it's also very real. I love this. ❤️❤️👍

Lennon

Your argument collapses several fundamentally different things into one category. Being insulted, manipulated, or emotionally abused can cause real harm but describing all of it as being “hit” does not make a verbal act and a physical assault interchangeable. One is metaphorical. The other involves deliberately using physical force against another and carries an immediate risk of bodily injury. Saying that someone pushed you beyond your limits may explain why you struck them. It does not transfer responsibility for the decision onto them. “I warned people where my limit was” is not a standing agreement that they may be punched if they cross it. A boundary defines what you will do to protect yourself, such as leaving or ending contact. It is not a rule granting you physical authority over someone else’s behavior. There is also a contradiction in saying there is “no judgment,” only shades of grey while simultaneously declaring that hitting someone is not wrong and that the person who was hit may merely be “playing the victim.” Those are judgments. They simply place nearly all responsibility on the person who was struck. Someone can contribute to a toxic argument, cross boundaries, or even behave abusively and still be the victim of an assault. Victimhood is not a moral award reserved for perfect people. It simply means that a particular act of harm was committed against someone. Their behavior can be evaluated separately without pretending that being struck was no longer something done to them. As for the fountain Alan grabs Indy’s clothing while it appears he’s telling Indy not to leave. That crosses a physical boundary and can be criticized. It does not however prove that Alan crossed other boundaries and it certainly does not prove that he provoked the earlier assault. “If someone can cross one boundary then they can cross others” is speculation, not evidence. By that same reasoning Indy has admitted crossing the far more serious boundary of striking Alan. If crossing one boundary proves a willingness to cross others then that suspicion would logically apply more strongly to Indy. It cannot be used against Alan while being quietly disregarded when evaluating the person who admitted to violence. The chronology matters as well. The fountain interaction occurred after Indy had already hit Alan. A later attempt to stop Indy from walking away cannot retroactively establish what Alan did before the earlier assault. We still do not know what happened during that argument beyond Indy’s confirmation that he hit Alan. Necessary force used against an immediate physical attack is self defense. Punching someone because their words, emotions, or manipulation have exceeded your personal tolerance isn’t. It may be an impulsive response made under intense pressure and that pressure may provide important context but context is not exoneration. Saying “I would hit someone if pushed far enough, I have done so, and I do not regret it” describes your personal position on violence. It does not establish a general principle that striking another is morally neutral, nor does it tell us what Alan did. And respectfully, saying “not defending Indy” does not change the substance of an argument that normalizes his action, transfers responsibility to Alan and uses an unrelated later interaction to suggest that Alan probably deserved it. That is a defense of Indy’s violence in practice, even if it is not intended as one.

subshere

Completely unrelated but Indy is gonna be DEVASTATED when he finds out about Dolly Parton RIP

Husky

The suspense is killing me

heath hubbard

I'm running out of popcorn! The suspense is killing me!!!!

G255D

I know you mean well and I respect your thinking - I just don't agree with parts of it - not because it is not logically true- I think your points are for the most part sound - but because people are not inherently logical creatures and this is where I would point out that the ideal of 'hitting is always wrong' (agreed upon protective exceptions aside) does not reflect lived reality. There will always be those that communicate in more physical ways than others and I honestly believe it is a spectrum - some like yourself may apply reason and logic to navigate those obstacles - others may choose differently. I think by and large most people want to try to live to the ideal (for the most part) - its not like the movies where someone gets into a barfight because someone else looked at them wrong (that does happen but that is really rare and usually they were looking for a fight for other reasons). Obviously in Alan's case Indy didn't hit him hard enough to drive him out of his life for good - in fact I would say the opposite since based on what was said to Pen that Indy has told Alan about Pen. I will tell you this on my part- if my partner were to ever strike me for any reason - even if I provoked him to it - I would be done with them for good, there would be no reconciliation and I could care less who they wound up with after me. I think most reasonable people would agree with that- but that is not what happened here in fact the opposite- Alan is still very much in Indy's life and further has crossed boundaries that are not his to cross with Pen - he is an obvious manipulator to not even provide context other than things that make him appear to be a victim. His reason for telling Pen what he did falls apart under scrutiny in my mind as there is no reason for it other than to poison the relationship he knows Indy has with Pen - he could have reached out to Pen at anytime but chose not to do so until their relationship starting getting more involved - coincidence ? I think not.

SENNE

I like that this is a different kind of “flight” response. May Indy be a strong anchor to Pen, as Pen would be to Indy.

Alex

Dr. Kosmo - You interpreting it as a personal attack is your own problem. It was just an observation, based on the fact that if you had similar experiences, you wouldn't defend the things you do. Yes, I've decided to put Alan firmly into a category, based on my own lived experiences. No, I won't change my opinion until proven otherwise, like I already stated. Let's leave it at that. Agree to disagree. Or not. Life goes on either way.

Falco

Thank you so much!

Falco

Honestly that does make me feel better about it, thank you 😂❤️ just hate to only be able to keep up with a pace of one page per week and spreading it out even more seemed like it would be more frustrating than beneficial to read

Lennon

Calling it an “observation” does not make it appropriate. You made an assumption about my upbringing and personal experiences then claimed that anyone who had endured similar abuse would necessarily share your interpretation. That is both personal and demonstrably untrue! Survivors are not a monolith and experiencing abuse does not require someone to endorse retaliation, presume another person guilty or interpret every ambiguous behavior as manipulation! You have now explicitly admitted that you placed Alan into the role of your abuser based on your own experiences and will presume him guilty until the story proves otherwise. That confirms the projection I identified. It does not provide evidence about Alan. You are entitled to end the discussion and retain your opinion. However, you are not entitled to make assumptions about my life and then tell me that my objection to those remarks is “my own problem.” I clearly asked you to leave my personal history out of the discussion and instead of respecting that boundary you dismissed it. If you continue doing this, I will be forced to block you! We can leave it here but let the record accurately reflect why. You are judging Alan according to what someone else did to you while I am judging him according to what the comic has actually shown. Those are not equally evidence based approaches. Good day!

