Out of all of this
that beak is fanTAStic
oman

agreed. All of its fantastic too b ut ..that beak :O

he's smiling at us o.O

I rather the 3rd panel

oohhhhh looks like this are getting heated now! haha! you got me on the edge of my seat with guessing what's coming next!

Love it
Long to see more :D

Oh man, with emotions running this high already, I fear this whole thing is a ticking time bomb that's going to explode into a rather ugly affair.

O endeared swami, tell me more of the mysterious future.

Ha ha, very funny. I just wasn't expecting tempers to flare quite that quickly, which is a very bad sign. I'm still wondering what kind of ugly this will turn into, and just how far is escalates. That this won't end peacibly is fairly certain given the narrative, but the how is what makes it interesting to read, and the specifics of that, I cannot guess (I'm just hoping it doesn't reach the point of police involvement, though that remains a possibility).

the biggest problem is that even though marcus and his bros have already addressed to each other the importance of remaining nonphysical, they're also already involved in the yelling- it looks MUCH better for your side when you're being super calm and the other guy is doing all the yelling.

(basically i am like 100% certain that marcus will end up in jail for a few hours.)

aggghhh so tense!! this is such a great story so far surrounding topics that are normally ignored. I looove it

Shit is about to hit the fan

IT'S DEBATE TIME Y'ALL

What the fuck huge icon O..o

OK sounds good.
NOTE: If anyone wishes to respond to what I have to say please be sure to have read the entirety of my comment first. Also I realize this is an emotional issue but that doesn't mean it cannot be discussed in a calm, reasonable manner.

One thing I noticed about the page is that they appear to be standing on the road, which, unless it's privately owned, would make it public property. Anyway that's not so important. What is important is how Rukis notes that religious institutions are not allowed to directly fund political candidates. This however only applies to tax exempt institutions and does not prohibit endorsements as long as the tagline "this is not an endorsement" follows any comment that clearly endorses a political candidate (I know this from personal experience). It's also important to note that even if a tax exempt religious organization did directly fund and endorse a candidate they would almost certainly get away with it because those laws are poorly enforced, if at all, due to the potential political backlash from a significant voting bloc.

Now before I continue stirring shit up let me clarify a few things. I am a straight guy who identifies as a christian. I say "identify" because that fact that I have read and looked at (and done other stuff to) similar art and comics, and will continue to do so, and have other vices and flaws that I am reluctant to rid myself of means that I am not following Christ commands with all my heart. Also I may not be entirely correct in my interpretation of the laws regarding political speech and tax exempt institutions, if not go ahead and correct me. I can however say from my experience of having the misfortune of attending Southern Baptist church that such laws have mile wide loopholes. The most blatant example was in 2008 when the pastor asked members to sign the petition to get Mike Huckabee on the Virginia republican primary ballot, a request followed by the tagline mentioned above.

On the deeper issues in this comic so far I have to say I'm excited about them but worried that the resolution will be as foreshadowed with a church member initiating violence. I don't wish to offend, and I'm sorry if I do Rukis, but I have to call some BS on your disclaimer a few pages back about this not representing your personal feelings. If this wasn't something you felt strongly about you wouldn't have written it. Having said that, I mostly agree or understand why you chose to approach it in this manner and do appreciate how you seem to be casting both groups as being in the wrong.

On the issue of Westburo church style protesting, let me just say that those individuals ARE NOT Christians for two big reasons. First, no true christian hates anybody. Second, and more importantly, these groups claim that God hates gays, which not only contradicts the bible's teaching that no man knows the mind of God, but the same time attributes hate to him, making these groups analogous to false prophets. Now I must admit I used to have my own prejudices against gays but have since seen the light on this issue. Being gay doesn't damn anybody to hell more than me looking at porn. Because all sins are considered equal it is entirely possible for for a gay individual to be christian and saved if you believe in all the other prerequisite stuff. The homophobia that has and continues to permeates churches and other institutions has far more to do with the sexual insecurity of the people leading them then the teachings of of Christ who does not once in the New Testament condemn homosexuality.

Let the hate mail begin

Nicely put, very informative and I couldn't agree with you more.

I agree, nicely said! As for my own personal beliefs. . . of *course* I have them. I write gay comics, and I'm in a relationship with a male and a female. I would never claim that I don't have a bias. What the Disclaimer states is that the views expressed in this comic are NOT my own. And they really, really aren't. Marcus is far too radical to be in line with my beliefs, and I am also not religious. The point of this scene is actually to try and highlight the worst of both sides. Given a few more pages, perhaps that will be more clear.

No hate, but I'd like to point out that you have just as much authority to tell us what 'true christians' think as every other self-identified christian out there. It's fantastic that you're 'tolerant' and whatnot, I support that. But you unfortunately have neither the authority or the evidence to suggest that people out there who follow the teachings of your god can be pardoned for their blatant hatred and bigotry.

Biblical literalists are certainly more prone to cherrypicking their favorite hate tidbits, perhaps that's what this is directed towards. But 'true christians' by no means are free of hatred on principal. I applaud you for opening your horizons and moving past what you may have been taught as a child indoctrination and that you are open to supporting your fellow men and women. You're the kind of religious person I am tolerant of, and I really want to thank you for that. :)

I agree with Frrit.
While you seem to be making complete sense, you really don't decide what makes a christian.

To you and Frrit,

You are both right... I don't decide what a Christian is... The Bible tells us what it is. In regards to Jesus' teachings on hate it is absolutely out of the question. He preached "turn the other cheek" and lived by that teaching even as he was being crucified. This is why any "Christian" who preaches hate isn't a true Christian because they blatantly contradict what they claim to believe. This is also another reason why I can't even call myself a true christian (hypocrite maybe?) because I hate stupid people (no I'm not using that to refer to you) and politicians (but I repeat myself), and I also wouldn't willing sit back and let someone harm me or even steal from me.

Also before you bring up the Old Testament and Revelations, the violence brought about was God's wrath for the Hebrews violating his commands or foreign people attacking them. That is a conversation for another day.

What about St Paul's letters? They are part of the Bible as well, in the New Testament that is.
1 Cor 6:9-11 "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers— none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."

Based on that passage alone every person on this planet is damned. While the passage doesn't define the parameters of thieves, greed, revilers, etc. the qualifications can be found throughout both Old and New Testaments. Greed is self-explanatory and it should be obvious that nobody escapes that category. Revilers, or slanderers depending on what version you read, spread anything from mostly harmless gossip to outright character assassination. I actually appreciate you bringing up this passage (I'd forgotten the exact verse), but you forgot to include the most important part: verse 11 "these are what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." This shows that God will forgive all the sins of a person if they choose to repent and is the essential point of my comment, nobody, regardless of what they have done, is excluded from the forgiveness of God and the gift of eternal life.

