Gabital - Fantasy Capitalism 101 [Ongoing]

Posted on 01 April 2025, 10:38 by: onenightes

Uploader Comment

https://boosty.to/gabiconomics-en

Posted on 10 December 2024, 23:48 by: Thoromuerte

Anti-capitalist message, now on your favourite porn site!

Approved! :D

Posted on 11 December 2024, 01:41 by: SomeGuy91

actually, its very pro capitalist. "if you dont like the way it is, just do it yourself."
what it really doesnt like is CRONY capitalism where established buisness owners get special deals.

Posted on 11 December 2024, 02:50 by: Genoshia

@Thoromuerte This is pretty much exclusively pro-capitalism. Under capitalism, the correct solution to a bad boss is to stop working for them. The systems shown also allow Gabi to start her own business, instead of outright stopping her as would be the case in other economic structures.
Even her old boss takes the capitalist route in competing with her-so far-by trying to leverage his existing wealth as a means to out compete her. Instead of lobbying additional license requirements that ensures only his wheels are 'government approved,' which is how you'd compete in a more socialist system.

This doesn't denounce capitalism; It highlights the traps and pitfalls of it, shows how to get around them, and points out how capitalism is enabling the option to combat corruption by just being a better business.

Posted on 12 December 2024, 23:59 by: Hitman1826

Goddamn, dude. This is just bad propaganda lol. Literally every page is either just flatout wrong, strawmanning, and/or not completely understanding the concepts it tries to demonstrate lol.

Posted on 22 December 2024, 14:07 by: Pedrobeartimon

Communists do such a good job at proving capitalism to be a better financial system

Posted on 23 December 2024, 12:01 by: thatguy26

buncha gonner dipshits in the comments simping for the system that exploits them lmao

Posted on 23 December 2024, 14:47 by: Pedrobeartimon

thatguy26 acting like needing to take action yourself to fix a problem that you want fixed is wrong and other people should just do it for you

Posted on 23 December 2024, 18:31 by: AbusePuppy

@SomeGuy91

"Crony capitalism" isn't a real thing, it's what people simping for capitalism say to defend it. Same as folks saying "but the Soviet Union/CCCP/etc wasn't REAL communism!" as a way to try and sidestep the discussion. All capitalism is inherently nepotistic, and it's always gonna result in Good Ol' Boys power structures wherein the rich and hyper-rich conspire to protect their own interests at the expense of everyone else and of society in general. That is what the system does, and how it's designed to work.

@Genoshia
>instead of outright stopping her as would be the case in other economic structures.

What... economic structures do you know of that would prohibit the starting of businesses? I feel like that would be a pretty obvious problem for any kind of economic theory that tried to practice it. Even the most authoritarian of command economies usually only dictate specific sectors and/or products, rather than a ban on what sort of businesses are allowed to exist.

Posted on 24 December 2024, 07:08 by: Genoshia

@AbusePuppy Both socialism and communism hold strict control over what businesses are and are not allowed to operate. Under a socialist economic structure, businesses are required to meet strict, government-enforced requirements in order to be allowed to operate. Gabi would have met none of them, as she did not have land rights for her business from the city, any sort of licensing for operation, and certainly did not obtain any form of license in regards to hiring other employees.
Those things were eventually forced upon her, but under a socialist system she would have faced massive fines and possibly worse penalties for not having already met them in the first place. This is because socialism, in practice, makes it extremely difficult for any entity that does not already have power to start their own business, as they're expected to meet criteria already existing conglomerates are able to meet only due to existing hordes of capital to carry them through these processes when they're not earning income. This is why many American businesses fail to break into European markets, and why many entrepreneurs prefer to move to America to start small businesses.
While it can be argued-it varies between specific systems-that these restrictions are a benefit to the workers, it is just a fact that they prohibit the creation of new businesses in ways that capitalism does not.