Alex

Metal - I'm fine, don't worry about me. Not good, but definitely better. Came out as non-binary and changed my name. Got promptly rejected by the whole family, aside from my dad. Moved countries. Moved in with my then long-distance partner, now sambo (Swedish relationship status for "cohabiting partner"). Cut contact with my blood family, aside from my dad. Planning to cut contact with the country where I come from as soon as I can, too. Started learning Swedish and actually enjoying things, and feeling like a person again after years. I still don't feel like I have a future, but I'm going to get there. Just to spite people who denied my existence and would rather see me dead, if nothing else.

G255D

To clarify as well - because I think maybe you mistook my initial not to defend statement - If Indy hit me I would be done, I would not hang around to sort out our issues - its a line that if crossed signals the end of interactions for me - there can be no more constructive relationship after that because of its nature. If I am moved to hit someone its because I no longer want any further interaction from them for the rest of my life. I am in effect cutting them off - some people don't get the message when you tell them to go away. I do not ever see myself ever hitting my partner and If I ever did they would no longer be my partner in that moment and thereafter - it would take such a scale of crazy to get me to that point with a person I love that I cannot even fathom it.

Star Ringer

Something I think is particularly painful about never being able to take something back is that no matter what you do, how well you atone, no matter what justification or lack thereof there is, it's always there. Forever. That relationship can never again be one where you didn't hurt them. That place can never again be a place where that act didn't occur. That person can never again be someone who wasn't harmed. You can never again be a person who has never inflicted that harm on anyone. Indy is clearly haunted by the knowledge that "I hit him" is never, ever going to be a false statement. People talk about baggage, and scars. But such metaphors feel too trite to describe the true weight of the permanence of time, the irrevocability of every moment and action.

Lennon

I appreciate your respectful response, and I think we are separating two different questions: why people become violent and whether they remain responsible for becoming violent. I have never argued that human beings are perfectly logical or that nobody ever lashes out under extreme emotional pressure. Obviously they do. My argument is that an impulsive response can be psychologically understandable while still being wrong. Explaining how someone reached a breaking point provides context, it does not transfer responsibility for the resulting violence onto the person who was struck. Saying that some people “communicate in more physical ways” also softens what is actually happening. Hitting someone is not merely a different communication style somewhere along a neutral spectrum. It is the use of physical force to frighten, punish, control or injure another person. The fact that some people are more inclined toward it does not make it morally equivalent to expressing anger verbally or walking away. Your statement that Indy obviously “didn’t hit him hard enough to drive him out of his life” is particularly troubling. Whether someone leaves permanently tells us nothing about how hard they were struck, how frightened they were, or whether the violence mattered. People frequently remain emotionally attached to someone who has hurt them. They may still love that person, want an explanation, hope for reconciliation, seek closure, minimize what happened, or struggle to accept that the relationship is over. Your position that you would immediately and permanently leave a partner who struck you is entirely valid as a personal boundary. It is not, however, a universal test that every victim must pass before their experience is credible. Alan’s continued attachment to Indy does not prove that the assault was minor, that he deserved it, or that he is manipulating anyone. It proves only that Alan did not respond exactly as you believe you would. Victimhood is not a moral award reserved for perfect people and victims are not required to behave in one approved manner after being hurt. They do not lose their right to speak about what happened because they remained attached to the person who hurt them. It has also not been established that Indy told Alan about Pen. Alan personally saw Indy’s reaction to Pen at the fountain. He watched Indy’s attention shift toward him and could have drawn his own conclusions from that encounter. We do not currently know what Indy told Alan, if anything. Your claim that Alan could have contacted Pen at any time is equally uncertain. Alan is not local, and we do not know when he first learned who Pen was, how much he knew about their relationship, or whether he had any way to contact him before encountering him. The story has not shown Alan secretly monitoring Pen while waiting for the most damaging opportunity. Even if Alan deliberately waited until the relationship became more serious, that timing would not prove malicious intent. If someone believes a person may be entering a relationship with someone who previously struck a partner, the relationship becoming serious would be precisely what made the warning relevant. Had Alan approached Pen before anything meaningful developed, he could just as easily have been accused of interfering where there was nothing to warn him about. Saying there was “no reason” for Alan to speak except to poison the relationship presents one possible motive as the only possible motive. Alan could have wanted to warn Pen, tell his side of the story, understand what Indy had said about him, protect Pen, disrupt the relationship out of jealousy, or act from several conflicting motives at once. Real people are rarely driven by one perfectly pure motive. Jealousy would not automatically make his warning false just as genuine concern would not mean he had no selfish feelings. Nor does telling Pen about being hit without providing a complete history make Alan an obvious manipulator. Alan was not required to present a full legal brief covering every argument, mistake and disagreement in their relationship before disclosing what Indy did to him. Indy has now confirmed the central fact Alan shared. Alan also has the right to speak about something that happened to him. That history does not belong exclusively to Indy merely because its disclosure may affect Indy’s current relationship. Pen likewise has the right to hear the information and decide what it means for himself. Alan spoke to him and left his number. He did not threaten him, force him to agree, or remove Pen’s ability to make his own decision. Your final clarification actually raises another important distinction. You say that if you ever hit someone it would mean you wanted that person permanently removed from your life. That describes what violence would mean to you. We do not know that it meant the same thing to Indy. More importantly, hitting someone cannot be treated as a legitimate method of “cutting them off” because they supposedly failed to understand verbal instructions. Unless someone presents an immediate physical threat requiring self defense, and only in proportion; hitting them is not boundary setting. It is using violence to compel compliance. You have every right to decide that being struck would permanently end a relationship for you but Alan has the right to respond differently. Likewise, his failure to disappear from Indy’s life does not retroactively justify the assault or establish that everything he subsequently did was manipulation either. We can certainly disagree about Alan’s motives. I simply do not believe the available evidence supports calling him an “obvious manipulator.” That conclusion depends upon treating every ambiguity in the most hostile possible way while treating his confirmed account of being hit as something that somehow counts against him.

Anubislaughed

TBH, everyone wants to punch Alan after they meet him.

Tom Noyb

Wow! Nobody saw this one coming. Now you've really got my attention. We were all so willing to dump on Alan. Now that it's at least partially Indy, well...