He still is presenting homosexuality as something that needs to be forgiven, a sin, something dirty to be cleansed from. Greed, slander, stealing, murder are all bad. Putting homosexuality (kynaidoi: 'bottom' gays, arsenokoitai: 'top' gays) in the same category as those makes the message clear. Be gay and you will go to Hell.

But homosexuality isn't exclusive to that. Any kind of sexual immorality, sex outside of marriage, multiple partners, etc. are also damnable offenses. Any sin listed is a sentence to hell, and all are viewed as equally evil by God according to the Bible. What this passage is saying is that in order for a person to be saved they must essentially reject being human. If you look at it from a certain point of view the one thing that separates us from the angels is our sinful nature, and if one wishes to inherit paradise we must cast off our sin.

I'll use myself as an example. I lie, I slander, I'm greedy, I look at porn and read stuff written by Rukis and other adult furry artists. As of today I am a damned individual because I do these things. There is no homosexual on this planet who is more damned then me nor am I any more damned then they are. All either of us need to do is repent and we are saved according to Jesus teaching.

I appreciate your commentary on this issue and would like to keep it going but perhaps on the next page where other people are more likely to get involved.

Hi.
Having read your post I agree with most of what you have written.
Sadly it is the extremists of ANY religious belief that tarnishes the whole.
I have known some sincere Christians in my time - sincere in that they lived their lives as Christian in actions rather that great displays of worship or adulation. And they have accepted me as a gay man with the openess and friendship as they would any other person. Likewise I have met other devote people of diferent beliefs who likewise have accepted me.

The distinction comes when you find people who use their religion as a crux to support their personal agenda's(Homophobia, Abortions, Politics etc).
For example the ones who quote Levicitius to me while eating a prawn cocktail, or wearing Polyester-Cotton. Or only know of a few select passages and nothing else to support their beliefs.

I wish you well in your beliefs and thank your for sharing your inspiring comments with us readers.
Marc
Marc

Well written, good sir, well written indeed. As I myself said on the previous strip, hate only begets more hate, weather justified or not. This is perhaps the most intelligent critique of the whole "homosexuality is good/bad" argument I have ever read. As I have thought or quite a while now, we all must learn to love, and tolerate.

First of all, I would like to thank you for your great contribution to this debate. But there was a little detail that you mentioned at the end of post that kind of surprises me.
You have stated that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality in the New Testament, but, as far as I can remember from the time I read the Bible (it took me a whole month to do it, and I even skipped the repeated parts), he does claim something along the lines of: "Marriages should be between men and women", "marriages cannot be broken by humanly means (divorce)", etc.
In any case, I think that modern Christianity does not rely only on the New Testament to justify their ideas, that is, they still quote passages from the Old Testament (those gay old times... please, forgive the pun) to defend their position, be that as regards homosexuality or any other topic. This fact, however, would result in a quite interesting debate as to how to distinguish the parts which should be followed and observed from the parts that would not necessarily have to. And we are not even taking into consideration the factor of change within religion due to historical evolution, and how it affects the validity of the teachings. Nevertheless, we are not apologists or expert theologists, so a priori I do not expect to elaborate on that last point. I would be quite delighted if you shared more of your thoughts and reasonings with us, though.

It's been a while since I've read the bible too, and you may be right about Jesus saying marriage is between a man and a woman. I do know that that is mentioned in the Old Testament and if Jesus did teach about that he was likely referencing that part of Hebrew law. That however is not a condemnation of homosexuality in itself but a declaration that such marriages are not considered legitimate under God's law. Marriage also was not the point of my comment, my point was that homosexuality, while still considered a sin, is no worse than any other sin such as lying, stealing, and other forms of sexual immorality (kinda like me looking at porn), and won't be distinguished from each other when a person is judged. For that reason the excessive hatred by some groups calling themselves Christians is misguided, wrong, and even a sin unto itself.

On the issue of gay marriage I'm of the mind that it should be taken out of the hands of government entirely and made into a form of private contract between consenting parties. This may sound strange to some but it's the best solution in my mind. If the government doesn't have the power to decide who can and can't marry and instead only the responsibility to enforce the conditions as with other forms of legal contracts, then it will cease to be an issue. The involvement of religious institutions would be as now limited to a ceremonial role only of importance to those who desire its blessings on their union.

You do make a good point on the evolution of thought and religion and I would very much like to discuss that with you and others. Perhaps on another page, but right now I gotta get something to eat.

Thanks to you and everyone else who responded to my post. I like being able to share my thoughts with others as well as get feedback. Sharing ideas is how we move forward.

I am quite flattered that you consider my contribution to this discussion valuable. That is very meaningful to me. Needless to say, the same can be said about your thoughtful comments.

Now, having written those –probably—corny lines, I would like to respond to most of the points you stated in your last post.

After further consideration as regards the Hebrew law, I have just remembered that there is a small, particularly interesting section in the Old Testament which should be taken into account in this debate. It speaks of the punishments that must be inflicted onto “sexual deviants”, e. g. adulterers and adulteresses, zoophiles or “sodomites.” Given the profound –and I cannot stress this enough—impact that unit of thought (or “absolute link” as I call it) has had on Western society (and, to a lesser extent, on Eastern cultures as well, but that is a different matter altogether), we cannot deny the importance of this fact when considering the matter of sexuality. I am not saying, nevertheless, that our society has by no means received influences from other cultures which shared the Hebrew point of view on homosexuality.

Sometimes I just wonder why certain people seem to make such a fuss over this aspect, though, whether they are regular Christians or New-Age thinkers who have been sent to Earth by the Ashtar Command. It is not that I cannot comprehend their reaction, but still I cannot refuse the curiosity this issue evokes in me. Let me elaborate on this. While a wide variety of more serious “sins” are being committed all over the world, homosexuality is one of those which receive the most attention. The contrast is even clearer when we realize that only a couple of paragraphs were composed to condemn homosexuality, while we can find thousands and thousands of lines devoted to other topics. Maybe it just happens that my mind is deliberately selecting certain facts that favour my view for reasons I cannot fathom. In any case, this reality still proves to be very interesting.

As for the question of marriages, I think it overlaps with the concept of sexuality that was common then. That is, allowing only different-sex marriages should have been approximately the same as banning official homosexual couples. Please note I have used purportedly the word “official”, as I am not taking into account the possible clandestine same-sex couples back then. I have no idea whether this ever happened, actually. If anybody could illuminate me as regards this, he or she shall be welcome.