And while Gabi MIGHT have been able to start a competing business under a socialist structure-she very definitely would have needed a great deal more start up capital than she is shown as having in this comic, and the comic would have needed to explain a great deal more bureaucracy before getting to the actual business portion-under a communist structure, she simply could not have.
Competing businesses do not exist under communist structures. Under a communist structure, individuals are not allowed to own their own business, as they have no rights to their own labor. All things are owned by the collective, i.e. the government. As there is an already established and existing business to provide the exact service she wants to offer-someone she would be competing with, for profit-she would first have to show that her business provides something to the community it is not already being provided by Chief's business. It's literally the same business, using methods he's already using to create goods he's already creating. As such, Gabi would not have been allowed the rights to property-which would be owned by the government-the materials-also own by the government-or the labor-again, government owned-to open her business. Very likely, she would not even been allowed to quit, as under most communist systems blue-collar labor such as hers is assigned to citizens by the government, often via lottery, and as such they are not allowed to just quit working them.

Posted on 08 January 2025, 23:25 by: Unwanted Miles

To aliviate the tension of the discussion above...

Am I the only one who gets Primis Richtofen vibes from the boss guy?

Posted on 08 January 2025, 23:36 by: ehcks

So when is this stupid little goblin whore going to be raped and left in the gutter filled with cum from 10+ different guys?

Posted on 10 January 2025, 20:58 by: Mason2

Goblin cute. Hope succeed.

Posted on 18 January 2025, 13:08 by: heretic1311

@AbusePuppy Capitalism isn´t "inherently nepotistic", POWER STRUCTURES are, you get nepotism in socialism and monarchism just as much as in capitalism.
If Capitalism is anything "inherently", then it´s MERITOCRATIC, and the socialist types hate that as it´s exclusive, making people unequal.
Monarchism CAN be meritocratic, but few monarchs are wise enough to make it work properly.

Key with the whole concept of Politics as a whole is that all boils down to a really simple idea: who owns what. That´s what politics is by definition.
And there are three big ideas on how it´s don:
1: first and oldest is Monarchism, the idea that everything belongs to ONE, usually the strongest and he decides how things are distributed
2: second, born as the exact opposite to Monarchism, is Socialism (the oldest form i know are the early Christians), it is the idea that EVERYONE owns EVERYTHING
3: the youngest form, mostly a result of the movement we call the "Enlightenment", Capitalism is the idea that you own the fruits of your labor and are free to exchange them at your own free will with others, hence referred to as "Free Market"

Each of these basic forms has a LOT of variations in which is was attempted to implement them.

And i REALLY didn´t expect a political discussion on a PORN SITE O.o

Posted on 19 January 2025, 04:29 by: Ignitation

This is great.. I've actually learning alot about business (Beat going to the business school, But also realize why these schools are so damn popular too). Also I get it now why there are so much bandit, highwaymen or smuggler to begin with in first place. The system totally crushing the "little guys" to the point they can't dare to hope on resurfacing from the system!!

Also I can see many "opportunities" for an easy favors to be taken on business dealing and how these plot point can be very relevant to the story progression as well.

Posted on 19 January 2025, 06:21 by: RabidTanker

Come to think of it, has anyone ever did an thesis entirely through an comic?

Posted on 19 January 2025, 09:41 by: Genoshia

Ah yes, a classic depiction of the Socialist ideal! Starting a socialist system, not by going somewhere free of industry and starting from the ground up, but by operating as a single socialist entity within an existing capitalist structure.
Handily side-steps the inherent negative of a fully socialist structure dealing poorly with bad actors by giving the illusion that the bad actors only exist as employers in other companies. Surely no one with bad intentions would abuse this structure Gabi is creating by, say, getting a bunch of their friends to sign on and then vote Gabi and Falke out of the company so that they essentially steal all the wealth the two invested in the company initially. Especially not just as a means to sell everything the two worked hard to create and produce by themselves to competition to make quick cash.
Obviously, scam-artists only exist at the business-owner level, and no lower!

Posted on 01 February 2025, 21:28 by: JunkAlot

Politics? On my porn site?