TheScornedGoat

Brother that is a messed up thing to say lmao

MetalExveemon

Alex - I'm glad you're doing better, at the very least. I'm also glad you're still on speaking terms with your father, and that you now have a "sambo" (that's actually a cute word, I think). Good riddance to the people who've wished you harm and death; they don't deserve to be around you. That's also really sweet that you're learning your SO's language, as well as that you're starting to heal. Although I encourage you to start realizing that you DO have a future: you have people who love you, and a heart that's healing because it wants to live. While I can understand wanting to live to spite those awful people, I also encourage you to live for the sake of the people who love you - and for your own sake. I don't know what your stance on religion is, but just the same, I hope and pray that God watches over you and that He directs your path to Jesus. In the meantime, take care!

G255D

I would agree that there is little to go on wrt Alan's motivations - there is the scene with Indy obviously not happy with him being present, and then the interaction with Pen. I would say however that we know a great deal more of Indy - he has shown nothing but genuine interest and when needed concern with Pen's well being, going out of his way to make sure he was safe without expectation of reciprocation in any way, even when there was opportunity if he was not scrupulous to take advantage of Pen (and maybe even a willingness to be taken advantage of on Pen's part). I do agree that Alan has a right to express whatever he wants I would however say that timing and delivery are significant to me. If there was worry for Pen's welfare I think this meeting could have occurred much earlier in the timeline and would have had more weight to me. It is near impossible for me to see this as anything other than a attempt to drive Pen off. Did Indy give up his exclusive right to the narrative when he hit Alan ? of course he did. Doesn't it strike you as odd tho that Alan referred to them as being on a break ? It will be interesting to hear Indy's interpretation of what that means. I find anyone that would be willing to return to a relationship that their physical safety has been compromised as either not thinking clearly or engaging in manipulation that they somehow benefit from (sometimes both). In all the examples of Indy's behavior to now I have seen only someone that wants to be helpful and friendly- even with moderate drinking involved. Even now Indy is owning what he considers to be a bad decision - these are not the signs of someone that is evading accountability for their actions or blaming others - he has asked Pen to be patient because he wants to share the context that Alan (conveniently?) forgot. Full disclosures are great in relationships :) I know I would probably ruin this because if it were me in Indy's shoes I would say he FAFO'd - but I also would no longer be in any relationship with Alan either- this is what makes me suspect manipulation in fact because It seems like Indy is not ok that he did what he did - this leaves him open to be controlled by what he feels was a bad decision - this is also one of several reasons why a person should never return to a relationship that has been compromised in that way - there is no longer the possibility for honest communication (unless of course the relationship is founded on violence to begin with and some are).

Lennon

You acknowledge that there is very little evidence about Alan’s motivations, then call him an “obvious manipulator” anyway. That conclusion is not supported by what the comic has shown. We know more about Indy because the story has spent substantially more time with him and has largely presented him through Pen’s affectionate perspective. Indy’s kindness toward Pen proves that he has treated Pen kindly, not that he treated Alan the same way, and it does not contradict Indy’s own admission that he struck Alan either. Good behavior in one relationship is not an alibi for harmful behavior in another. Indy deserves credit for protecting Pen and respecting his sexual boundaries. Those actions are still irrelevant to whether he hit Alan. Treating basic decency toward Pen as evidence against Alan gives Indy credit for one behavior and uses that credit to discount a completely separate act that Indy has already admitted committing. The argument about Alan’s timing is equally unsupported. Nothing establishes that Alan knew who Pen was earlier, possessed his contact information or had another opportunity to reach him. Alan encountered Pen after seeing Indy’s obvious interest in him at the fountain. Claiming that he deliberately waited for the most damaging moment invents access, knowledge and a plan that the comic has never shown. Even if Alan wanted to drive Pen away that still would not make his warning untrue. He told Pen that Indy hit him, and Indy confirmed it. Alan’s possible jealousy does not erase the truth of that disclosure. There is also no acceptable time for Alan to speak under this interpretation, if he approached Pen immediately he would be accused of interfering before a relationship existed. Because he spoke after recognizing that Pen and Indy were becoming involved, he is accused of calculated sabotage. Every possible action is being interpreted as manipulation because the conclusion was decided first. Alan’s statement that they were “on a break” shows that Alan considered the relationship unresolved. It does not prove manipulation. Indy may have considered the relationship over while Alan did not. Their separation may have been poorly defined or one of them may be misrepresenting it. Until Indy explains what happened, anything beyond that is speculation. I also reject the claim that anyone who remains attached after being struck must either be irrational or manipulating the person who hit them. Psychology recognizes a phenomenon called trauma bonding in which cycles of harm, remorse, affection, and reconciliation can strengthen a victim’s emotional attachment to the person who hurt them. And while I obviously don’t have Alan in my office right now to properly diagnose and conclude with certainty that this specifically applies to him, its very existence demonstrates why remaining attached cannot be treated as evidence of manipulation. A victim’s credibility does not depend upon immediately leaving, permanently cutting contact and ceasing to care about the person who hurt them. Your personal response would be to end the relationship forever. That is your boundary. It is not a rule Alan must follow, and his different response is not evidence of manipulation. Indy’s remorse is not evidence that Alan controls him. You have imagined that Alan might exploit Indy’s guilt and are treating that imagined possibility as another red flag. The comic has not shown Alan blackmailing, extorting, threatening or controlling Indy through remorse. Indy’s guilt arises from his own actions not from some scheme Alan has been shown orchestrating. Alan cannot be accused of manipulating Indy merely because Indy regrets hurting him. Otherwise, Alan could never mention what happened, seek closure or remain emotionally affected without being accused of weaponizing the truth. Feeling guilty after hitting someone is a normal recognition that one has done something wrong. Turning Indy’s conscience into evidence against Alan produces another argument Alan can never disprove. If Indy feels no remorse, then Alan supposedly deserved it. If Indy feels remorse, then Alan supposedly benefits from controlling him. Either outcome is used to condemn Alan. Indy’s confession is an important beginning, but admitting the act is not the same as completing accountability. We have not yet heard his explanation. Saying that Alan “conveniently forgot” the context prejudges information that has not even been revealed. Alan was not required to give Pen a complete history of the relationship before disclosing that Indy struck him. The central fact he disclosed was true. And saying that, in Indy’s position, you would tell Alan that he “fucked around and found out” is a defense of the violence, regardless of the earlier disclaimer. It assigns responsibility for Indy’s decision to Alan and declares that he deserved it. Indy himself currently appears less willing to excuse his behavior than you are. Neither Indy nor Alan ever possessed an exclusive right to the narrative. Both have always had the right to describe what happened to them. Alan did not lose that right because his account could affect Indy’s new relationship. The evidence currently establishes three things. Alan said Indy hit him. Indy confirmed that he hit Alan. Indy has not yet provided the surrounding context. It does not establish that Alan manipulated Indy, deliberately provoked the assault, concealed decisive information, monitored Pen, calculated the timing of his warning or used Indy’s remorse to control him. Those are accusations being added to the story by readers, not facts supplied by the comic. Indy can be caring toward Pen and still have harmed Alan. Alan can remain attached to Indy and still have been the victim of that harm. Neither truth cancels the other and inventing manipulative motives for Alan does not change what Indy has admitted. Something I find genuinely frightening is how readily so many here are excusing admitted violence by placing the victim on trial and searching for reasons he must have deserved it. Many of you have repeatedly substituted speculation for evidence, invented motives and offenses that were never established and presumed Alan guilty until proven innocent. That is not careful judgment or moral complexity. It is victim blaming and it is precisely how violence is excused and innocent people are condemned. I sincerely hope none of you ever sit on a jury where another person’s life or freedom is at stake.

