Irregular Reactions

From The Bad Webcomics Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a page for review responses that I wasn't sure where to put or what to say about. Here you will find things we are not 100% sure were our fault, things that got deleted and we aren't sure what was written in them and otherwise strange or confusing responses.

Assigned Male

In irregular section because - The review was vandalized by someone who appears to be the author, but we can't be 100% sure.


Soon after the review of "Assigned Male" was posted, a new user account was created literally called "Transphobiaisnotokay". The user edited the review from a critical one to a glowingly positive one in a manner that was reminiscent of the time Chris Chan tried to "correct" his Encyclopedia Dramatica article.

Needless to say, the edits were quickly reverted and the user banned. You can view their edits compared to the original here. Since Ms. Labelle already has a history of trying to remove criticism of her comic from the internet, and since the "corrected" review contained details about Labelle's life that the original author didn't find while researching the comic, we strongly suspect she herself may have been the culprit.

The funniest part is that a quote of another transgender woman who said she didn't like the comic or how it represents their community was unceremoniously removed.

There is a verified Angry Reaction as of mid 2017.


Haha pretty funny to stumble upon this! Author and artist of Bloodroot here saying that if anyone who disliked my comic wants to make an article about it on the bad webcomics wiki, they've got my blessings in doing so. I aim to entertain and enjoy creating, and if what I make doesn't entertain someone as is, it's only good if they transform it into something they CAN enjoy (in this case parody, since that's what a lot of reviews online partially dwelve into these days).

Just gonna point out a couple things to clear up some misunderstandings you made: I don't roleplay. I don't have time to waste on that shit, dude, I make two pages a day or more xD I spend all of my time working. I am not some typical "yaoi fangirl". I am a transgender guy, and I'm mostly gay (I've had a gf but I'm demi when it comes to girls). The reason that there's so much lgbtqia+ stuff in my comics is that I myself am part of that demographic and mostly hang out with people within that demographic. There IS NO UKE OR SEME in Bloodroot. None. Nada. Liv and Arii switch, and these days I tend to avoid the terms "uke" and "seme" since they are old terms that carry much more meaning than just "top" and "bottom" - they are words that continue to reinforce old disgusting gender roles in gay relationships. "Uke" doesn't just mean "Bottom", it means girly boyamathingy that is weak, fragile and cute so that the woman reading the comic can see that this is the character they are supposed to identify with. Ukes were created so that japanese women who had been raised into a gender role where they are expected to not want sex can get sexual gratification without feeling guilty. How? Well, they didn't WANT it of course! Which is why the uke often gets raped in yaoi. Semes are abusive, manipulative, macho pieces of shit. I was sexually exploited and manipulated by a norwegian man 15 years older than me for 4 years straight, starting when I was 14-15 years old. I know macho shitty semes sell well in the yaoi community, but I am not here to sell myself and even if I was I could, for aforementioned reason, not bring myself to write such a character and play the yaoi pretend game of "abuse is love." Also, in your typical yaoi, any woman is often a cockblock bitchlord. This is not the case with Bloodroot. Bloodroot assumes that women are... well. People. People who should have proper personalities in the fiction they're in. People who should be able to dress however they damn please without being questioned about it or told they're gonna get raped and deserve it. People who have better shit to do than trying to break up a couple of gay guys.

I don't write that kind of crap. I write crap, but not THAT kind of crap.

The half sibling incest was something I attempted to find a way to get out of the story. I couldn't find a way, at least not at the time that I started the comic. Eventually it was either I write the story with it, or I don't write the story at all. As an artist, an action that contains something controversial or a potential mistake is always better than not creating anything at all. It is a part of the plot that will be more thoroughly handled later on, but I don't let it eat the story up because I don't want it to become the entirety of the story, nor do I want it to become so dominant in the comic that it all looks like I'm fetishizing incest. I don't really care much about incest personally as long as no biological children come of it, but I also don't have a kink for it and I don't want to exploit it.

The art looks much better in recent chapters, I promise xD I want to vomit when I see the old art. Current art looks more like this: I'm also trying to improve the writing and I completely agree that the way the story was handled in the first chapters is horrible and oddly paced. If anyone who read the full story or looked at the newer art has constructive criticism to give, I am open to it!