If the Catholic Church ever acknowledged homosexual marriages, polemic and controversy would surely ensue. My reason to believe that is that, by doing this, the Church would be contradicting the statements of the pillar which sustains it. It would be a total chaos for apologists. However, and I find this very amusing, it is true that the dogma has already changed and evolved with time. Had it not, women’s rights and feminism, for instance, would not be as developed as they are nowadays, or even born, for that matter. In any case, your proposal seems quite reasonable to me. Nonetheless, would it not be possible to divide our current concept of marriage into two separated acts? On the one hand, we would have a ceremony wherein the couple is “introduced” to society by civil or religious entities. On the other, there would be an official signing of a special document where the couple is stated to be a unit liable to observe a specific set of laws exclusively made for them.

As for what you have said about sins, it is not possible for me to avoid thinking that an act punished with death should be in a higher position in the Hebrew sin hierarchy. As far as I can remember, other sins were not followed by equal kinds of retribution; the “only” consequence of thievery, for example, was that the thief had his or her hands cut off. And that is not the same as the more definitive death penalty, so to say. Especially when we count the fact that at that time there was no escape to what follows death, the abyss-like, nothingness-filled place called “Gehenna”, if we are to believe Jesus’ words (please forgive the oxymoron, but that adjective was far too tempting not to use it.)

And finally, it is turn to deal with the matter of hatred. Although I have personally tasted the rejection and possibly disgust which this feeling may inspire, I feel that it is something that transcends the limits of simplistic reasoning. I shall elaborate a bit more. I have recently started to consider that hate and other emotions and similar phenomena are not indissolubly chained to the actions or states we usually link them to; on the contrary, I think they could be said to be “pure entities” that manifest in our world through such actions and states. That means they are not intrinsically “bad”, “good”, “hateable” and so on. Instead, they just appear as such to our minds and hearts. Or so I believe. “What does this have to do with the topic we are dealing with, and how does it help us clarify our doubts?” you may ask. Well, my answer would be that this thought helps comprehend the response and attitude shown by hate groups. We must not answer their hatred with more rejection, as they are only refusing to accept an idea which evokes in them similar emotions to those we feel when we observe such reactions. If we leant towards the deterministic side of philosophy, we could conclude that hatred will keep manifesting as long as there is something that can incite to hate, that is, virtually everything. I know this idea might be hard to grasp, but I want to think that it could help, if only a bit, to understand other people, other ways of thinking, and even other morality codes so foreign and surprising that they would generally elicit negative responses (and, as you may have guessed, this has to be with the current debate as to a hypothetical contact with other sentient life forms.) However, if such feat were ultimately not possible, I believe it would help us not to react in a violent way, which would doom any further attempt of conciliation.

So, after writing this terrifyingly large thesis on the nature of humankind and other boring topics one should never think about for too long, I honestly believe my English teachers would be very proud (and a bit horrified) of me. And to think I could perform such an honourably task just for the sake of science, human contact and butterflies... There is one thing clear, though; I have waaaay to much free time.

In case you have condemned yourself to keep up with my rant down to this point, I would like to thank you, or rather, congratulate you, for making me company all this time. You are quite a fine man or woman.

Agh, I have just dug my own grave

Religious institutions aren't legally allowed to contribute money to or endorse the campaigns of political candidates, but political candidates are certainly allowed to endorse religious institutions, thus securing the votes of their congregations. It's really quite backasswards and fucked.

No True Scotsman.

I only have one thing to say to you about this.

Thank you for being a rational and well-thought individual on the Internet. Too often statements like this lose their importance because a poster is too vehement in whatever point they're trying to make. So thank you, sincerely, for putting you thoughts in a sanely phrased and logical statement. It's an enormous relief.

Marcus definitely is riled up. His emotions seem to be at a boiling point and the Pastor seems very calm and collected. That always spells trouble.

I just hope it doesn't blow up in his face.

Well that morning's event with him and Reis probably didnt help his mood one bit :/

now I am glad I stayed up late

wow :O

Awww shit! Religion, politics and a gay rights group? Youre really bringing every tough subject into this aren't ya?

I'm waiting for the drugs subject - we saw in the last comic that Reis' mom has a problem with drugs... @_@

and he himself had a problem with them

Well, seeing as his mum had(has?) a problem, I can totally see him not thinking it was a big deal. You kind of look up to your parents in those regards, and even if you see it affects them badly and you don't like it... you tend to go the "I'm at least not as bad as her, so I can't be that bad off" route. :(

not with me my moms a pill popper and i dont take any pills what so ever thats why i only smoke medical marijuana fuck doctors

Um, if it's medical MJ, then a doctor had to prescribe it to you.

And, my mother and stepfather are alcoholics. I grew up thinking so long as I didn't get as drunk as they did, I was fine. Wasn't till I was older did I realize, I was a habitual drunk at age 15. :/ Started drinking long before that, and cut myself off at 18. It's always a struggle, and there's always that thought in the back of my head "as long as I don't do it as bad as they did..."

nods nods i understand it just wasnt the same way with me i watch my mother do this and i want nothin to do with it and well as for the good doctor that gave me my card was the only one who didnt want to prescribe my a pill unlike a bunch of other doctors. and im really sorry to hear that but im glad that you cut yourself off ^^

Fact №one: most people know nothing about thoose situations & how they should properly act in them.

Fact №two: same most people learning well from comics, cartoons, etc.. So it's actually the best way to tell them about it.

*facepaw*

Nothing like politics in a webcomic, amirite?

ATTITUDE!!!

This is not going to end well.

Realmente empiezo a preocuparme

One stupid move from the pastor and they will have his ass in a sling.

Not entirely, If he took it to court he would get off. Marcus and his group are not exactly being very peaceful.

I would say they are, plus Marcus Himself is studying to be a Lawyer ,so he could argue for his case,

I do not see this as fire with fire the circumstances are fairly different, they are not protesting a funeral.

It seems to me that that you actually view a funeral Protesting more peaceful then this, give me a freaking break.

Actually, yeah, that does make sense that a funeral protest would be more peaceful, since they're standing with signs off to the side rather than rushing someone and getting in their face and actually confronting them.

Read the last speech bubble, they weren't just sitting around having tea at the funeral they were protesting..

I never suggested they were having tea, like I said, they were protesting. Probably with signs. I'm not saying I agree with them, or other similar groups, but but it's still more peaceful than pursuing someone on their own private property.

Ok guys, simmer down a bit. In all technicality neither group so far has been anything other than peaceful. Neither group has been violent yet regardless of how or where they approach each other. It is just my personal opinion that it is disrespectful to the surviving family and friends to protest a funeral and i don't like people who hide behind youth to deter questioning.

