Page 1 of 2

Take off your clothes (July 24th)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 am
by bloodeye
Still vaugely hoping. I mean, it probally does pay well.... :roll:

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:21 am
by the Siliconopolitan
Completely off topic:

I just noticed that the strip is signed upside down. Has this happened before?

It reminds of one of our most provocative modern artists (now departed) who signed at least one abstract painting in all four corners. Presumably Gav's motive was something else.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:14 pm
by HiFranc
Maybe he was simply the wrong side of the table when he remembered to sign it?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:42 pm
by Gav
the Siliconopolitan wrote:I just noticed that the strip is signed upside down. Has this happened before?


Heh. There's no conspiracy, I sign upside down all the time.

It's an artistic descision. It's all about filling in "white space."

When I started Nukees, I more often signed right-side up. However, as my backgrounds got more and more complicated, the bottoms of strips got filled in by art, while the tops (where there is more often a featureless ceiling or an empty sky) usually had more white space. However, that's usually covered up by word balloons.

Thus, the white space that needs filling in is most often on the side, especially in a backgroundless panel. So most of my recent signings are sideways.

However, you'll often find me signing upside down when, as in today's strip, there is a panel with no text, because that usually leaves a lot of white space on top.

Re: Take off your clothes (July 24th)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:48 pm
by HiFranc
bloodeye wrote:Still vaugely hoping. I mean, it probally does pay well.... :roll:


Well she did say that she saw the boss then put her clothes back on...

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:27 am
by bloodeye
Mmm, but also possible she's just toying with Gav's mind.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:28 pm
by HiFranc
bloodeye wrote:Mmm, but also possible she's just toying with Gav's mind.


But that would mean she's approaching Gav's level of evilness. ;-)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:22 am
by Silver Adept
This is Cindy Lee, not Suzy Gee, right? So it's entirely possible she's got Gav's evilness already and hasn't really done much to show it off.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:45 am
by bloodeye
Plus, she's female. Those are inherantly evil.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:11 am
by Gav
Silver Adept wrote:This is Cindy Lee, not Suzy Gee, right? So it's entirely possible she's got Gav's evilness already and hasn't really done much to show it off.


You guys make me want to make a "Nukees Evil scale."

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:32 pm
by Sluggite RCG
Gav wrote:
Silver Adept wrote:This is Cindy Lee, not Suzy Gee, right? So it's entirely possible she's got Gav's evilness already and hasn't really done much to show it off.


You guys make me want to make a "Nukees Evil scale."



That'll be great! You should do it. :evilgrin:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:07 pm
by Wafath
I think that evil is a vector, not a scalar.

Certainly the evilness of Gav is mostly orthogonal to the Evilness of Ceilia, and both are mostly orthogonal to the Evilness of Cindy Lee Gee, and all of them are mostly orthogonal to Mr Casanovacain.

It is also difficult to compare them by simple magnitude. How many acts of attempted world domination does it take to equal 1000 theft & hoarding of office supplies?

W

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:32 pm
by Crystalis
Wafath wrote:It is also difficult to compare them by simple magnitude. How many acts of attempted world domination does it take to equal 1000 theft & hoarding of office supplies?


Three! *crunch*

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:08 am
by bloodeye
Agreed, there are many kinds of evil. Some evils are kinda cool, others are just.... well..... evil.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:11 am
by Silver Adept
Having an "Evil of the Nukees" vector graph would be rather amusing. I'm sure we could figure out appropriate quadrant names. Or if it's in three-dimensions, proper axes names.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:01 am
by sun tzu
bloodeye wrote:Agreed, there are many kinds of evil. Some evils are kinda cool, others are just.... well..... evil.


Yeah. Gav has supervillainy class and stuff, but it comes to quick-and-dirty evil, Casanovocaine has him beat by miles.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:28 pm
by Gav
Great, you guys have taken my theoretical "Axis of Evil" and turned it into a "Tesseract of Evil." :roll:


If I had to at least put them in order, sticking with only the main characters for now, offhand I'd say it goes:

1. Gav
2. Teri
3. Dr. Goldfinger
4. Cecilia
5. Cindy Lee
6. Suzy Gee
7. Jeannie
8. King Luca
9. Linus
A. Danny

Actually, I'm not sure if I would put Casanovacaine above or below Gav. Certainly in that one altercation, he seemed more evil, because Gav appeared to take the high road for once. But if each were given a satellite-mounted death ray, how would they rank?

But you guys are right... It's hard to look at it like this on a single axis. There's "self-serving" evil and there's "playful" evil and I'm sure a bunch more. There's also the "Chaos/Order" scale (though Seth would argue if even it was one-dimensional).

Can we boil it down to four types?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:59 pm
by kiga
Like a Meyers-Briggs test?