Although, the goblin girls are kind of cute. I can fap to this.

Posted on 05 February 2025, 10:07 by: Villhadig

@RabidTanker Don't think anyone has ever done their *own* thesis through a comic (except maybe Fisk who loves to preach libertarianist bullshit through his "THIS IS ACTUAL LIFE" comics) but there is manga and comic versions of works of Marx and Lenin certainly.

Nice little comic, though it right now sidesteps the realities of the impossibility of building a socialist structure within capitalism where capitalism can outmanouver collective businesses through practices like deflation of price etc. I do hope we will see the comic ending with just outright goblin revolution and expropriation of the "chiefs" wealth into the hands of the laborers.

I disagree with people saying it is pro-capitalist. It shows a lot of the inherent issues of capitalism and while Gabi and her team is trying to work around it, they meet constant institutional hurdles that are designed to work against them and for the already established upper class. What remains to be seen is if the comic ends with a social democratic message or actual socialist message.

Last edited on 05 February 2025, 10:29.

Posted on 05 February 2025, 19:15 by: Saladburger

Anti-capitalist message on a site where people advertise their Patreon for first-try AI art which required 2 prompts.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 02:08 by: letarumavza

@Saladburger : porn is great at creating a common ground for political, cultural and social diversity. People are way more inclusive when they are horny. It doesn't mean you don't encounter the occasional more vocal than numerous dumb and hateful asshole tho, but most of the time these toxic fucks can be shamed into oblivion.

In the end, and excepting some pricks, most people just want everyone to be happy and in good health and friction only comes from what it means and how to achieve that goal. Even people who describe themselves as individualist would not let somebody they know suffer when they can do something. Pure hate is noisy but marginal and I do think porn is a great tool to create understanding, because everyone can understand somebody else fapping.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 05:11 by: Pedrobeartimon

@letarumavza the issue is when people are forced to provide for others, rather than allowed to do so of their own accord.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 10:19 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Gabi reaches the Sam Vimes stage of class consciousness: Boots.

Posted on 21 February 2025, 14:48 by: Villhadig

@Pedrobeartimon
Are we talking about socialism or capitalism here? Cause if we were to look at the relation of people with production in capitalism you would be pretty much describing it spot on. A mass of people are forced to provide for the wealth of others (the small minority of owners of production). Many might say "Oh but it is a choice you make to work for them, you can just chose not to work there at all." but this is just plain false, how much freedom of choice do we have really under capitalism? We have a set of very basic needs we need to fullfill: food and shelter. In a capitalist society both of these require money as the absolute vast majority of people do not have the means of self-sufficiency. Land is often privately or state owned which prohibits hunting or foraging from them by the public and is expensive to buy something you could realistically survive off on, so there isn't really much choice not to work for a wage to survive, not to mention even if you own a land there are costs involved to actually building a shelter then on it.

So we need to work to make a wage to eat and live. We don't really have much of a choice in capitalism, it's either sell our labour for cheap to the rich or starve. That's not a choice, that's a gun put to our head by the capitalists, a gun that won't kill us instantly but slowly starve us to death instead if we don't abide by their rules. Is that truly then any different from the nightmare image people have of having to work under socialism?

"Why not open your own business?" is a common question, most of which is pretty much answered in this very comic: it's hard to compete in a market especially where we have such advanced production techniques that massive corporations can produce everything at a vastly cheaper price in massive amounts to fullfill needs. You need to then be fullfilling a very specific marketable niche which, let's be absolutely real here, most of us have not the skill for. So then it's wage labour for most of us.

"Why not work somewhere else for better pay?" That is just switching which exploiter I sell my labour to and the reality is for the vast majority of us, we can't afford to take that risk of saying "No, I don't want this job and I am simply gonna go somewhere else". Many people live on paycheck to paycheck now in this economy. Kicking your job to hope to find another with an uncertain timeframe as to when you will ever get a new one is too risky of a gamble for more and more people.