/John Vincent

So, first I was ...

What did I Just Read.jpeg

... and then I was ...

Still Wondering What I Just Read.jpg

Follow continuing proceedings in the forum here. I'm clearly out of my depth but good luck to you if you choose to continue.

Bold text as per the original post.


In irregular section because - Asked nicely to delete the review


Jonas deleted the comic and emailed us saying:

Hi. If I asked really nicely, would you be willing to take this article down? The comic ended years ago, the site's down, and I'd really rather move on at this point.

Since he wasn't an ass about it and "Dume" isn't offensively bad we deleted the review.

Darkwing Beyond

In irregular section because - author wrote an annotated review of the review of the webcomic.


The author wrote a review of the review on his own forum here. Curiously he is more concerned with the fact that the reviewer is not a fan of the source material the webcomic draws from. Even more curiously, he is only a moderator on his own forum.

Foreskin Man

In irregular section because - Continued the comic thanks to a prank


We had a strange little story with the creator of this comic. At the bottom of the review there was a request to try and send an E-mail to the creator pretending to be a fan to ask him to write a chapter where the hero fights Arabs.

After two years of being inactive the comic posted a new chapter that occurs in Turkey...

Is this our doing? No way to know except to make sure by repeating the result.

You know what culture has circumcisions that he has yet to insult? Australian aboriginies. Here is his email again. If you want to see if this was actually our fault, Email Matthew and mention that to him... Good luck!


In irregular section because - Wrote the review about himself

Webcomic artist writes review about himself. Everyone is confused.

We had a whole soap opera with Herovast. Let us just read what he had to say.

Click To Read

This is an interesting one with a bit of back story I need to tell.

Me and my mate Kev made bad reviews for each other's comics ages ago on the Bad Webcomic Wiki because we thought it was funny to insult each other. You can read the one I wrote for him here. He wrote one for me but it got edited by someone who wasn't very funny who tried to do a sort of commentary about getting bored and making a cup of tea because the comic was dull. It wasn't very good so I reverted it. Little did I realise, the BWW is much more of a members club than most wikis, and the person whose edit I reverted was kinda important on the site. I immediately got banned and the review was deleted entirely (they decided the comic was not actually that dreadful on their forum. They didnt think it was very good, but not bad enough to warrant a page.) Well...I lasted longer on that wiki than I did on Conservapedia at least!

Anyway, for some reason it got put back up, along with some commentary of the whole "removing, reverting" thing (which seems weird to me on a wiki, but its their site.)

Anyway, its basically Kev's original bad review but with more added, changed around a bit and more pictures.

I took the original Kev bad review down from the hall of shame because it seemed a bit like cheating (since he did the bad review as a joke I was in on.) But now its been approved and edited by others, I feel okay reposting it here.

I will give a link in case it gets updated in the future-

So that's pretty much it. They wrote reviews about each other as a prank/ploy for attention, we figured it out, the review was either deleted or lost when the site was hacked. But, since the review was good and the comic is bad, it was restored form a copy they posted on their forum.

The only clarification we need to make is that Harkovast was not banned because he reverted the edits of a more "important" member. He was banned because he reverted them without explaining why, and then, when the changes were made again, he reverted them a second time without saying a word. Since everyone already knew who he was they assumed this was some stupid prank and just banned him rather than bother trying to figure it out.

Bottom line- Thank you Harkovast for saving us the trouble for writing a review about your little abomination, and thanks again for helping us restore the lost review.



In irregular section because - Partially deleted the comic without responding

Attack of the wolf king 110 by aksika-d61sbjo.png

Two days after the review was posted the comic was removed from SmackJeeves. The comic is still up on two other sites, but this is a good start.

We can't be sure it was deleted thanks to us, but the timing seems suspect.

Zack and Spike

In irregular section because - Had an actual reason for the webcomic to be removed.


The author of this webcomic wanted this review removed because it had the names and locations of the contributors. He felt that this information was unfair, especially in so that the other guy didn't have much to do with the webcomic at hand. The webcomic had been removed from the web for about five years, and he made it when he was a teen, so we have deleted the review.