Comic Fury Webcomic Hosting - Comic profile

You are not logged in. Log in, Register, More info
Comic profile: Monster Soup
Monster Soup
A webcomic of devious deliciousness.
Comic avatar
Content flags: Violent ContentSexual ContentStrong LanguageNudity
Comic language: English
Genre: Other
Activity status: Active
Archive url: Visit archive
Last update: 5 days ago, 3:53 PM
Number of comics: 334
Number of subscribers: 570
Visitors: 208288 visitors (1786842 pages viewed)
Rating: 4.97 (1055 votes)

Comic description

A group of misfit monsters are sentenced to live under the same roof--a castle belonging to mad scientist, who is serving his own sentence for unethical experiments. The real question is, can a hodgepodge group of monsters live under the same roof? (Some comedy, horror, and a little bit of everything else.)


An artist and writer who draws stories and writes drawings.

Most recent comments left on Monster Soup

2 days ago
If anyone cut my hair cause I was making out with their boyfriend (you know, cause shouldn't she be made the boyfriend?) I'd kick their ass XD I've been growing it since....god 1996! That'd be a deal breaker for m, curse her! XD

Edit: granted, I never make out with other people's partners, but you know, I've been cheated on and my wrath was towards my ex, not the guys he cheated on me with. I actually liked most of his boyfriends better than him XD
Left on Page 27 – A Warning
2 days ago
I can't wait to meet the new characters!!! This poster looks amazing!
Left on Halloween 2018
3 days ago
Before I answer some of your earlier questions for me, I'll answer the questions you posed to nagolax33. Why? So you know where I stand on those issues.

1) No. I believe it is the duty of a nation to secure its borders. I would hope most of its citizens love the United States of America, though personal experience leads me to be cautious around those who "declare" it.

2) Was the lower-case "w" intentional or a typo? If you're not talking "White Nationalists" then just leave out the "white" in the front. If you are, then I recommend capitalizing the "w".

3a) No.

3b) N/A

4) No, unless we get really, really nitpicky with the definition of "racism". If we do get that picky, the term becomes meaningless as suddenly everyone is racist, and I get a fun parody song stuck in my head.

I'm a "conservatarian", an American conservative with strong classical liberal (liberatrian) leanings. Now, so that we can focus, I'll answer just one part of your previous post.

"'You left something worth stealing (brand new bike and groceries)' Are you saying that I deserved to have my bike stolen because it was worth it? No one deserves to have their property stolen from them sir."

I am not saying you "deserved" to be robbed but I am saying you made yourself an easy target for it by avoiding simple precautions. Even if you had no worries about human thieves, there are still curious kids or pets, or even urban wildlife that would still be a risk to the groceries!
Left on Page 27 – A Warning
4 days ago
I have a couple of questions for you.

1) If a white person declares that they love America and they believe that a nation should have the right to enforce its borders, would you consider that white person to be a "White Nationalist"? Yes or No?

2) Do you believe that white Nationalists are racist?

3) a) Do you believe that it is impossible for any non-white person to be racist?

b) If yes, is that because you believe that all non-white people are victims of white racism and oppression, and are therefore justifiably "prejudiced" towards whites?

4) Do you believe that all white people are inherently racist?
Left on Page 27 – A Warning
4 days ago
Your xenophobia and justification for it isn't new. Hell my favorite author, H.P lovecraft, had the same rational for a good majority of his life. "Those immigrants are ruining New York! Look at the world objectively, this is all leading to the purging of the white race!"

Here's a copy and paste from a different context, but it mostly applies to your argument. I do this because I'm lazy and have had this tired argument too many times. Basically you're wrong.


1.) None of the crime statistics evaluate white-on-white or black-on-black crime. This introduces a ton of bias into the overall picture that one presents. In particular, Atlanta is a fairly racially divided city and cross-race crime is going to be relatively unrepresentative of the whole. In all likelihood if you check the APD stats or whatever the highest incidence is going to be found in black-on-black crime. If you want to debate the whole thing from the point of view of somebody who's obsessed with racism, or abscence thereof, as a catch-all explanation for social coflict, by far the most striking phenomenon you'll see is internalized racism on the part of the black community directed towards itself. That's still a bit hokey, but...

2.) The more substantial problem here is that race isn't being considered alongside class and income. Again, the likihood is that you'll see this disparity drop dramatically once you account for the fact that black people are generally poorer. And we have a simple historical explanation for that: slavery. It's not as if black incomes dropped from a point in the past when they were equal to white incomes. That gap has always been there, and it's been (painfully slowly) closing since back in the days when a considerable majority of black people were property, never mind the question of income or even being allowed to own property themselves. And poor people pretty reliably commit crimes at higher rates regardless of where they are.

3.) Generally speaking, making statistics seem to say things is a 100 percent reliable way to say things that are bullshit. This is especially true with let the reader decide shtick like this, which also plays the rhetorically convenient role of absolving the author of responsibility for their claims. In the abscence of explicit claims, this is just a pile of numbers. I'll explain why in a moment, but this is also especially true with qualitative and non-predictive claims, because a.) all citation of statistics is selective and b.) qualitative claims are never self-evident in practice. That's why we have theory. Ask the guy what his explanation of these statistics is. That's also likely demonstrably bullshit.

Finally, even if dudebro were to make a real predictive claim here (e.g. you are more likely to be robbed by black people if you live in Atlanta--if it's meant to imply, as it likely is, that black people are bestial criminals, we're making somewhat less than testable claims) the validity of predictive statistical claims requires certain kinds of qualification and consideration. It's notoriously unintuitive.

Want to know a question 80% of doctors get wrong? Say I'm seeing a patient with Reddit Disease, which has an incidence of 1 in 1000 individuals. I give a blood test for Reddit disease, which is 95% percent accurate: it only gives a false positive 5% of the time or a false negative 5% of the time. How accurate are my results?

95% is the wrong answer. Pending other information, the correct answer is that my test is completely worthless, since the incidence of false positives is 50 times higher than true positives in a blindly selected population because the disease is rare. This is why I need other information. This is why statistics do not speak for themselves and why they need to be discussed in light of other contextual information.

so to TLDR that:

1.) The data is presented selectively and arbitrarily, in a way that seems set up to suggest that black-on-white crime represents a majority of the whole. In fact it isn't.

2.) The data is presented without discussion of the major theories of the causes of crime, as understood by sociologists et al, which makes it difficult to interpret. Conversely, those theories would use a different data set.

3.) The data is presented without an argument, which makes any exercise in debating it somewhat circular.

4.) We don't know if the case is representative, even if the data weren't cherry-picked to begin with.

Tp more fully explain the last point about meaningful incidence, here's a parallel. Say we know that black-on-black crime in black areas of major urban areas, driven by poverty, is a real problem. That fact still tells us nothing about the causes of crime in general, or any given crime. Even if we know the social mechanism of crime rates in that case quite well, we still need to know if it's generalizable. It might not be, and generalizing things is a science in itself. Presenting Atlanta as the paradigmatic case, without discussion, basically entrenches this mistake and hides it. This is arguably what has happened with a lot of criminal justice policy in the US, actually: very aggressive sentencing and enforcement directed at middle-class black people in Wyoming based on stuff that happens in Camden, New Jersey.
Left on Page 27 – A Warning