Why is “author” / “artist” / “developer” paid for a book / drawing / VN ?
In real life, if reward and credit has a share, then so does consequences. It's all about author's representation and push for content.
As per your reasoning Sophia in AWAM is not a character, neither a wife nor a mother, it's not a main character from a book / novel, but just a drawing.
Now, same reasoning. The last supper in Leonardo Da -Vinci ’s drawing cannot have any meaning or Jesus or any painting for that matter. It's meaningless. Olympic makes it queer or loads it with lard/ fat. It's not real just a meaningless drawing without consequences.
In real life, just like how a child [ let's say, adult content ] is considered as a crime for both promotion and consumption. Also only blamed party is involved adults, even if claims about children consent has been put forward by the viewership.
We are discussing about why horrible content is readily pushed for awam - “Sophia” the drawn character / main protagonist / main character.
It's all about the nature of particular “preached content”. Is it considered consumption of such content may lead to consequences? Personal fetishes no matter how intriguing for someone may bring them consequences.
Yes, you may argue - should content creators be charged of murder / rape / pedophilia in real life for pushing his content? Well we are not here to discuss “a crime sentence” but as a consumer we discuss the nature of content that's pushed by dev.
In order to discuss this topic and respond to your post, let's put some aspects of the topic under discussion in place.
First, based on this part of your post:
In real life, just like how a child [ let's say, adult content ] is considered as a crime for both promotion and consumption. Also only blamed party is involved adults, even if claims about children consent has been put forward by the viewership.
Let's immediately determine that in real life it is completely unacceptable and criminal to involve children in sexual relations with adults. This is a crime and it does not matter at all whether the child consented or was forced to such actions.
Moreover, I personally consider it criminal to conduct sexual lessons with children in kindergartens and primary schools. In theory, it is necessary to introduce children to sexual topics no earlier than they reach the age of 14 and only in a theoretical presentation. It is also necessary to instill in children the desire not to have sexual practices and avoid them until they reach the age of 16-18.
This is an axiom that, unfortunately, has long been violated in many Western countries.
Second.
Now, same reasoning. The last supper in Leonardo Da -Vinci ’s drawing cannot have any meaning or Jesus or any painting for that matter. It's meaningless. Olympic makes it queer or loads it with lard/ fat. It's not real just a meaningless drawing without consequences.
Speaking about Leonardo's Last Supper and the drawing in particular, it is impossible not to touch on other things that have deep symbolic, religious or other meanings for people.
For some, Leonardo's Last Supper is just a drawing on canvas, someone likes it, someone doesn't. But there are millions of Orthodox believers in God, as well as millions of Catholics, for whom this is not just a drawing, but an icon. An icon that is their symbol of faith, to which they pray and through which people turn to God.
I do not want to touch on these topics here on this forum, I will only say that not only an icon drawing, but also other objects can have a symbolic meaning for a person. Such as, for example, a memorial stone or some other thing that has no material value, but is dear as a memory or spiritually.
Therefore, I want to return to the subject of our discussion, only summarizing that a drawing can carry a completely different semantic load, from some trifle to something very important and valuable for a person.
The third. A fetish.
That's my opinion on this matter.
And the last moment.
Why is “author” / “artist” / “developer” paid for a book / drawing / VN ?
In real life, if reward and credit has a share, then so does consequences. It's all about author's representation and push for content.
Until L&P sells its game on the Steam platform, it is too early to say that it is selling its game. Today, as an artist, he does what he likes, and everyone has the opportunity to provide him with financial support. It's still something else, not a sale.
And it is quite natural that when selling his product through any platform, he will need to comply with the rules of the platform in order to be able to get money for his product. That's when your comments above will be true. But we all understand that the content of the product will be different then.