How's this:

E = prefers whatever is most entertaining
G = prefers whatever achieves the current goal

M = focuses on achieving the misery of others
H = focuses on achieving happiness of others

R = see your happiness as achieved relative to the happiness of others (you feel happier if others are more miserable)
T = Others' happiness contributes positively to your own

S = focused on mainly what is happening to yourself
O = focused on others more than yourself

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:51 pm
by Sluggite RCG
E&G sound like Gav. :evilgrin:
M fits Scott Adams definition of an @$$h013. :evil:

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:52 pm
by HiFranc
E&G are not necessarily evil. However, either end of the scale can describe both good and evil.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:18 am
by sun tzu
Hm. Perhaps we need two factors:
-Selfishness level (Se): To what extent the individual is willing to hurt others to further his own goal.
-Sadism level (Sa): To what extent hurting others is the individual's goal.
One might argue that Casanovocaine has a higher Se than Gav - he was willing to resort to rape, which was beneath Gaviscon Aviscena V. Vandarin, however, has a higher Sa - Casanovocaine resorted to rape because he wanted to fulfill his sexual needs, while Gav messes with people's minds even when there is no profit involved - he considers it fun.
And then, of course, there's skill. Casanovocaine can only hurt so many people; Gav could, conceivably, make life hellish for very large crowds. His takeover of Nukeeland, his courtroom war...These illustrate that he can be a serious powerplayer when the occasion presents itself.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:58 am
by John Campbell
I think the missing axis is Madness.

Gav is high on both Evil and Madness scales.

Danny and King Luca are high on the Madness scale, but low on the Evil scale.

Suzy Gee is moderate on both Evil and Madness scales (with both values trending upwards over time).

Cindy Lee is moderate on the Evil scale and fairly low on the Madness scale.

Casanovacaine is high on the Evil scale, but low on the Madness scale.

Teri would seem to be high on both Evil and Madness, but I actually think that, as a being controlled by strict logical imperatives, she has (as another Terry says) actually gone so far into Sanity that she came out the other side. (I think this implies that we're graphing this on a torus.)

Cecilia's fairly high on the Evil scale, and very high on the Madness scale.

Possibly we need a third axis, Science (for the Evil Mad Science trifecta), to distinguish between people like Cecilia (high Evil, high Madness, low Science) and Gav (high Evil, high Madness, high Science).


(Only here would a thread about cute girls undressing polymorph into a thread about graphing evilness.)

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:33 am
by Gav
Hey, I like that.

Actually, this is starting to fall a bit into the Myers-Briggs patterns. Or, actually, even more like the OkCupid Test personalities:

Deliberate/Random = Order/Chaos
Gentle/Brutal = Good/Evil
Master/Dreamer = Sanity/Madness
Sex/Love = Selfishness/Sadism

This last one might seem controversial, but I think it works as a single axis. sun tzu suggested two different axes, but I think one could make an arguement for a single scale. You're either evil to advance your own causes, or you're evil simply to hurt others--or for the sheer "fun" of it (ie: sadism). What do you guys think? Gav might actually be in the middle of that scale, with Casanovacaine on the "Selfish" side and Cecilia on the "Sadism" side.

I might turn this into an OkCupid test when I'm done, and you can test yourself and find out what Nukees character you are more like. In terms of evilness, that is.

The "Science/Non-Science" might help catagorize Nukees characters, but I don't think it specifically relates to evil axes, other than in terms of style.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:40 pm
by Sidhekin
Gav wrote:Deliberate/Random = Order/Chaos
Gentle/Brutal = Good/Evil
Master/Dreamer = Sanity/Madness
Sex/Love = Selfishness/Sadism

I don't think the 2nd and the 4th are quite independent parameters. 8)

May I suggest Introversion/Extroversion as the 4th? Then Introversion + Evil => selfishness while Extroversion + Evil => sadism.

(I guess that means Extroversion + Good => generosity while Introversion + Good => rigteousness?)

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:29 pm
by Gav
Sidhekin wrote:
Gav wrote:Deliberate/Random = Order/Chaos
Gentle/Brutal = Good/Evil
Master/Dreamer = Sanity/Madness
Sex/Love = Selfishness/Sadism

I don't think the 2nd and the 4th are quite independent parameters. 8)

May I suggest Introversion/Extroversion as the 4th? Then Introversion + Evil => selfishness while Extroversion + Evil => sadism.

(I guess that means Extroversion + Good => generosity while Introversion + Good => rigteousness?)


Ah, but see, I'm not trying to re-develop a Myers-Briggs test. It's not supposed to be a "personality type" matrix at all. I'm trying to catagorize the different forms of evilness, not the different types of personalities.

Extroversion and Introversion are not forms of evilness.