Thruster_Check

Bottom-left panel ... Indy looking Pen straight in the eyes, on the verge of getting on his knees, and talking about "leavin' things" -- and Pen's reaction, like that's the last thing he would have expected ... gods, it's intense! They both fully realize it now. If Pen had walked away, I think Indy would go pay off his landlady and be on the next bus to somewhere he'd never been before -- and Pen would be left with the anguish of losing him and the guilt of having sent him away -- and possibly unwanted attention from Alan. To me, the bottom-center panel says that Pen realizes that Indy deserves at least to be heard ... also that Pen himself won't feel right leaving things like this. Damn, but this makes it hard (harder than usual) to wait for the next page. And I want a hardcopy of this comic SO bad!

Beans

Pen was forcing that “friendship” out like an ostrich lays an egg lol. Do you ever plan to make a physical release of this series when you finish it? Would love to have it on my yaoi shelf at home :3

Alex

Thank you, Metal! As an atheistic queer person, my view on religion is that everyone should have the right to believe in whatever they want, as long as they're not going around harming others. That's where I draw the line. Even tho I can't personally relate in any way, you seem to be genuinly well-meaning, so I appreciate it!

Jian Akame

Ugh. Need. More. 😭

G255D

You have me thinking about something - not that it is similar in scale by any means but consider the fictional Tony Soprano of the Sopranos show (I know old reference). If you have not seen it he is a violent murderous mob boss in New Jersey. The show is primarily situated around his immediate family dynamic and the dynamic of his crew that commits all manner of crime. As I watched the show (and I am not alone in this) I found myself actually rooting for Tony, hoping that all of his mostly self inflicted issues would resolve and he would reach a place where he and his family would be at peace - all the while he is doing all these terrible things. The reason I think of it is because in looking back on it I had an internal interest in a particular outcome, so much so that even in his most violent and gruesome moments felt reasonable and justified on his path to peace. I guess my point is that when reading a story you form something of a desire for a particular outcome - so much so that the behavior of the characters in the story seems reasonable to get to that outcome. Reading the comments here for example regardless of how people feel about Alan they all seem to want Pen and Indy to connect in a deep and meaningful way and I myself feel the same especially about Pen. To your points on justifying/perpetuating violence or to someone's potential violent nature I do think the behavior is at its root human nature - we are a violent species in general so it makes sense we would form frameworks that would justify that behavior as part of the desired outcome of our stories.

Lennon

Guys, please stop using my thread for personal messages to each other. While I appreciate the colloquy, these messages are being posted as replies to me so I receive a notification every time.

G255D

You also have me thinking about why I would condemn Alan - desired outcome to story aside - based on my values. I think at my core I would say that when someone hurts another person there is a part of me that immediately goes to 'what did the person do that would cause someone else to get so angry that that was the only recourse'. This would be the measure I hold myself to as well - like if someone struck me (outside of any initial reaction on my part) I would wonder how I could have so catastrophically misjudged that person's nature that it came to blows. I would not see myself as a victim of an assault but reevaluate what I had missed in the interactions that brought about that outcome, if only in the context of never allowing those misses to occur again. I have been in fights on both sides of this equation so I am probably not the best person to have an unbiased take on things. Just in re-reading what I have written it does appear that I hold the receiving end of violence to a higher standard than the dealing end of it - but I only do that because I put myself in their place and that is what I would do in that scenario.