So, in the end, I dunno exactly what your argument is but if it's that people would be "forced" to provide for others under socialism (which is a scaremonger argument from capitalists): we are forced to make a tiny minority of people rich today, how is that any better?

Posted on 04 March 2025, 23:33 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig The difference is pretty much what you described; Under capitalism, even if the choices are not always ideal, they still exist. Under communism* that choice is removed. You do not get to decide who you work for, regardless of whether or not the compensation for your labor fails to meet your needs, because you don't own the rights to your own labor under that structure.
Capitalism doesn't promise that you'll succeed if you try to start your own business, or if you give up your job to find a better one. It only promises that you will have the option to try. What you seem to be failing to realize is just how highly the majority of people value having that option.
The main reason for this, of course, being that basically any alternative system will not be led by omniscient beacons of moral purity. They will be led by other people, and the instant one of those people proves themselves to be a bad actor, the entirety of the system will suffer for it. At the end of the conversation, most people would rather gamble on their own efforts and actions deciding their fate, than leaving it in the hands of a gaggle of people whom they've never met, and whom also have an active and obvious incentive to abuse their power for self gain.

*What you're calling socialism, despite the fact that the majority of socialist countries in the world today are actively embracing capitalist economic structures, because rebranding communism as socialism is a classic communist tactic

Posted on 05 March 2025, 09:10 by: Villhadig

@Genoshia
Lets adress the last comment, my supposed disingenuous "rebranding" of communism as socialism. In Marxist theory socialism and communism are inseparable stages of social development. They are not separate ideologies of economic ideas but stepping stones of one to the next. Marx and Engels defined socialism as the first post-revolutionary step after capitalism when the working class takes over the means of production from the capitalist class. Under socialism you still have many of the old capitalist structures like money, the state, class differences etc. but now with the proletariat (the working class) in control of state and production, the goal becomes to erode the differences that exists of the classes. Unlike the anarchist ideas that you are supposed to immediately destroy everything related to capitalism in order to bring about the utopia of tomorrow, socialism is using the capitalist structure, now under democratic rule rather than the rule of the bourgeoisie, to enrich and better the lives of everyone more equally (not completely equally, we will get to that) to work towards communism. During socialism you would have a stage where to fulfil the needs of people using the capitalist structure we still need a lot of specialists and their knowledge, for a time we would for example probably still compensate their labour with higher wages in order to convince them to keep working their specialised tasks while we also educated more people to be able to fulfil the same roles as they got (with for example the now socialised education giving people easier access to higher education). We could lower the work hours per week by employing more people into jobs we actually need them for while automating more and more menial labour we know we can get rid of but still pay everyone the same wage since nobody enrich themselves anymore on just owning the production (the previous bourgeoisie class who now also becomes laborers).

Now, communism within marxist theory is the final stage of Marxism, communism means "stateless and classless society". When you know have made everyone the same class, proletariats, with the same relation to production you no longer have any classes in society. You have reached a classless world where nobody exploits the other but we depend on each other to fulfil our needs. In marxist theory, and this is the kicker where a lot of our education completely lies to our face about what marxism and communism is, the state is not a goal. The state IS the enemy. Marxism explains that the state only exists to enforce the class society by using either economic or physical violence through what we nowadays call "the state monopoly on violence" to keep the lower classes in check for the benefit of the upper classes. Communism as I mentioned means also "stateless" society, what that means that when you have achieved a classless society, the reason of the states existence to enforce the class society ceases to exist and the state becomes meaningless. Marx, Engels, Lenin and many more explained that at this stage of socialism, when classes no longer exist, the state fulfils no longer a function and it's only purpose now is to slowly wither away as the people no longer need it.

