Comics Collection Pinup Daval3D Collection [2025-05-05] [Daval3D]

[potito.doz]

Daval on SSA:
News: It's finally over!
Hello people, it's finally over, after many months a big weight is leaving me, so now I can have almost 100% of my time in comics.

I know that for 7 or 8 months the dates of the updates have not been accurate because little by little more things in my life have appeared and have taken up my time and have given me a lot of stress, but in these last days those matters are over.
What I want now is to do an update every 3 days as I did before and publish the comics before the evening, and for that I will do the update one day before, I will finish it, but I will publish it the next day to have updates in reserve. Tomorrow I will start working on SN but I don't promise to publish it tomorrow, I will publish it on Friday and I will use that system for the other updates this month.

This month I will do the updates you see in the picture, but in June I will do every 3 or 2 days. Many have been supporting me for years and others have left, but I don't blame them, my mind was elsewhere: friends, family, girlfriends, my house, gym, and I had a disorganized life, but now I will have much more time.

Another thing is that every day I receive messages on Discord, Twitter, SubscribeStar, Boosty, etc. Messages of support, complaints, proposals to make collaborations with other artists, etc. and handling that alone is overwhelming, that's why it took a long time to respond, but now with more organization I will respond much faster.

Next month I'll be back with the cover contests and I'll do all the ones I'm missing. And I will also be able to fulfill to make commissions that I have dozens of people who have asked me for personalized pages.

Thank you for your support.
View attachment 4863255
[/QUOTE What I want now is to do an update every 3 days as I did before and publish the comics before the evening, and for that I will do the update one day before, I will finish it, but I will publish it the next day to have updates in reserve. Tomorrow I will start working on SN but I don't promise to publish it tomorrow, I will publish it on Friday and I will use that system for the other updates this month.]
I stopped being a sub (and went thru Lana withdrawal) 'cuz of the unreliability from Daval3D, but I'd sign up again if I could just take his (probably sincerely meant) statement seriously. He's a very talented guy who's also a chronic procrastinator. Since I'm also a C.P., I can speak from some experience here: he hasn't yet recognized that this is a big part of his makeup. WANTS to do the right thing, but needs actual help to defeat it. WORST thing a ** can do is make a big to-do list and 'commit' to doing it ASAP. The big list shortly becomes something to DREAD, and that's a powerful reason to pause, get distracted by sumthin you'd LIKE to do and lose sight of responsibilities ranging from little errands to big projects. He needs a coach to keep reminding him every day of what MUST be done vs. what he's wanting to do. A more realistic set of just 2 or 3 weekly steps to chipping away at his mountainous promises could build some momentum, & would be less dreadful – more likely to adhere to for more than once or twice in a row. I would be happy to see him prove me wrong – & I'll re-join if he does. History & probability say that – unless he gets help and constant, daily reminders – he probably won't.

 

[ToWhomItMayConcern69]

If you say so.

There is no "objective" harm in this matter, when it concerns the behavior of two subjects, i.e. Daniel and Lana. Everyone is a subject in their own lives and the subjects of their own actions; hence, there is no objectivity. It may make you feel better to think that your statements are divorced from how you feel by citing "law" but all law is, whether arbitrary and/or "universally recognized" is a collection of feelings.

And yes, Daval's opinion matters most. Why? Because he's both Lana and Daniel. He knows better than anyone how they feel, how they think, what they both accept and don't accept, and what they can or can't consent to. You can't have it both ways: don't argue that Daval's portrayals are divorced from what you deem as "reality" and then react as though they were tied to what you deem as "reality."

Wrong. I haven't equated them at all. In fact, my argument has been trying to reinforce that the priority of personal preferences takes precedence over legal description especially as it concerns two or more parties decisions in sex.

Once again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. And my opinion on this matter is as relevant as anyone else's not named Daval. The only people trying to have a dispute over legal definition are the ones who feel as though it would provide an authority to how they feel. Newsflash: it doesn't. The law has no moral priority over how a person chooses to behave their own body. Repeating what the law states is no different than stating "this person said this..." Hence, my Emir anecdote.

And as far as the differences between Patreon and Subscribestar, you're only making my point on how depictions being "okay" here, and not "there" is just arbitrary.

"Marital rape"? Daniel and Lana aren't married. And the term rape doesn't need a modifier.

But you're going to try...

Called it.

The protections for "consent" especially in the countries you've listed does everything but service autonomy. If you can have a law that states that a person cannot provide consent to an act even if they've done so before, or after the fact, then autonomy is already out of the window. It's more so about protecting the image and interests of the legislation.

Once again, you're proverbially speaking from one side of your mouth and another. If it's "just cartoons" then why not leave your statement at that? Why did you feel it necessary to regurgitate a legal description of rape? For "objectivity's" sake? Are you under the impression that I don't know what "legal rape" is? Or is it just my disagreement that has fueled your desire to be "objective"? And I'm using the term objective facetiously here because no one seems to have an interest in owning their opinions. I am giving my opinion. And so are you no matter what authority you believe citing legal definition provides it.