silver_mp5

The wait is agonizing🤕 but worth it

Lia

True

Lennon

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and honesty of this response, particularly your willingness to recognize that your reasoning may place a heavier burden of responsibility on the person who was struck than on the person who chose to strike them. I have never actually watched The Sopranos, so I cannot comment directly on Tony Soprano. Had you used The Godfather as the example, I would probably know far too much about it. ;) Nevertheless, I understand the phenomenon you are describing. When a story places us inside one character’s life, we become invested in that character reaching the outcome we want. We understand his motives, know his family, witness his private struggles, and gradually begin interpreting even terrible actions according to whether they advance or threaten that desired outcome. That is highly relevant here. Readers have spent much more time with Indy and Pen, and nearly everyone wants their relationship to succeed. Alan entered the story as an obstacle to that desired outcome, so his actions are judged according to whether they threaten the couple readers already support. Indy’s violence is therefore given context, sympathy, and imagined justification, while Alan’s expressions, motives, and possible offenses are interpreted in the harshest possible way. The preferred ending begins shaping the moral interpretation of everything leading toward it. That may be a very human response, but being human does not make it right. Violence is certainly part of human nature, but so are empathy, restraint, reflection, and the ability to reject our first emotional judgment. I do not like violence and I especially dislike seeing it transformed into deserved punishment simply because the individual harmed is unpopular or stands between readers and the outcome they want. I also appreciate your honesty about immediately wondering what the person who was struck did to make someone so angry. However, this is where our values fundamentally differ. Unless someone is responding to an immediate and serious physical threat of grave bodily harm, violence is not the “only recourse.” It may feel like the only recourse to the angry person in that moment, but that feeling does not make it objectively true. They can leave, end the conversation, end the relationship, seek help, or create distance. Physical violence also carries serious consequences beyond the immediate moment. A single punch can cause a brain injury, permanent disability, or a fatal fall, particularly when there is a major difference in size and strength. It can also expose the person who struck the blow to arrest, criminal prosecution, decades in prison, civil liability, protective orders, employment consequences, and the destruction of relationships and reputations. A few seconds of anger can permanently alter both lives. That is precisely why responsibility cannot simply be transferred to whoever said or did something upsetting beforehand. Resorting to violence because someone says or does something hurtful is never okay, period! There is also an important difference between asking, “What warning signs did I miss, and how can I protect myself in the future?” and asking, “What did I do to make this person hit me?” The first is a reasonable attempt to learn from a frightening experience. The second begins transferring responsibility for another person’s violence onto the person who received it. In my own work with patients, as well as in clinical studies of trauma and interpersonal violence, I have seen how easily self blame can become a way of trying to regain a sense of control. Believing “I caused this” can create the comforting illusion that the person can guarantee it will never happen again by behaving differently. But that feeling of control does not make the conclusion true. Understanding missed warning signs may improve future safety, but it does not make someone responsible for another person’s decision to become violent. Someone can catastrophically misjudge another person’s nature without causing that person’s violence. Trusting the wrong person is not an offense deserving punishment. Failing to predict that someone will become violent does not make the resulting assault partly the victim’s responsibility. Your experiences in fights understandably influence how you interpret these situations, just as your investment in Pen and Indy influences how you read the story. But Alan cannot fairly be judged by the standard you personally believe you would apply to yourself. We do not know what warning signs he saw, what he overlooked, what he believed about Indy, or what he has reconsidered since being struck. We do not even know the full circumstances surrounding the argument yet. At this point, your interpretation is no longer being tested against the story. It is being protected from the story. That may be psychologically understandable, but it is not fair, morally defensible or supported by evidence. It is confirmation bias and victim blaming being used to excuse violence because the victim is unpopular and his suffering complicates the ending others want. I sincerely appreciate the respectful tone of this exchange and your willingness to examine your own bias so openly. At this point, however, I believe I have answered every issue raised and explained my position from every direction available. We may continue to disagree, and that is perfectly fine, but I have said everything I can reasonably say on the subject, so I am going to leave the discussion here.

Emersky studios

We all got bad vibes from the guy, maybe it's a tiny bit more nuanced? I'm sure we're about to find out.

Zane_Keratario

In theory, Alan most likely something to provoke Indy to that point. Indy regrets it so much and wants to forget being it’s not him. Alan keeps brings it up to people who are getting close with Indy. So they see Indy as a threat and a vicious carnivore especially if they are herbivore. Alan keeps holding it over Indy’s head as a way to keep him from leaving him. Alan is the toxic one playing victim.

Velkiel

Expressions and dialogues and emotions are SPOT ON, as well as the frames and how the page is designed/constructed. Hope you're proud of your work Falco, because it's very impressive. It reads easily, which can only means there's a serious amount of thoughts and work put into this. You're a real inspiration source, thank you so much !

Lennon

It’s remarkable how little evidence some people require before blaming a victim and how much evidence they demand before holding the person who admitted hitting him responsible. Alan is accused of “provocation”, blackmail, manipulation, being “toxic” and “playing victim” without a single one of those claims being established. Meanwhile, Indy’s own confession is immediately surrounded with invented excuses. Apparently, Alan’s imagined offenses are enough to condemn him, while Indy’s admitted violence is still not enough to hold him accountable.

Lennon

I never have, read my posts from the past pages. So no, not everyone. And yes, I agree.

Lennon

This is beautifully expressed and one of the most thoughtful responses I’ve read here. You capture something deeper than guilt or regret: the unbearable permanence of knowing that no amount of remorse can make an action cease to have happened. Indy may atone, change and become a better person, but he can never return either himself or Alan to the lives they had before that moment. “I hit him” will always remain true. That does not make redemption meaningless, but it explains why remorse can carry such enormous weight. Atonement can shape everything that comes afterward, yet it cannot rewrite what came before. Your description of that irrevocability is painfully human and exceptionally well put. Thank you for saying this. :)

Random old smuck

Violence is never acceptable unless it is absolutely necessary in self defence and no other option remains! Even then, only the force required to stop the immediate threat is justified. Anything beyond that is retaliation, not self defence, and is never justified!

Random old smuck

Last time I checked I was someone, so no, that’s not at all true.

Zemmywemmy

As someone that genuinely despises violence in any way, you’re taking my comment too seriously friend 😭

Star Ringer

That's so kind of you to say!! It's something I've thought about before that I'd like to have an opportunity to express more artistically, but I'm glad it's resonating here.

eli cat

my heart, i need more, i dont think ive ever been this invested in a comic before

Random old smuck

If you genuinely despise violence then saying that a victim deserved it is not something I can simply dismiss, whether that victim is fictional or not. I responded to what you actually wrote because comments like that help normalize violence, even when they are not intended to be taken seriously.

Zemmywemmy

This person is not a real person though it’s just a joke bruh 😭😭 even someone that doesn’t like violence sees this as a non problem everything will be fine 💔

Thruster_Check

I think that's largely done to break up monotony, and it helps to define each panel.

Nightsky

If you look for an inspiration how to manage that, I suggest Death Note books 6 and 7. At least translators managed that pretty well.

sunkawakan

Pen needs to come out and say 'the reason I want to know is that I like you'.

MetalExveemon

Dr. Cosmo, please calm down. You are getting excited over nothing, and you are making a lot of unnecessarily aggressive assumptions. Besides, so far we have only Alan's take on the situation. Now it's time for Indy's side, so let's just be patient and see what's in store.

Xan_Khajiit

Sit your cute butt DOWN Pen! It's story time!

Thruster_Check

Zemmy, you ought to have realized by now that a LOT of the people following this comic take it VERY seriously.

