This entry was posted on Thursday, March 19th, 2009 at 2:27 pm and is filed under comics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I don’t like the robot Chester, he was poorly designed (as in, robotically speaking…excellent drawings though! =D) A robot shouldn’t attack it’s creator..heck, a robot should attack at all..what happened to the the Three Laws of Robotics? lol
The idea of a robot somehow developing feelings of love and being forced to break the first wall over it would probably be one of those things Asimov would have been all over
Le Chacal beat me to it, but I was gonna say that Isaac Asimov hadn’t been born yet. If he had been, Frankenstein’s monster would have worked out better (and I’m talking about Shelly, not the movies)
@ Aaron – Normally, as a big Asimov fan, I would be all over the lack of three laws too… but remember that on some occasions, even Asimov’s robots committed some sort of violence.
xD I love how the only thing Chester and Pricilla can think to do upon seeing the scientist is shake their respective fists. Also, dang the scientist is hot. I’m a sucker for redemption ;o
Also I think it should be noted that every time I’ve commented I’ve consistently typed “scientits” instead of “scientist.”
Robert is his mechanical creator, but not his spiritual creator. You can see it in the complete lack of a bond between then: any feeling of indebtedness on Chester’s part, and any consideration for Chester’s emotions, are both missing.
@Dillon: I don’t think creating life is ever a mistake. Robert created Chester out of love. Does a parent think that they made a mistake in having kids just because they fight with their children?
Then again, children don’t steal your love interest… ^_^;
“@ Aaron – Normally, as a big Asimov fan, I would be all over the lack of three laws too… but remember that on some occasions, even Asimov’s robots committed some sort of violence.”
1) The three laws were possible because Asimov postulated an incident during the creation of self aware robots that made the laws an unavoidable part of their positronic brains. Although, it did not always work out perfectly, see “Liar” for the details.
2) The three laws do not prohibit violence, even against humans. However, such an act would tend to cause shorting out of the positronic brain and make the robot non-functional.
March 20th, 2009 at 4:47 am
YAY surely fixing is to come! I’m so glad updates have returned, I have been awful worried about poor Chester
hooray for Jess Fink!
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hooray! Back on track! I love this story <3
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I don’t like the robot Chester, he was poorly designed (as in, robotically speaking…excellent drawings though! =D) A robot shouldn’t attack it’s creator..heck, a robot should attack at all..what happened to the the Three Laws of Robotics? lol
April 29th, 2009 at 3:40 am
The idea of a robot somehow developing feelings of love and being forced to break the first wall over it would probably be one of those things Asimov would have been all over
April 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Hey, it’s the XIXth Century. The Three Laws would be created far later ;]
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Le Chacal beat me to it, but I was gonna say that Isaac Asimov hadn’t been born yet. If he had been, Frankenstein’s monster would have worked out better
(and I’m talking about Shelly, not the movies)
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Also, in the second-to-last panel, Chester should have said the only word in the whole comic: Die!
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 am
Nay, not die, but rather fie!
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
The Three Laws are rules for things. Chester is not a thing, he is a person.
July 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
@ Aaron – Normally, as a big Asimov fan, I would be all over the lack of three laws too… but remember that on some occasions, even Asimov’s robots committed some sort of violence.
July 26th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Was Chester’s creator wrong in making him? Discuss.
July 27th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
He did make him so therefore it was right. Always looking back on your past and wondering “what if?” is the road to insanity I tell you! ;P
August 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
f1lTka kivowjsyvugv, [url=http://vujoadqjbbxt.com/]vujoadqjbbxt[/url], [link=http://wgwcshzbkplq.com/]wgwcshzbkplq[/link], http://qyfpwaaaovex.com/
February 15th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
xD I love how the only thing Chester and Pricilla can think to do upon seeing the scientist is shake their respective fists. Also, dang the scientist is hot. I’m a sucker for redemption ;o
Also I think it should be noted that every time I’ve commented I’ve consistently typed “scientits” instead of “scientist.”
February 16th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Robert is his mechanical creator, but not his spiritual creator. You can see it in the complete lack of a bond between then: any feeling of indebtedness on Chester’s part, and any consideration for Chester’s emotions, are both missing.
Who made his soul then? Could it be Pricilla?
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:03 am
@Dillon: I don’t think creating life is ever a mistake. Robert created Chester out of love. Does a parent think that they made a mistake in having kids just because they fight with their children?
Then again, children don’t steal your love interest… ^_^;
March 25th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Stig: A person or not, Chester is still a robot.
May 23rd, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“@ Aaron – Normally, as a big Asimov fan, I would be all over the lack of three laws too… but remember that on some occasions, even Asimov’s robots committed some sort of violence.”
1) The three laws were possible because Asimov postulated an incident during the creation of self aware robots that made the laws an unavoidable part of their positronic brains. Although, it did not always work out perfectly, see “Liar” for the details.
2) The three laws do not prohibit violence, even against humans. However, such an act would tend to cause shorting out of the positronic brain and make the robot non-functional.