rewarding your watchers with another great story?

Let me guess: She's going to believe that Savage Squirrel had killed her hubby, and let's the sorrow and pain of that loss twist her up so much that she becomes a vengeful killer out for Savage Squirrel's blood.... Am I right? :)

uh yea

Either that or kill herself. Either way, something very stupid.

>.> Oh come on guys. Since when does Karno do something that's 'expected?' Scarcely, from what I can remember. Throw out something more positive about this.

Love the story so far Karno. Look forward to the completion! :)

I love this.

"Jooooooin us"

Its those really friendly voices that are the scariest.

SO TRUE!!

This reminds me of Steve Ditko to a degree.

You'd figure that given the popularity of the parody of the character closest to Ditko's heart you'd be able to find issues of Mr. A collections somewhere on the comics scene, even in the form of a torrent of socialist bits. But it's like the inky faced hobo was fabricated out of whole cloth, and us kids today aren't in a position to really understand what he and his repressed homosexuality are a criticism of.

It's hard to find any Mr. A stuff, but now that you mention it, yeah. A lot of the Mr.A objectivist 'sleep in the bed you made' stuff here.

I do feel as if we're being set up for a lecture about how there are no extenuating circumstances, and criminals have to be assiduously weeded out or they'll destroy us all, a complete blindness to the fundamental error of attribution, and then we'll see if our protagonist is swayed by the squirrel's moralizing, or if she still wants revenge, and hence will be shot to death. I've been watching Karno for a couple of years now but I know remarkably little about his characters. Haven't read a savage squirrel story arc, ever. Maybe I'm misinterpreting how this sort of thing goes.

I don't think Savage really pretends to be as highbrow philosophical as Mr. A. he's more like an elemental force of destruction against anything vaguely resembling the criminal element. Savage doesn't give much thought to what's left behind after his actions.

Like Mr. A, I'm an objectivist. I'm considered by some as a nihilistic objectivist. A cross between the Comedian and Rorschach.

Ah Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist or objectivist, was he?

Nietzsche was more of a realist. He certainly wasn't a utopian.

Hokay, I picked this up from Wikipedia. Seems our boy was a nilhilist.

Nihilism is often associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900), whose perspectivist view ("in so far as the word 'knowledge' has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings" The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann) accorded with certain aspects of one reading of the position; the modern definition does not apply to him.[15] Nietzsche noted the "death of God" and the atrophy of traditional absolutist morality in his time. However, he never advocated nihilism as a practical mode of living and was typically quite critical of what he described as the more dangerous nihilism, the rejection of the material world in favor of a nonexistent "heaven".[15][16] His later work displays a preoccupation with nihilism.

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. He hints that nihilism can become a false belief, when it leads individuals to discard any hope of meaning in the world and thus to invent some compensatory alternate measure of significance. Nietzsche used the phrase 'Christians and other nihilists', which is consistent with Christianity in general as Nietzsche describes nihilism, though there are christians who regard Christian philosophy as is its opposite. Another prominent philosopher who has written on the subject is Martin Heidegger, who argued that "[the term] nihilism has a very specific meaning. What remains unquestioned and forgotten in metaphysics is being; and hence, it is nihilistic."[17]

In most contexts, Nietzsche defined the term as any philosophy that results in an apathy toward life and a poisoning of the human soul—and opposed it vehemently. Nietzsche's deep concern with nihilism was part of his intense reaction to Schopenhauer's doctrine of the denial of the will. Nietzsche describes it as "the will to nothingness" or, more specifically:

Oopse that comment belongs somewhere else. I meant to say, what exactly is an objectivist nihilist? I've heard objectivists call a very wide range of opposing philosophies nihilistic, but sort of thought that the belief in ones ability to ascertain objective reality from a few carefully unexamined and misanthropic precepts to be quite the opposite of nihilism.

A nilhilistic objectivist believes that values don't exist and sees things in black and white.

I'm more of a social nihilist. There's no rules of society. What rules may remain are antiquated and outmoded at best. Today's society is mostly, self-centered, treacherous, duplicitous, entitlement-driven, and they will turn on you harder and faster than a WWE wrestler. Through the years I've been betrayed thousands of times in numerous settings. I have a very low regard for society and its denizens. Someone wants to be a friend, they have to PROVE themselves worthy of friendship.

An objectivist sees things in black or white, good or evil, lawful or chaotic. There's no "grey area" or "extenuating circumstances". They believe in absolutes.

That pretty much explains me. People who have known me from decades ago say "Damn, Addlesee. You've gotten mighty cold". My reply: "I had good teachers". I'm merely a product of my environment and experiences.

Ah, so you might as well just say you're an objectivist, but want to sound badass. And yes, I already knew that objectivist was code for a schizoid sociopath misanthrope.

How about "extreme objectivist"? I just remember Rorschach in that scene in "Watchmen" when he said "This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'save us!'... and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.'"

I have the exact same feeling, and they KNOW who and what they are.