Furries? Thoughtful discussion? Wut? (jk)

Although I do despise it that these are real issues. You'd think that some people could feel a bit less elitist about themselves. I've read up on too many funerals, services, wakes, and fundraisers being disrespected by radicals on both sides of the fence. I've even heard of returning soldiers being harassed by anti-war radicals while the families were trying to reunite with them at the gate, or funerals of soldiers who were KIA being disrupted by protests.

It's sad that the human race can hate one another so much we don't even think of each other as human anymore

And by despise I don't mean despise the comic for using these issues but despise that the issues are real and present in society.

Agreed.

What returning soldiers have been harassed during reunions with families?

Yeah, like, protesters would harass soldiers getting off the plane, keeping them from their families and just yell and scream at them when they were trying to converse with them face to face for the first time in months or years, it's very sad and ignorant, if you ask me.
I mean, here is someone who is risking their life in the most dangerous line of work imaginable, giving up family, conveniences, comfort, and safety to protect their country, and that is the welcome they come home to after living like that for weeks on end, unable to find work, and even though there has been a huge outpouring of support for returning soldiers, it just takes one person to be utterly disrespectful and negligent of their sacrifice to really hurt deep.

The human condition is a curious thing.

Sad part is it happened to vietnam vets when they did get off the plane

Very true, the Vietnam war is another wonderful example of this dilemma, I thank you. Probably a better example, however being so much in the past, many people cannot relate to it in this day and age. Just like we hear about concentration camps in WWII, read about them, watch movies on them, etc, yet we cannot even begin to fathom what it actually was to behold one of them in the flesh.

I'm not too sure it happened to Vietnam War vets either. There have been no documented cases found. If this was widespread, you'd think that there would've been a police report filed, either by the vet or because the vet understandably lost it when some asshole expectorated on him leading to a fight.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080

I was asking for examples.

After the Vietnam War, there was an urban legend going around that soldiers were being spit on by anti-war activists upon returning to the states. However, there hasn't really been any documented case of that ever occurring.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080

I'm not saying those who repeat this are lying or anything, but like most urban legends, it starts with a small grain of truth (a lot of people did not like the Vietnam War) and then gradually gets blown up, all without anyone actually telling a lie.

One would think at least one soldier called the cops or that, despite the classic army discipline, one guy understandably lost it after some far-left moonbat expectorated on him. But no, there have been no police records of anything like that.

So since something like that got exaggerated after the Vietnam War, I thought it may be repeating itself after the Iraq War. I didn't know if you read or heard about a solider being prevented from getting of the plane or you saw one yourself.

very well said sir agreed

Just a year ago we had a situation almost exactly like this in my little home town. where a church protested a solderer's funeral as a opposition to the war. In response a Large rights group Including USO volunteers and other pro troop organizations drove and flew down from all over the country to stand in the churches parking lot and protest it. It was crazy and made all kinds of news.

Exactly, it does happen and it is just sad. I think I remember that situation, it made it down here to the SouthEast pretty well. I'm glad that the families were supported after being confronted like that, but offense isn't always the answer or an appropriate response to these kinds of attacks, because all it inspires is more hatred. It may feel good, right, and just, but it does not remedy the situation. As much as we want to disbelieve it, religion and politics are still tightly intertwined, mostly as a result of our endless want to separate them, because it forever feeds these confrontations through attention. And the horrible thing about politics and religion being so closely parallel: "right" is defined by (a) biased individual(s).

Like Mahatma Gandhi said once: "An eye for an eye only ends up leaving the whole world blind."

This particular one was a Catholic church, so don't get it confused with the ever popular baptist one.

Mnah, more than zero is too many x.x Was the baptist protest at the funeral(s) the most publicized? If so that may be the one I'm thinking of, instead of the one you are referring to. Either way, the confusion over the multiples of protests just proves that this is something that has happened more than once, nationwide even. And as I said just before, any more than none is too many. The lack of respect is just horrid, and I'm very surprised nobody has just been downright shot for protesting at a funeral yet (from lack of information I say nobody, not sure on the actual circumstances).

Either way, the fact that people feel the need to protest at a funeral astounds me...

Other than the soldiers most people don't bring guns to funerals, and soldiers at funerals have seen too much death to go and cause more on there own soil, not to mention they know better.

Right, I'm just saying, it just takes one angry person to lose control. Now that I think about it more deeply I would think the chances of someone being shot or killed as such would be much less. But even so, emotions are generally at very high levels at funerals, then add in protests against the item the person died protecting/doing, and tensions become very taught when those two worlds collide. Lets just say I'm surprised there has not been much violence in general when these differences emerge in such an environment.

I'm going to shoot the tough question of this then, were we right in celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, and for persecuting those who spoke out against the celebration of death?

Though some may celebrate it for his death, I think that most celebrate because it signals the end of a large conflict, that wrought the United States with turmoil.

Problem with that logic is when you take down one, eventually another will try to step up and take their place when the group is strong enough again. (which is why we're still trying to get rid of every bit of them)

As much as Id like to believe that most people celebrated that the war was over, when Osama was killed, there was no mention of "the war is over!!" from celebrators around, just "he's dead!!"
And while yes, I was at least somewhat excited that the guy we've been after for so long is dead, I knew it meant the coming end of the war.

If the internet has taught me anything it's this: Ignore the trolls, don't try to troll the trolls.

" Let's go and antagonize the leader of a church, on his property. And Film it."

Yeah.... That's a GREAT idea guys. Have fun with the hospital and court fees.

I was about to say...

Going and protesting someone on property is one thing, even if dickish depending, but if they really did come onto private property and started stirring up shit then that's a whole nuther' ball of wax.

Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

*PUBLIC, public property.

Damn it.

Pretty much. It's all fun and games untill the cops show up.

Hospital? Why would there be hospital fees?

Just by the way it's looking, SOMEONE is gonna get hit.

He did say on the previous page that if someone's going to get violent, it's not going to be them...

No, but I'll be damned if it isn't looking like they aren't trying to provoke the other party.

Even so, 'they said mean things to me' generally doesn't hold up in court when you have assault charges brought against you.

No, but tapes of the people provoking you tend to help a bit in court, then there is the self defense and the trespassing parts too. All he'd have to do is get a good lawyer.

This all depends upon state, If it were Texas he'd have the right to shoot them just for stepping on his property with out permission and antagonizing him and his family..... good old castle law....

I rather like and support that law, but the psychos with an itchy trigger finger and a bad case of Paranoia tend to ruin it, and give ammo to those wonderful folks over at the Brady Campaign.

such people are ignorant

"he'd have the right to shoot them just for stepping on his property with out permission" - I understand the position of "I can defend myself" but I cannot stand those damn "I can kill unarmed people who are not threatening for doing something as small as stepping onto my land". There has to be a line for "reasonable force" (and it has to be flexible while still being rigorous and not abused by the invader or owner {yeah, you know... utopia situations}).