Thruster_Check

First of all, I have to say that I have never seen the kind of reader reaction this comic has brought out, in depth of thought as well as sheer volume, so, hats off to you on that, Falco. We're all getting unexpectedly enriched. Now ... I'd like to hear from Dr. Cosmo, but anyone else is welcome to respond as well to the following. *** When Alan was talking to Pen, he pretty much condensed his relationship with Indy into four words: "... he drinks, and we fight ..." The comic up until this point has given me no reason to think of Indy as an alcoholic of any kind, let alone a "mean drunk," such as that yellow-eyed wolf at Trotters. Despite the pint of stout and whatever he'd had before it, Indy was sharp and in control enough to catch Pen falling three times on their way home. Also, that time Pen texted Indy while he was home knitting that scarf, there was a little glass of something on the table, same as when he took Pen home with him. Unfinished drinks with nobody in a hurry to finish them. So, how do we get "he drinks, and we fight" from such a lack of objective evidence about the supposed cause of the fighting? And by the way, I do not at all like the wording, which implies a causal relationship between the drinking and fighting (there often is, but it shouldn't be automatically assumed--or implied). We won't be able to answer this question without more information, though. Oh, also -- Ch 4 pg 29 ... Indy fumbling a chord and blaming it on being a little drunk ... I've played guitar drunk, stoned, and in combinations, and that don't happen. By the time you learn those chord forms well enough to accompany yourself singing, they're part of your brain pattern with their own hard-wired circuits. They're muscle memory, and if you drink enough to overcome that, I'd recommend you lie down before you fall. Indy was nowhere close to being that drunk. *** Ch 5 pg 10 ... I mentioned this earlier, but nobody responded. A couple pages earlier, Alan approached Pen and declared himself to be Indy's boyfriend--in other words, Pen's romantic rival, in competition for Indy's affection. Threats, or demands to leave, I could understand; I'd even expect. So what the *hell* is he doing on pg 10, 3rd frame, offering unlimited (or at least undefined) *help* to his *competition?* Hands over his phone number, says "If you ... need help for *any reason,* ... call ..." And looking mighty pleased with himself as he turns to walk away. *That,* to *me* is just damned suspicious behavior. Dr. Cosmo, I'll admit upfront that we need more information, but in the meantime we also need to be able to function in the dark, as it were. I'd appreciate your take on this.

Maui

(pls excuse me lurking I just like reading folk's theories) but ur the first guitar player to mention abt the chords being muscle memory even if ur impaired, and I just got a kick outta that bc when I wrote him saying 'sorry, little drunk' it was 100% in the context of him getting stage fright, flubbing the start of the song bc he's nervous, then blaming it on drinking hoping pen won't call his bluff rofl

Thruster_Check

Ah, I hadn't thought of that! Thanks!