If you want to have a REAL debate about laws, morals, and ethics, feel free to message me.

With that said, I only entertained this post because I thought it only fair to hear you out given that I was the one who quoted you. But I meant what I said, I've grown tired of this discussion. This has taken up way too many pages, and consumed so much time. And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some of these posts here are "cleaned up" so I won't waste more time beating a dead horse.

You're wrong, and it's quite funny that you think you're not.

There is no objective harm? This is moral relativism taken to the extreme. You're arguing that because everyone is a "subject", objectivity doesn't exist, which is both philosophically lazy and factually wrong.

Laws exist precisely because we live in a society of individuals with differing values. Harm is measurable: trauma, power imbalance, coercion, and inability to consent are not "feelings", they are legal and psychological realities. Not all laws are just a collection of feelings. Saying so is like claiming that murder laws are based purely on emotion. While morality may be subjective to some extent, law is codified consensus, and in this context, it exists to protect vulnerable parties.

Daval is not Lana and Daniel. That is why you cannot make a disclaimer saying "these characters are just acting because I said so", or "they're pretending to be family but they're not", or "this character looks like a minor but she's actually a thousand-year-old vampire" and then place them in scenes involving blackmail, coercion, and rape across various platforms, not just Patreon, but Pornhub for instance and half the internet. Because it is illegal. When the law changes, you can let your moral or ethical compass guide your reaction to such content, but until then, the law is the law.

A minor-looking character is a minor-looking character. Rape is rape. Even if Lana is awake and pretending to be asleep, or even if she says it was fine afterward, there's a legal principle called "mens rea", the guilty mind, and "actus reus", the guilty act. If Daniel believes Lana is asleep, even if she is secretly awake and consenting, the fact that he thinks she is unconscious means he believes he is committing rape. That belief fulfills the mens rea component in many legal systems. The act itself fulfills the actus reus. Therefore, it is illegal. Immoral? Up to you, it's a cartoon, but it's unequivocally illegal.

Retroactive consent does not undo a non-consensual act. This is well-established across all credible legal systems.

You're trying to moralize something that is, in every jurisdiction that matters, both immoral and illegal. You can argue subjectivity all you want, but that does not hold up in law, in ethics, or in decent society.

I'm done here, honestly, and I don't understand why they would "clean it up" when we're just discussing the work in a very civilized way.

By the way, you didn't "call" anything. You simply read ahead. It was obvious I was leading into it, it's called sarcasm. Yes, the western culture is objectively and subjectively superior. How? For instance, human rights, personal freedoms, and legal protections. If your moral framework values consent, equality, freedom, and protection from abuse, then Western culture, broadly speaking, is superior in delivering those outcomes. If it doesn't, well, shame on you.

 

[8TB]

You're wrong, and it's quite funny that you think you're not.

There is no objective harm? This is moral relativism taken to the extreme. You're arguing that because everyone is a "subject", objectivity doesn't exist, which is both philosophically lazy and factually wrong.

Laws exist precisely because we live in a society of individuals with differing values. Harm is measurable: trauma, power imbalance, coercion, and inability to consent are not "feelings", they are legal and psychological realities. Not all laws are just a collection of feelings. Saying so is like claiming that murder laws are based purely on emotion. While morality may be subjective to some extent, law is codified consensus, and in this context, it exists to protect vulnerable parties.

Daval is not Lana and Daniel. That is why you cannot make a disclaimer saying "these characters are just acting because I said so", or "they're pretending to be family but they're not", or "this character looks like a minor but she's actually a thousand-year-old vampire" and then place them in scenes involving blackmail, coercion, and rape across various platforms, not just Patreon, but Pornhub for instance and half the internet. Because it is illegal. When the law changes, you can let your moral or ethical compass guide your reaction to such content, but until then, the law is the law.

A minor-looking character is a minor-looking character. Rape is rape. Even if Lana is awake and pretending to be asleep, or even if she says it was fine afterward, there's a legal principle called "mens rea", the guilty mind, and "actus reus", the guilty act. If Daniel believes Lana is asleep, even if she is secretly awake and consenting, the fact that he thinks she is unconscious means he believes he is committing rape. That belief fulfills the mens rea component in many legal systems. The act itself fulfills the actus reus. Therefore, it is illegal. Immoral? Up to you, it's a cartoon, but it's unequivocally illegal.

Retroactive consent does not undo a non-consensual act. This is well-established across all credible legal systems.

You're trying to moralize something that is, in every jurisdiction that matters, both immoral and illegal. You can argue subjectivity all you want, but that does not hold up in law, in ethics, or in decent society.

I'm done here, honestly, and I don't understand why they would "clean it up" when we're just discussing the work in a very civilized way.

By the way, you didn't "call" anything. You simply read ahead. It was obvious I was leading into it, it's called sarcasm. Yes, the western culture is objectively and subjectively superior. How? For instance, human rights, personal freedoms, and legal protections.

I appreciate your input. Any further discussion on this matter with me should be taken to private messages. I'm not invested enough to continue this, here.

 

[apocalipsis666]

what the hell just happening to uncle peter