Still, 14 states have them and they're getting a constitution/supreme court check soon. And I'm not likely to be in any of the 50 anytime soon.

Even Texas' castle laws don't permit you to use lethal force unless you feel it is necessary to protect life, limb, or property.

Shooting someone because you were "antagonized" would land you straight in prison for most of the rest of your life. That's a clear-cut case no matter how good your lawyer is.

If you're attacked, that's a different story. But even then, it's up to jurors to determine if your fear for life/limb/property was "reasonable."

However, tapes of you assaulting someone don't. And assault is a more serious offense than trespassing, and what would they be defending themselves against, exactly, if they threw the first punch? I hear those bad words can do some real damage.

Like I said, All he would need to do is get a good lawyer. You can manipulate the US Justice System with a convincing line of bullshit and a good amount of money. the fact he is a pastor would help in the land of " In God we trust".

I'm sure they could get a good lawyer as well, if they pooled their resources. As well as that, this is apparently a church group that goes around protesting at people's funerals which isn't going to make them terribly popular amongst the local community.

"a church group that goes around protesting at people's funerals"
^ That right there. If they are a group doing that, then they must have dealt with the court system before. Like I said, I'm sure they have good lawyers. Plus, the Self Defense argument would stand up, if anything the charges would be dropped.

Not necessarily. As much as protesting at people's funerals is abhorrent and utterly tasteless, it isn't actually illegal. And self defense only applies if you're defending yourself. That is, if the other person is physically attacking you. The video would show that isn't the case.

No, but going onto private property and provoking a person would justify any action, even more so after he gave them warning. People have gotten off the hook for lesser reasons than that before.

I don't think it justifies any action... The correct course of action would be to call the police. Assault is not acceptable when the victim isn't posing any immediate threat (which they aren't. They haven't threatened violence, nor are they armed).

We don't know that yet, gotta wait for the next few pages.

I know the characters mention private property, but could you clue me in as to where this private property is? To me, it looks like they're in a street.

the thing is, mister pastor here is trying to launch a political career, they don't have to win in court! all they have to do is make sure he gets a bad reputation with the public. and that's not that hard if they get him in to court and release some footage of him throwing the first punch. ^^

Ain't that the god honest truth? There are so many back doors these days the justice part of the Justice System is only for the poor.

I couldn't see a Texas jury aligning well with a pro-gay group protesting a church

Exactly my point.

Actually.... assault in a legal context is defined as "An intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." So if say, a person threatens another person with physical harm using words and imposing presence only. That is assault. So "they said mean things to me" in the right context could be considered assault in a court of law. I think what you are thinking of is battery which would be the cause of "physical" harm upon a person's body.

The more you know

Politics in a nutshell most of the time xD

Oh hell, that aint no shit. XD Although lately it's more "My color is better than yours" in Congress.

Love it, right? xD What I find hilarious is that when the Republican primaries were coming up, a few of the candidates started playing destructive ads against other candidates, criticizing them for their congressional decisions etc etc. But, the funny thing about this I thought, "But they're all in the same party?".

Talk about loyalty More like "My shade of said color is better than your shade of said color ".

Well in the end, the current Pres is gonna win. Simple as that.

Which is why I completely disagree with our current political system. It makes it a battlefield, not a catalyst for change. It makes it two sides battling for the power, and when one gets the upper hand, they do all they can to shut out the other side instead of working together.
We need a political system where when we don't have a bipartisan agreement it gets publicized, not when we achieve one it's something of a miracle.

They're all in the same party, but there's only one who's actually conservative. The rest are in the party by name only, so it's quite an opportunity to criticize each other on big issues that they've gotten wrong. But it seems to happen every four years, just look at how well Hillary and 0bama were getting along four years ago.

Yep, teamwork seems to be a good idea until one can just go for broke by themselves, and then previous team-mates become enemies. It's like a joke: "Oh I'll just play along with this work together thing until I can get some REAL power in my hands."

Horrible, just wrong.

Just because he said that, it doesn't mean that they'll stick to it. When people go looking for a fight, sometimes they end up starting it, despite what they originally said.

How is it private property? It looks to me like they're on a sidewalk, so unless the guy owns the whole street...

"I own this whole road and everyone on it!"

Exactly what i was thinking, If they were in a yard then that would make more sense, But they're walking down a road so they are on public property and calling it private i believe can get you in MINOR and i do mean MINOR legal trouble.

this is going to be some really powerful stuff...I'm just sad a kitty has to be the pastor who is an ass D: lol

I could see him being like a polar bear or something. Actually something similar was done in Blacksad with a Polarbear being in a pastorial/ministry related position.

Lol speaking of polar bears

sounds like westboro baptist church.

Wow... I wasn't the only person who thought of them when I read this...

I think a lot of people thought of them as soon as we all saw the bottom left panel.

For me it was the bottom pannel of the previous page.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the comic Suicide for Hire,
but there's a very similar scene but instead of approaching a Pastor.
It's two kids who encounter a group very similar to the Westboro Baptist Church.
The ending result is quite entertaining.

Why does he keep provoking the big kitties?

Wants to make a scene and get it on tape and make the Pastor look like an even bigger asshole than he already is.

Kinda dishonorable really, funny that there is ANY honor of any sort in this situation, but any shred of creditability they had just went out the window by lowering themselves to Pastor's level.

I dunno hes actually got that lion in kind of a on the ropes stance, If he left it at where it was he just might teach the lion a lesson in humility. But we know better than that, this situation is going to get worse way before it gets better.

The little fucker who was talking shit to Marc's boyfriend on the phone a few pages before.... I think he is gonna write a few too many checks his ass can't cash.

I have a feeling its going to end one of two ways, either Marcus is going to show up just in time to be all "Da FUCK!?" or hes going to show up just in time to see Ries in hand cuffs. I'm sure it will make for a good shoe's on the other foot scene for Marcus.

True.

I'm kind of thinking that Marcus will get there in time to save Ries butt, and Marcus will end up in cuffs AGAIN just because he is there. He has a record now after all.

You know, I'm on the same side of the debate that Marcus is on, and we're clearly supposed to side with him over this pastor, but with what we've seen so far, I still want to punch him.

You can't fight fire with fire in these types of issues. Every time you try you just give your opponent the opportunity to appear sympathetic, and give everyone not already on your side an easy way to excuse any future actions against you. "They deserved it, after what they did that other time." - it won't matter who actually started it, that's not the way people's belief systems work. All this accomplishes is to further cement people's existing beliefs. Doing what's happening here isn't striking a blow for gay rights, it's striking a blow for the status quo.

Exactly, very well put.

What?