Lennon

I will happily respond to anyone as long as the discussion remains relevant and focused on the story, its characters, and the evidence presented on the page and I am not simply being asked to repeat points I have already addressed multiple times. However, I will not tolerate personal attacks, speculation about me or attempts to dismiss my arguments by attacking my intelligence, motives, qualifications or me as a person. Engage with my reasoning respectfully, fairly, intellectually and in good faith, supporting any disagreement with evidence rather than emotional outrage and I will extend the same professional courtesy in return. My conclusions are provisional because the story is still unfolding, but they are not arbitrary or driven solely by personal emotion. I do not begin with the conclusion I want and force every detail to support it. I examine dialogue, facial expressions, posture, gestures, sequencing, established facts, and what each character knows at that particular moment. I consider several psychological explanations simultaneously, including jealousy, fear, shame, sincere concern, emotional masking, and unresolved attachment. I then determine which explanation accounts for the greatest number of observed details while requiring the fewest unsupported assumptions. Regarding “he drinks, and we fight,” the comic has not established Indy as an alcoholic or a “mean drunk.” Alan did not call him either of those things. Those are interpretations being added to Alan’s words and then attributed back to him. Nor did Alan explicitly say, “We fight because he drinks.” He connected two statements with the word “and.” That does not establish causation. He could be listing two separate problems, expressing concern about how often Indy drinks, suggesting that drinking sometimes worsened existing conflict or simply associating both things with an unhappy period in their relationship. The available evidence does not yet allow us to choose conclusively among those possibilities. The scenes you mention establish that Indy can drink without becoming violent, incapacitated, or dangerously impaired. They do not establish his complete drinking pattern within a private relationship Pen never witnessed. An unfinished drink proves only that Indy did not finish that particular drink and nothing more. The guitar example you brought up demonstrates exactly the problem I have been describing. You confidently argued that Indy could not have missed the chord because of alcohol, relying on your own experience with muscle memory and used that interpretation to support a broader point about his drinking. Maui then supplied the scene’s actual intended context: Indy missed the chord because he was nervous and experiencing stage fright, then blamed it on being “a little drunk” to conceal his anxiety from Pen. You immediately shifted your position and replied, “Ah, I hadn’t thought of that!” To your credit, you accepted the clarification but that quick reversal also shows that the original claim was never objective proof in the first place. It was one interpretation treated with far more certainty than the evidence justified, while another psychological explanation had not even been considered. The unfinished drinks are being used in much the same way. They prove only that Indy left those particular drinks unfinished. They reveal nothing conclusive about his wider drinking habits or what occurred during a private relationship Pen never witnessed. Combining a few unfinished glasses with a personal anecdote about playing guitar does not disprove Alan’s account, particularly when Alan never called Indy an alcoholic or explicitly said that drinking caused their fights. Those conclusions were added to Alan’s words and then supposedly refuted using evidence that did not establish them in the first place. That is precisely the kind of interpretive gymnastics I have been challenging: constructing a claim Alan never made, assembling unrelated details to defeat it and then presenting the result as evidence against Alan. The phone number appears suspicious only if Alan’s behavior is filtered through the prior assumption that everything he does must be an attempt to eliminate Pen as romantic competition. The story has not established that premise. Beginning with “Alan is manipulating Pen” and then interpreting every action as manipulation creates circular reasoning. The suspicion produces the interpretation, and the interpretation is then presented as proof of the original suspicion. Alan may still love Indy, fear being replaced, and feel jealous of Pen, but none of those emotions prevents him from recognizing Pen’s vulnerability or sincerely wanting him to have someone to contact if he needs help. A person can be hurt by a romantic rival and still not want that rival to suffer. Mixed emotions do not make compassion fraudulent, and jealousy alone is not evidence of manipulation. Indy’s later confession substantially strengthens that interpretation. Indy has now admitted that he hit Alan. That does not prove that every word Alan spoke was perfectly objective but it certainly gives Alan’s concern a concrete factual foundation. Alan knows from personal experience that Indy can lose control and become physically violent. He may recognize in Pen another much smaller person becoming involved with a far larger and stronger individual whose temper Alan knows firsthand. Offering Pen his number can therefore be understood exactly as Alan presented it: giving Pen someone to contact if he ever becomes frightened or needs help. The nature of the offer matters. Alan does not threaten Pen, order him to leave Indy, dictate what he should believe, or demand anything in return. He gives Pen an option and then walks away, leaving the decision entirely in Pen’s hands. Offering someone a voluntary means of contacting you is not, by itself, an act of control. Anyone alleging manipulation must establish it through evidence rather than treating the allegation as self proving. Nor is Alan’s expression unambiguous proof that he is pleased with himself. A smile does not always indicate satisfaction, particularly during an emotionally painful conversation. It can be a social mask, a release of tension, or an attempt to leave with some dignity intact. Given what we now know Alan was discussing, it is entirely plausible that he was holding himself together until he could get away rather than privately celebrating the success of a scheme. My previous statements demonstrate that I have considered competing explanations and revised my conclusions when the evidence changed. Before Indy confessed, I openly acknowledged that Alan’s warning could arise from jealousy, manipulation, sincere fear, or some combination of those motives. I never claimed that Alan was flawless, completely objective, or incapable of doing something wrong or hurtful. Then Indy asked to meet Pen in public, stumbled through the telephone conversation, arrived visibly nervous, questioned whether Alan had acted “normal” or said anything “weird,” and visibly relaxed when Pen said they had only talked. I concluded that Indy appeared afraid Alan might reveal something specific about their history. That was not an emotional guess. It was an inference drawn from a consistent sequence of observable behavior. When Indy finally admitted that he had hit Alan, that inference was confirmed. Alan’s central allegation moved from an unverified claim to an established fact. I did not respond by declaring Alan perfect or Indy irredeemably evil. I adjusted the relative weight given to the possible explanations, exactly as responsible analysis requires. The new information also changed how I interpreted Alan’s strained cheerfulness. Initially, it allowed several possible readings, including concealed intention. Once the assault and Indy’s guilt became clearer, emotional restraint explained the complete pattern more convincingly. Alan may have been trying to tell Pen what he believed Pen needed to know and then leave before he broke down crying in front of a stranger. That is not personal emotion replacing analysis. It is a conclusion changing because new evidence changed which psychological explanation best accounted for everything we had seen. I have considered multiple possibilities, rejected claims that lacked support, and altered my position when new facts required it. The fact that my central reading of Indy’s behavior and Alan’s allegation was later confirmed demonstrates that this method has produced accurate conclusions. And yes, we may be functioning in the dark with incomplete information but incomplete information requires intellectual restraint, not finger pointing. It means holding several possibilities open and adjusting them as evidence appears. It does not however grant permission to fill every unknown space with the worst imaginable motive and then treat that invention as fact. My present reading is that Alan is emotionally entangled and imperfect, but also substantially more sincere than readers here assume. One fact is not open to interpretation: Indy admitted that he hit Alan. Alan was the victim of a serious violent attack, he was the smaller and physically weaker individual and someone he trusted chose to use his far greater strength to hurt him. Whatever else Alan may have said or done he was entitled to feel safe with the someone he trusted. Nothing revealed later can erase that act or make “Indy hit Alan” cease to be true! “What if Alan provoked him?” “What if he said something cruel?” “What if he was annoying, jealous, argumentative, “toxic” or difficult?” None of those questions provides a justification. Words are not an immediate physical threat. Anger, frustration, humiliation, or emotional distress does not entitle someone to strike a smaller and weaker partner because he failed to control his own emotions. Physical force is justified only when it is unavoidable as a last resort against an immediate threat, and even then it must remain proportionate. Anything beyond that is retaliation, not self defense. “He provoked me,” “he pushed me too far,” and “he made me lose control” are the same rationalizations perpetrators use in real life to shift responsibility for their violence onto the person they hurt. They recast the perpetrator’s failure to control himself as the victim’s fault. Context may explain how an argument escalated, but it cannot transfer responsibility for choosing violence. Alan did not make Indy hit him. Indy chose to hit Alan and that responsibility belongs to Indy alone. Victimhood is not a moral award reserved for perfect people. Alan does not have to be flawless, agreeable or blameless in every disagreement to deserve sympathy for what was done to him. Domestic violence does not become excusable merely because the victim is disliked while the perpetrator is liked. This is a line I will not cross. I will not minimize it, rationalize it, or excuse it. Period!

OR-69

When did violence become acceptable to me? Self defense is one example. Stopping someone from hurting a person I care about is another. You are making up facts to prove your point, but you aren’t the author here. For all we know, Alan is just making up facts too. We haven’t seen Indy do anything inappropriate yet and we haven’t heard his side of the story. Alan accused him of being violent. But nothing in his story jives with what we have seen from Indy directly.

Tom Noyb

I'm going to disagree in the following context. Words, can cause physical injury. At some point a line is crossed. You can go so far as to stunt a child's growth, even hasten another's death. There are times when words are used as a proxy for physical assault. There was one incident when a gamer struck his girlfriend during a live stream. Everyone was outraged. But then the full video came out, how she had been harassing him for almost 20 minutes, even throwing things at him because she wanted to talk. He said over and over leave me alone, I don't want to talk right now. At some point a person has to have the right to use physical force to be left alone, to stop another's unrelenting verbal attack. "Sticks and stones may break my bones. But they'll heal. Words can hurt forever."

Alex

You still going off about this, Kaufman? Just accept this is the internet and people can say whatever they want. Your "it's not up for discussion", "I will not argue", "I will not tolerate" means nothing, because we have freedom of speech. And saying that, you sound A LOT like my narcissistic parent used to.