Another comparison where might makes right. Nite Owl II and the Comedian during the riot in 1977. Nite Owl II talking, but the shit stopped when the Comedian hit the bricks. The Comedian was RIGHT. What happened to the American dream? "You're looking at it".

So, let's see I guess I can add misanthrope to my list as well as nihilist and objectivist. It doesn't hurt my feelings. I wear it like a title belt. Call it a pro wrestler's mentality.

Actually Objectivism is the natural evolution of a philosophy that raises rationalism above all other virtues (Most objectionable philosophies actually start with pretty reasonable virtues but then it all goes to crap when taken to it's ultimate logical extreme.)... EVERYTHING has to be backed-up by objective reasoning under pure Objectivism otherwise it must be cast into the 'Outer Darkness' That's where we get things like 'Enlightened Self-Interest'. Humans are hard-wired to care about what happens to people who are close to them and to want to help them when they are in trouble (Communism/Socialism's ultimate failing is in assuming this instinct is universal, it actually only goes as far as immediate friends/family/neighbors and starts breaking-down when people are asked to give a shit about someone they'll never meet in Eastern AssKrakistan), but this emotional instinct Is Not Rational... not that there's anything wrong with that, unless you're an Objectivist. So Objectivism comes up with 'Don't be a Dick because society will function more smoothly then and will give you a net benefit' because that's rational and an Objectivist strives for optimal rational reasoning and not being a Dick just for the sake of not being a Dick isn't part of that philosophy.

If I could ask 50 objectivists for their objectively true rational explanation for any given thing and not get 50 different answers I might have more respect for the alleged philosophy. Sorry but figuring out the reflexive property of A doesn't make your experience of the world any less subjective than anyone else's, you do have a subconscious that guides some of your opinions and forms some of your values, quantum physics does exist, and your greatest works of philosophy are also rape fetish fiction. Objectivism isn't nearly as profound as its proponents want to think it is. But as crazy lifestyle philosophies go, mad props to objectivism for being affordable, unlike, say, scientology, and although many objectivists would probably be enraged to hear it characterized thus, I also admire the philosophy for being essentially open source. Well, unless you agree with Ayn Rand that Ayn Rand is the most intelligent person to ever live. I have met objectivists who work off that premice and have a sort of objectivist orthodoxy based on meticulously parsing everything she'd ever written or said, but again, no two of these people could ever agree on things either.

That's the way with most philosophies and/or religions, it all gets filtered through the individual perspective and is colored by the differing fundamental assumptions each individual brings to it. I'd imagine most Objectivists aren't as stringent on scrutinizing their 'gut-reactions' under the lens of objective reasoning as they pretend to be, but they're only human. I'd also imagine one of the big appeals of the philosophy is the ability to go, "Look at us! We are using our Thinking Brain-Meats and leaving all those Irrational Emotions and Superstitions to the Pleabs, aren't we awesome?" But these assumptions are hardly rational of me are they?

Funny you should bring-up Scientology, that's one of the reasons I simply cannot accept it as a Religion. Any and all other religions in the US allow anyone to buy their materials from and sell to any source they please, some even hand them out for free. Pretty much the only hurdle for entry on the most fundamental level is a willingness to self-identify as a member of a given faith. Scientology however requires it's members to join their one specific church and heaven have mercy on you if you try and build your own E-meter and found your own denomination because Scientology's Lawyers won't.

As for Ayn Rand, I'm pretty-much of the opinion that she was an Obnoxious Cunt.

they're only human.

Gasp! You blaspheming nihilist! Objectivists are titans among weaklings and leeches. They feel no pain, have no subconscious mind, are not composed of subatomic particles, never feel envy, jealousy, dissatisfaction. Even stripped of every material position they own they are still inevitably merely days away from inconceivable wealth, and they can know anything, anything, anything, by merely reasoning it out based off of a few axiomatic precepts, no extra information or real world investigation necessary. If an objectivist says something it is true ... well, unless there's another objectivist there to hear it :P

Oh, sorry.. They're only Das Ubermensch Uber-Alles!!

Better?

Not better, but more accurate.

Because Objectivism is Serious Buisness, we know because Objectivists won't ever let us forget it.

That's my gist, yeah.

Savage Squirrel is a vigilante and he deals in absolutes.

Can't wait to see more. I always love your works.

- Shado

and then? and then? what happened?

Yikes.

Um Did anyone notice the BOYFRIENDS CLOTHES in page 2

you mean how he was packing heat? I admit it was easy to miss if you weren't looking for it.

see glad SOMEONE noticed :

Oh, you're talking about the waffle stuffed in his shorts :P

You don't stuff hot syrupy waffles in your pants?

Ah-hah! I wondered if it wouldn't end up something like this! :O

That bottom panel...I recognize that whirlpool from my childhood one night when I was trying to sleep...o_o;

This will probably end badly.

Couldn't they have at least closed his eyes?

There should have been a lot more blood, all over his torso and arms and probably his face, and an agonized look on his face rather than a surprised one. A gut shot like that wouldn't have been immediately fatal, he'd have spent hours bleeding out.

I see that scene at the bottom of the page, her staring into the abyss and the abyss staring back. That's what twigged me to the Ditko reference.