You're really putting the act of calling someone out on their beliefs in a public space on par with protesting at a funeral? What is Marcus doing that's wrong in any way so far?

Actually, you're not supposed to side with either. It's a matter of perspective.

The funny thing here is that Marcus was the same in Cruelty, it just wasn't the focus of the comic. And now with a very clear fire-started like Jacob goading him, he is much worse.

This is just a very strong subject that you're using, Rukis. I am impressed and I like where this scene is going :) Keep it up

I suspected the lion was the pastor

i just love this comic, and the others you are involved in, and the subjects at hand. i can't wait to see where you take us down this road.

and that eagle is simply bitching!

Oh boy, i can't wait to see what's coming next.

The sidewalk is private property in the US?

Depending on the property lines, yes, it can be.

Weeeeeeeell sidewalk is technically public property, as well as the little line of grass between the curb and the sidewalk where trees are generally planted, but beyond the sidewalk it's private unless otherwise stated. That is what it's like where I am currently residing, because people argue about dogs and lawns way too much x.x

Actually, some places don't have sidewalks unless the residents put them in - in which case it's up to them to maintain the sidewalks as well. Then again, they do put them in kind of acknowledging people will use them to, you know, walk across their property.

Oh really? I did not know that, that's very different, thanks for the info. I guess if a sidewalk was not put in when they built the road, and a neighborhood decided to pool money to have it built... Hmm, very interesting.

Just be sure to not walk your dog in that neighborhood xD

Once again this is depending not only upon state but individual city zoning laws. A side walk built in a private neighborhood is private property, one built by the owners on there own property is property of the owner, ones built by the city are the city's. Also in certain states they claim so many feet off the side of every road as public domain, this is usually so they can expand roads if they need to, but it still technically makes it public property.

Exactly. We don't know what situation the area in this comic falls under - and judging by the fact that people are walking to church and there's houses around, and they're claiming it to be private property, I'm hazarding to guess that it's possible this is a private residential area.

Churches are also private property so if there in the church's parking lot or something its possible there trespassing in that right.

It doesn't look like a parking lot, but it could very well be. I guess we'll find out!

In my opinion, nothing can be more cowardly or quite as vile as the act of using children as a sheild. I find it disheartening that the leaders and politicians of my own country are notoriously familiar with using children as a tactic to gain momentum in...well virtually EVERY arguement and any decision. I believe the consequences for years of the masses submitting to this fear campaign has resulted in preventing the evolution of society, stifling the advancement of enginuity, and crippling the search for knowledge nearly ending all forms of exploration for new frontiers on a global scale.

[take it or leave it, these words come from a man who doesn't want to have children]

It is cowardly, but he could find no other way to mask or justify what hes doing, because it is wrong and he knows it, horray for corruption.

I have to agree to an extent. I can understand not wanting your kids to have to deal with stuff emotionally or experientially, but there comes a time when you can't shield them from everything. Sure you don't want to traumatize a kid, but kids can handle a lot of things and can deal with things. Half the BS on the tv they try to censor is ridiculous, flip the channel and there all that shit is. Good job on censoring it. Sides if the kid comes from a crappy home life, they're gonna see the same shit. Censor that soccer moms.

I do believe kids are capable of handling a lot, and dealing with a lot. I hate that society tries to dumb down things for the sake of the children. Kids are smart, detail oriented, can think creatively and intelligently, they can do a shit more than we give them credit for. Plus, and I've seen it myself, a lot of the kids that do get ridiculously sheltered end up busting out of the shell and doing all the shit their parents didn't want them to in the first place. A nice fat super finger back at em. If people say they care so much about kids, let em experience life and let them show what they're made up. Dangle em over a cliff and watch them pull a Yoda up the side of it. By no means am I condoning literally dangling a child or small animal over any cliff. Unless it's off a diving board or a foam bit in a gymnasium. lol

Fucking agreed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childr.....%28rhetoric%29

Agreed

Rukis is hitting all the nails on the head with this story, very interesting

I think the real question is whether, in the world of this comic, the lion's church is comparable to the WBC in ours.

In our world the WBC is a joke. They behave like morons, they are viewed as morons, nobody really cares. (And if someone like Marcus showed up to bug them they wouldn't be nearly as measured and collected.)

This church on the other hand seems like it is not a joke. They seem to have a large flock, political clout, and a certain measure of "respectability" in the community, which they use to bully others. If that is the case...then fuck them. :D

Ah, I can't wait until tomorrow to read all the comments! ITS DEBATE TIME !

Also, omg that baby lion is cute.

So Mr. Lion is teaching his son that when all else fails, use children as shields?

Westboro Bapist allegory?

Going in! This is so not good...

I knew it! That slimeball is using his church and family to "validate" what they do, and his first response was to shove his kid in their face.

And yet Marcus remained civil, but still stands his ground. Way to go! And he's got the whole thing on camera. I hope they have YouTube accounts so they can post it.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who hasn't thrown Marc under the bus. A whole comic and short story of him being the nicest person out there, helping (and essentially saving) a friend, and then one offhanded joke and an emotionally charged protest and he's suddenly Satan.

I wondered that a bit, too. I mean, he's no Saint, and he does need to stop treating Reis like a pet that needs his guidance, but I will not call Marcus out on this. He's doing nothing wrong, and in fact, I say he's doing something right.

Reis needs to get a grip on his emotions, though, because if I'm following the textual concept clues correctly, Reis is going to charge in and try to make Marcus and company stop, and that will be how the "real" drama will begin. It would be a great plot-point and even better character defining moment.

Marcus was willing to let go of control, albeit reluctantly, to let Reis go to work, will Reis be able to relinquish control and let Marcus continue his protest? The group risks a great deal of potential lawsuits depending on how the situation is handled (violence or no violence), but that makes me admire them more. They are willing to take a risk when nobody else would, and hold the church accountable for its actions.

Remember, the real story of this comic is not about Reis's problems in the first chapter, nor this protest in this chapter, but it's Marcus's and Reis's relationship, more particularly the obstacles that Reis faces.

And yes, I also understand the rules of private property, and that the favor of law lands in the court of the property owner... however, if they are on a public sidewalk (as in, it's not a gated/private community) then they have every right to be on that sidewalk, so long as they don't prevent the sidewalk from being used.

And again, they are smartly video-taping the situation. So long as they save many copies of it on computers after the incident, whether the police are involved or not, the damage to the church and Mr. "Pastor" Bauer has been done. They can re-post the video online in as many smurf accounts from both public and private computers as necessary. The authorities will not be able to control the spread of the video once it is uploaded to the internet.

XD this comic needs a lesbian couple too!

a fucking agreed!

Totally disappointed at this character right now, hope the other one will save the day before it's too late.