Maui

this arc is diving into a v heavy topic that a lot of us have v personal experience with, but let's try to remember nobody here is the enemy. Let's remain respectful and not let ourselves get reactive to each other. I'd be real uneasy to learn a psychologst has any other opinion than that hitting your partner in an argument is wrong/that nonviolent actions don't justify abuse, bc that's a very common excuse for brutalizing ur partner. I'm sure Dr. Kaufman hears abt how someone provoked an attack regularly and that's a very real, raw subject that trips a lot of alarm bells. Especially in situations where the abuser is well liked and socially powerful and the victim isn't On the other side, having been a victim of nonviolent abuse from people with and without npd/bordeline, a lot of narcs especially v intentionally structure the abuse in a way that's easily dismissed and makes the victim look like the instigator for having an emotional reaction, (darvo and all that) and the position of power that creates socially does make it super scary and destructive for a person to disengage, so you end up forced to just play dead and take abuse until the person is done. Escalating from verbal to physical is still only gonna make the situation worse, but being cornered for hours at a time and forced to take abuse does something to a person. I think it's the need to take back at least a little of our own power, but that makes a lot of us wish we had it in us to just hit them, if only so we regained some control. That wouldn't actually fix anything, ofc, and it's not a helpful impulse but things like being told you should just disengage/leave/be the bigger person can definitely hit a really raw spot that's heard those things before or blames ourselves for 'letting it happen'. I'm sure that's were a lot of emotion is coming from on Alex's end, which I deeply sympathize with. I'm really humbled that this has caused this much thoughtful discussion, but let's please remember that we're all on the side of people who were victimized. Our emotional reactivity is out of wanting to protect victims and carrying the weight of the affects of abuse on our shoulders in one form or another, trying to put things right someone else tore down. It's a real fraught and emotional subject and it's easy to get defensive and have our trauma triggered, so I just ask we take a second to remember that we're on the same side and be kind to each other.

Alex

A lot of people online take things way too seriously in general 🤦🏻

Random old smuck

Thank you for taking the time to write this Maui. I understand what you are saying and I receive it with the deepest respect. You have shown me nothing but kindness in every interaction which is why I am especially sorry that the discussion became disruptive and placed you in the position of having to intervene. That was never my intention and I regret any part my participation may have played in creating tension around your work. I certainly do not regard anyone here as an enemy nor do I wish to treat sincere disagreements as hostility either. My response came from how seriously and personally I take this subject. Years ago, while working in a hospital, I encountered a psychologist whose boyfriend had struck him leaving his face badly injured and his jaw wired shut. That memory has never left me. Combined with other experiences involving explanations that someone had provoked an attack, it means that arguments appearing to connect nonviolent behaviour with justification for physical violence immediately raise serious concerns for me. My intention was to defend the principle that nonviolent conduct does not justify partner violence. It was never my intention to diminish psychological abuse, disregard the experiences of those who have endured it or deny the profound sense of powerlessness that can arise when someone feels unable to escape or disengage. I also recognize that others are speaking from painful personal experience and from a sincere desire to protect victims. That concern is very close to my own heart, as I also care deeply about protecting victims of violence and ensuring that what they have endured is neither minimized nor excused. Those experiences deserve consideration and compassion, even when they lead readers to respond differently to the characters and situations you have written. Complex discussions benefit from maintaining a distinction between understanding the emotional impulse behind an action and endorsing the action itself and I appreciate that your response made room for both the emotional complexity of the situation and the principle that violence should not be condoned. I greatly appreciate you bringing such a difficult and consequential subject into the comic. It has opened a meaningful discussion about physical violence, psychological abuse, trauma, power, accountability, and the complicated ways people respond when they have been hurt. I have the deepest respect for you and Falco for the extraordinary care both of you have placed into the writing and artwork. My responses came from taking the subject, the characters and the work you have created together seriously, never from intolerance or a desire to cause conflict or disruption here. If you would prefer that I stop posting or step away from the discussion I will respect that completely and without argument. I would understand your reasons, particularly your responsibility to protect the atmosphere surrounding your work and the people participating in the conversation. Above all, I want to extend courtesy to both you and Falco and respect whatever you believe is best for your community.

Maui

No harm done! All I ask is we take a breather if things start to get to where we're making personal attacks or feeling genuinely angry. I'm rly humbled folks care so much about our dumb little characters and I understand 100% why this sorta thing evokes emotion in folks. I don't begrudge anybody an emotional reaction and I appreciate that y'all have been willing to share your experiences and impressions, it really helps me decide if I'm writing things the way I mean to! We definitely don't mind heated discussion and I don't mind moderating at all, I've appreciated seeing your professional take and hearing the impressions of folks who've unfortunately experienced abuse. I only stepped in bc it's a real emotional subject and it felt like a good time to remind everyone we're all on the same side and speaking from a place of being deepy affected by abuse and wanting to empower people who experience it. Also as an aside I'm so sorry you had to deal with that, that sounds awful and like the kind of thing that'd stick with a person for a long time. I'm sure a lot of comments, even if they were meant jokingly or casually, sound enough like things you hear regularly to be unsettling and I understand the emotional investment

Foxtrot

Just began supporting ya Falco! Couldn't wait any longer for new public pages so I guess I wanna become one of you guys lmao.

Foxtrot

also, the waiting times before seeing a important lore dump is so dang hard lol ; ;

Equinox

Every time I see these two I think of the song “paralyzer by finger eleven” is that just me?

bob

This comic helps me see what healthy communication looks like. ;-;

Amadeus

I’ve been where Indy’s been. I did something I wasn’t proud of with someone I really loved. It wasn’t physical violence, but pursuing a relationship with someone who wasn’t sure about where they were at. In hindsight, I should’ve backed off, but at the time I thought he felt what I did. He got pissed at me one day because I asked him when he was getting his car fixed. Next thing you know I got charged with a sex crime. I spent a year and a half in constant fear, ultimately taking a plea deal since I couldn’t prove that I didn’t do anything adverse. Now whenever I want to meet someone, I have this fear of misreading where they’re at, let alone letting them know what happened. It’s such a stigmatized thing, that I’m afraid of letting them know, even though I know I would have to at some point. Point is, Indy is probably terrified right now, because he knows that after he tells Pen what happened in his past, Pen could just up an leave. For better or worse it needs to happen, but damn, never thought I’d see a scenario like mine in a webcomic.

Peyote

Really love Indy's expressions here especially. You can really feel a bit of desperation in it.

Astra_Fangs

I love that Indy didnt need to grip Pen so he doesnt flee, they do trust each other! And that wouldnt be Indy's style anyway :3