Ah Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist or objectivist, was he?

According to Wikipedia, he was a nihilist.

The bit you quoted from wikipedia would support the argument that Nietzsche had a lot to say about nihilism and who was a nihilist, but did not consider himself a nihilist and a positive philosophy of his own. But then again once philosophers start calling eachother nihilists it's impossible to stop it from becoming a back and fort of "Oh yeah? Well you're a nihilist!" so maybe that's what you're doing when you assert that Nietzsche was a nihilist? Obviously he doesn't mesh entirely with the objectivist worldview and probably would have called objectivism nihilism, so I guess you're free to call him a nihilist back, but to reject him outright is to turn your back on a lot of fun quotes. Nietzche produced my favorite out of context sound bites, unless you count Frank Herbert who was just screwing around anyway.

Neitzsche's one of "my boys". Right up there with Machiavelli ("it is better to be feared than loved"). Love is conditional and fickle whereas hatred is always eternal and constant. I don't have to worry about an enemy as much as I would a friend. An enemy will ALWAYS hate me. They'll NEVER want to mend fences. And they're powerless enough where I'll NEVER have to face them in the squared circle or front yard. Some friends are capable of becoming enemies on a whim, which is why I'm always armored, especially in the back.

Actually Machiavelli said that it is better to be loved And feared but if you can only have one or the other it's better to be feared, but above all else it is important not to be Hated. It doesn't matter how much they fear you, if they hate you they will suffer any grief to destroy you.

Well...I'm very hated in certain circles. It doesn't hurt my feelings. Heck, I THRIVE on the adversity. I've a pro wrestler's mentality. I come down the aisle to the boos and such, enter the ring, some idjit comes at me with threats, I part the ring ropes. No one, but no one's ever stepped into the ring. Whether, small-press fandom, APAs, Trek fandom, Salt Lake City fandom, furry fandom, comics prodom, chatrooms or real life, I've made enemies. However, they're powerless. They can take cheapshots at me in email or chatrooms, but they'll NEVER pull up in the driveway and jump out of the car, weapon in hand. If they're not doing that, then there's some element of fear i.e. fear of repercussion, fear of arrest and imprisonment, fear of consequence to family, etc.

Over ten years ago I was all concerned about my "image", about being liked. However, that was a utopian ideal. In 1998 I did the "heel swerve". What friends I had in real life, small-press fandom, APAs, Trek Fandom, Salt Lake City fandom, furry fandom, comics prodom and chatrooms mostly stayed the course with me. The remainder where completely happy-assed to be an enemy. They couldn't be bothered to make the slightest attempt to be a friend, but they'd sell the house and car to finance being my enemy.

As well as being a misanthrope, a nihilist and objectivist, I'm also a realist. Back in 1998, I realized I'd NEVER be popular, nor my work would ever receive the acclaim it should, so there was no point in trying to win hearts and minds. Okay, so a person's upset at me and doesn't buy a copy of Carc & 'Slide, or doesn't commission that illustration of a big hootied furrybabe. It doesn't matter as there wasn't a stampede for my artwork. But I can hold my head up because I was myself, instead of in the past when I gave away more free samples than a schoolyard pusher in the hopes I'd sell comics or get commissioned.

And I'm sure your internet tough-guy-ism validates your penis in ways we mere mortals can scarcely imagine.

Nar....I don't play that game. I'm a realist. I back up my smack. Tough guy on the Net, worse in real life.

I'm sure the pope is very impressed.

Heh...typical of potential enemies. They can't match me in the discussion, or they strenuously disagree with me being me, so they fall back on sarcasm, cheapshots and end up proving me correct about human nature (they make NO effort to be a friend, but would sell their house and car to be an enemy). As much as I'd like to consider you an adversary, enemy or arch-enemy, you don't even qualify as an annoyance (shrugs shoulders). That's the way it goes.

But here...just to entertain you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShTVpGuzk1M.

So yeah I was going to say something vast and profound about the various themes I consistently see in Karno's work but Karass and Addlesee pretty much explained it all in comments mostly above my head. But yes, I see a great deal of nihilism in your work, which is I think refreshing because you don't see this kind of thing much in furry fandom. Usually furry comics are just an excuse for writers and artists to show off overpowered deus ex machina characters, mary sues, big breasts and sex scenes. That isn't to say you don't draw your fair share of sex, but seriously, stuff like this is what makes me come back for more.

You actually write furry characters so they could be real people. Real people with flaws, quirks, skeletons in the closet, prejudices, etc. It's very nice of you to do this for us.

I see you get it. Props to you.

Second what Nightweaver20XX said, there.
I don't think I've seen a furry comic (not many others either) pick stuff like this up before and do it this well, with the exception of SLOP and Blacksad, maybe. What I mean by "this" is the human condition / choices, this dark and still this "toned down" (without supernatural elements). And Tanji is still many steps more "average person" than any of the leads in those comics. I like it.
As I never read any Savage Squirrel before, I'm of course clueless as to that bit of the context...
Were these published on Iceland first? Just curious.