Sexy lion

All I can say is this: DAT GRYPHON!

Or rather, DAT EAGLE :P

LOL After last page I'm just going to lurk this round.

fenfen yelling at the lion..... gotta love it

HAHAHA! Sometimes, just SOMETIMES, it be like that lol!

ou ouch and augh to all that....

Another interesting update! It's a volatile situation, but these sorts of encounters don't usually become violent -- if we're actually using the Westboro Baptist Church as precedent. I'm curious to see how language diffuses the situation. Maybe it will just take Reis's strong presence as mediator.

It does indeed sound a lot like Westboro, doesn't it? I'm just hoping Reis doesn't end up in trouble again.

Just as long as that cult never comes into my territory again. GRRRR

Yeah that's right you chicken**** coward: use your children as your human shield!

...amazed nobody snapped and kicked the s*** outta them at the funeral. Hell I would have and pleaded temporary insanity as a grief-stricken victim.

You're a piece of s***, pastor, and I hope somebody calls CPS on you and takes your kids to a normal home and burns your house down!

Marcus is such a dick </3

you just can't fight fire with fire is all.

oh god... this is starting to smell like shit about to hit the fan

and am getting worried for marcus

if he needs a bodyguard i sincerely apply for the job

Owned....

who hoo.. yeas And he isnt being Vicious. he is acting like a HARD CORE news reporter.. and and the Pastor is nooot too happy WHO HOO Go MARCUS GO

What has always intrigued and amazed me, is the idea of selective free speech. In the States, all speech that isn't meant to cause panic, or incite violence is protected. Which is why thus far the West Burrough (sp) people are still active. Where does the line get drawn? If one group is allowed to vehemently push for gay rights, under the guise of free speech and exchange of ideas, then legally, the opposing viewpoint and statement thereof must also be legal. Whether it's moral or right or not doesn't factor in. It all has to do with perception of word and who says them. For instance, one group uses a racially charged word, and it's fine because it's coming from someone of the same racial background as the word in use. However if someone from another race uses it, it is immediately denounced as racism and a lot of shouting and fighting follows. This, as well as the arguing back and forth over morality and justness in speech is what always confuses me. If freedom of speech is indeed such a valued and sacred right, then fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint, it must apply to all thoughts, opinions, and viewpoints. The difference, is how those beliefs are communicated. The amendment, gives us the freedom of speech, but it also gives us the right not to listen or be forced to listen, that is where the conflict arises.

On a personal note, I believe that any group that protests a funeral, regardless of who is being laid to rest, is no less dangerous than a terrorist, and should be treated as equally hostile. The previously mentioned group above tried to picket a funeral in my hometown, and the entire town, including police force gathered and ran them out, with a combination of group force, anger, pure resentment, and a healthy dose of good old fashioned redneck justice. Ie. slashed tires and double barreled shotguns!

Legally they had the right to be there as stated by the Freedom of Speech amendment. The slashed tires and shotguns, was the town exercising its own right under that same amendment, to NOT be forced to listen. Just to clarify ^_^

No shit? Do you have a link to a news story about that protest attempt in your hometown? That sounds like an awesome response.

Somewhere I think, I'll have to dig around my records. But yeah! They came to protest the funeral of a soldier from my hometown. The townspeople heard about it and when they showed up, didn't even let them get set up, ran them straight out of town. One of the few benefits of being from a very small, mid western farm town haha.

That's fantastic. <3

Although I'm sure the outrage was fueled by "support the troops!" as opposed to any sort of LGBT support.

The problem is that that kind of response is pretty much exactly what the WBC wants people to do. They're legally savvy (Fred Phelps was an ACLU lawyer before being disbarred for basically being Fred Phelps) and opportunistic trolls. Their entire business model is based on saying things that technically break no laws but infuriate everyone around them (picketing soldier funerals, etc.) and suing everyone for damages whenever there's an incident.

Yup!

I love you for this comment!

I was sort of sketchy about this idea at first. But someone like him deserves to be taken down.

That's so heated. I can really feel the emotion out of this.

WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE *cue rock music* o/~

That song is the fucking boss.

"PLEASE, NOT IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN."

Oh please, the children don't look like they know what the fuck is goin' on. Let them remain confused. :U

Ah, he isn't confused, he's in awe of Marcus' snazzy vest.

He totally knows what's going on. Kids are smart if you let them be.

Which is all the more reason to not "protect" them from multiple viewpoints, I think. Let them sort out their own positions!

"Teach the controversy"!

[groaaannnn]

True. If you talk about things they don't understand, and it actually touches their curiosity. They'll ask and learn. Not every child will be emotionally traumatized.

I know, I never said children aren't smart. I'm just saying, he looks confused.

Rukis, you draw a very beautiful lion.

It's nice to see mostly intellectual discussion on FA for a change. I think that in this case the pastor himself might not be in the wrong. I know of many people in religious organizations that act of their own accord claiming to be serving their congregation. I can't say for sure that this is what's going on, but I think a private meeting with the pastor, to file grievance with request relief, would have been more appropriate. By taking this course of action Marcus's group risks persecuting those not involved with the incident at Martin's funeral, as well as portraying his group in a way that will only cause them to be demonized by the mass media.

I can handle all the gay protesting and whatnot but anthro birds, yuck.

Only slightly related, but should I ever come into money and think a paparazzi or reporter goes too far, I'd hire a P.I. to openly watch him and his family for a while. Making photos, talking to people. Posting it all on a website, no matter how trivial. Let's see how they like that.

I... dont like people like marcus D:

I'd like to see your solution, then, to the problems of anti-LGBT bias and the lack of equal rights for LGBT people.

teh fook?

Why don't you like people like Marcus?

you dont need to know ._ .

That's rather an asinine response.

Long sleeve shirt poking out under a tight black vest....dear god is that sexy. Honestly I prefer that to him naked.

Would that be Westborough Baptist Church?

kill him with fire! aslan, you bigoted psudo-politico fucker

*snaps fingers* "Got ya bitch."

Gods Hates Fags... So Fuck WBC's God !! Fortunately, their conception of God isn't popular.

BTW, where's Marcus ?

The hell it isn't.

That's where you must catch the bastards - at their territory, while they aren't think of being smartasses. That way you can catch some truth, without listing thru tonns of prepared bullshit.

I think i'm starting to love you.

Wow lot of strong feelings out there love the face that your using real world events in this comic and I'm sure you anticipated the opening of the can p worms however I just wish people would just be.......not so.....idk too many political stuff being discussed might need to open up a forum dedicated to this comic to filter all the spam just saying. Anyway great job with the comic as always. Your art is so sexy even if it's G rated its still hot XD. or is that just me?? And I loved it when that lion got his defensive tactic thrown right back in his face ^.^ total burn lol.

Oh I am going to LOVE this strip, thank you!

I'm glad finally at least someone's addressing the real-life cult your comic thinly veils ;)

Westborro Baptist Church anyone?

Aye, with a hint of Focus on the Family

Lion looks real good!

I thought the lions were just people passing by but he's the pastor? Things are going to get tensed and are we going to hear more about this Martin person?

Marcus and that lion, both look very pissed off in the last panel. This can't end well...

"There are CHILDREN here, you know!" *Pushes his young cub in front of the heated argument*

Oh by the way, this is wonderful

I was expecting the pastor to hit Marcus but the tail will be very interesting!

Pastors sons always end up on drugs, being HUGE faggots, and pretty bad. I has experience.

I don't know if I like that lion, but I sure do like the way he is drawn.

marc, this is not going to end well >__>
he has some serious balls though. id do the same thing given half the chance!

Mufasa: Simba... one day all of this will be yours...

Simba: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF---

but lions are so cute and cuddly

this is super cliche'

Street justice. >:3 and dat eagle. Awesome.

Absolutely 100% appropriate. I'm fully behind the protest at this point.

my thoughts exactly :O


Where is the next page D:

The panel with the eagle is absolutely amazing. The whole thing is awesome, but that panel -whoosh! Awesome lines and anatomy.
I'm glad you're cool with people using the page to debate things. Its honestly interesting to see that there is such a wide variety of opinions on FA, when I thought there would be mainly just one.
As always, Good art makes you think, right? :D

I'm glad you can see thoughtful debate, because I sure can't. All I see are comments full of emotional knee-jerk reactions based on overly simplified views of reality.

Not to mention people hating Marcus for everything he does at this point for some reason. Remind me to never mildly offend furries with a single sarcastic comment because they'll find a way to brand you as borderline evil every time you do anything from then on.

Oh yes! I've already been called a awful person for my blunt non-fence riding input lol. Just sit back and enjoy this freak show with some of the most hypercritical nonsense you'll ever see! And remember lucky these people don't make laws and most will just grow out of this anyway.

I dunno, half the people I get really disappointed in on this site turn out to be 30 or older..

Assholes in every bunch. But in this case I would suggest looking at the average posting the absurd comments.

Threesome with the lion the black dog and the beakman on top.

Let me know when I got it right.

sorry, the eagle's female :P

whats a female? :P

I aint got a problem with that :p

Wait! wait wait wait... wait.. just wait...

Let us say they are christian... >.> does that mean their Jesus is seen as the Human of Judah? (verses the Lion of Judah... lol.. nothing? ok I tried)

But wait! Rukis spelled god with a lower case G, so it means it isnt the Christian God! phew... >.> they are just some other radical cultist group staining some other religion's reputation x.x thank God it isnt us for once XP

I know there are much more important things in this page but... Marcus just looks so cute in this page! >.<

Touché~

Now to see how well the Pastor can deal with ugly-truth-armed retribution :3

I hope we see much more of that lovely eagle in this comic.

nice!! the tension builds

*Lady lion next to pastor*

"Please there are kids present"
*Pulls kid out of nowhere in defense*

lol

Lions are 'frickin assholes.

dang marcus all up in his face!
O,O
so anxious for the next page!

Fucking faggots.

Marcus is going to get his ass kicked by this dude. I'm fairly convinced of that. But what amazes me is his expression throughout it all - how dead serious he is... this is all just fantastic. But seriously, he's asking for so much trouble and I am scared witless for the 'lil guy! >..<

is the Eagle a Metaphore for america

Great work as always, the detail on the lion (especially in the last panel) is stunning!

the lion is a religious symbol of god, and i'm pretty sure bauer is german for farmer. just pointing that out

This is getting good

Oh yeah! Can't wait to see which arguments are gonna be used by both sides~

Oh damn. Look at Marcus getting all bad ass! I mean even more than he is usually

Whoa, when you said radical and direct, you meant it. I'm getting chills from predicting how ugly this will get. Other than that, dense subjects make stuff more interesting, or so I believe

I must say unless Marcus and FEARL become violent i just can not fathom me not supporting them despite being religious and never having had a homosexual relationship. Are both sides wrong? Sure but (at least so far) only the religious side in this case is objectively wrong their intent is malicious and harmful and no matter how much of an asshole Marcus and FEARL become sans violence can never match the degree of how wrong the church is.

The thing is one acts in retaliation to an action taken the other acts in what i can only describe as insanity due to a quality of a person's (sentient animals are people to) being. Regardless on if they think they are "wrong" of if said quality is a choice to hate a person for it is absurd in the highest degree as they simply have absolutely no effect on your life in that they have taken no action that involves you.

You all know something really bad is about to happen right? The problem is all it takes is for that Pastor to make a few nasty comments, one of the protesters loses their temper and then someone does something insanely stupid....I don't know why but in my head the worse case scenario is one of the protesters brought a gun or something in the belief that they might need protection in case things go south.

I dunno...I've been getting this really bad vibe since Rukis revealed a while back something really bad was going to happen.
And given his latest comments about how in a few more pages Marcus's more radical beliefs will come through...

*sighs* This is going to end in tears.

And in the middle of all of this Reis comes out of nowhere and stops it, Marcus thanking him.

Life doesn't always have a happy ending....Chances are likely that by the time he gets there whatever dust-up is going to happen will already have happened.
Personally the presence of two children and a pregnant female mouse in the background makes me really freaking nervous...

More and more anger that will rise between people until the excited one get wounded. Like it so much. Who will be the first?

"I've had enough of your snide insinuations!"
*smacks Marcus*

... at this point I kinda want to go around and pet everyone... all of them look so soft! Talk about a plot twist if Reis just came in and started petting everyone going "hey... hey... lets all be friends" Unconditional ends in like 2 more pages with hugs, laughs, and everyone gets along.

XP then we'd never see Rukis again as fans burn fur affinity down

Bottom left: "America, F*** YEAH."

Sorry, i just had to.

I like, ya know, not all lions are bad! Some of us are pretty cool. He doesn't represent the lions! *holds up a signs that says "Nice Lions Unite"* Also, great work so far Rukis but this comic, because of the disclaimer, has be biting my nails with every new page.

I really dislike the fact that he wont leave the lion alone. It IS harrassment either way.
what are they protesting for?

Start reading from page one.

I really like how far Marcus has come, but right here, shits gonna go dowwwn D:

tactical shitstorm incoming :/

In Europe, the lions protesting at a funeral with anti-gay slogans would be in jail for Hate Speech, and that would be the end of it.

This is one of the best pages I've ever seen in your comics, Rukis. Excellent job.

I can't wait to see how the puddy-tat responds to that.