To summarize: socialism and communism is the two stages marxist development post-capitalism towards a stateless and classless society. They are not separate, they are in fact part of the same idea where one, socialism, is a stepping stone towards the next, communism. Those countries you think of today calling them "socialist" like Sweden or Norway, are not socialist for the working class are not the ones who own the means of production but they have a very rich and increasingly powerful bourgeoisie class who owns them. They are what we would call welfare capitalist states. And they are all failing as you cannot reform capitalism to a better, more equal society as that runs opposite to the nature of capitalism which is monopolized industries and wealth concentration in the hands of the upper class. It is arguable even that countries like China are not socialism as they too have a bourgeoisie upper class who owns the means of production. They performatively occasionally execute a billionaire who cheat the system, but they still allow the existence of a exploitative billionaire class. Hence why China too also need a second revolution to overthrow the upper class and take control of the production.

As for the rest of the comment:
In socialism, and more importantly communism, we would probably get rid of so many menial and useless jobs (either cause they are completely redundant or that we can use automate them) that we could lower our work hours to first 6 hours a day, then 4, then 2, maybe even less. You would have more choice than ever what you do with your life. If you felt a job you did wasn't right for you, there would be all the reason that you could get another to do instead that was better suited to your skills cause that would just be plain more productive use. In your now increased free time, you could now chose to do even more work (if you'd like) or do other fulfilling tasks and hobbies that meant more to yourself. We have so much potential as people that are completely wasted away cause we are chained to our work for our survival that drains us of our energy. As someone said: think of all the Mozarts, Rembrandts, Picassos, Da Vincis who are working on pig farms. A waste of their talents cause they need to work to survive where art does not pay.

Capitalism promises that hard and dedicated work will pay off. We have billions who work harder than any of the richest of the rich with multiple jobs, toiling for sometimes 16 hours to make ends meet and never get out of poverty for it. It is an absolute blatant lie that we are sold. Capitalism is but a lottery for the fraction of a fraction of us to succeed and it is rigged against us by the people who already exist at the top.

Your worry that if in any alternative system we are not led by some "beacon of moral purity" it collapses, we already live in that system. We are led by capitalist barons who through nepotism don't give their wealth and control to whoever is best suited but to their families. We live under no different rule with how our massive, world spanning corporations are run than through the same biological lottery that feudal kingdoms had when handing over their kingdoms to their inbred sons. Sure, we vote for out politicians who supposedly control our nations but all of them in a bourgeoisie democracy look to please the same class above the rest, the bourgeoisie. The rest of us are nowhere nearly as important as we don't own the economy, we don't own the media, we don't own the corporations that provide the jobs for the rest of us to sustain on. What socialism asks for is not a system of placing some benevolent ruler on top, but that we have a true democracy run by the people where we all together make choices how to run society, not career politicians.

My apologies for the long comment but I believe proper, patient explanation is warranted in these discussions.

Last edited on 05 March 2025, 11:46.

Posted on 13 March 2025, 22:53 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig I'm going to stop you at your second line; Your argument is predicated on sighting Karl Marx as an authority on socialism and communism. He isn't. Communism, as an economic principal, existed well before Marx. I will not argue that he did not have an impact on how people view communism in the modern day, as he Did do that, but his ideas only impacted modern communism. They do not define it, and going forward under the assumption that Marx is the only authority is baseless. It does not mean 'stateless and classless society,' as Marx described it, because you can have both authoritarian and libertarian versions of communist societies. Communism, as defined in its modern usage, just means a society where all things are owned equally by all citizens. If you do not accept that fact, you're not unlike the majority of communist supporters, but you're also not a realist and I don't deal with fanatics.

Socialism, especially, existed long before Marx and calling him an authority on modern socialist ideals is laughably incorrect. Contrary to the tale you're actively trying to spin, socialism can easily exist under both authoritarian and libertarian principals, and modern socialist policies can easily exist within an otherwise largely capitalist society. Socialist parties and people have been aiming towards more socialist societies without the ultimate goal of achieving communism for literal centuries. This conversation is not a black-and-white one, as many people who use the exact rhetoric you're exhibiting try to make it out to be. Much the same way as there is no 'pure' capitalist society in the modern world, no one is attempting to achieve a 'pure' socialist or communist society. Some people, like you, might advocate for one, but no government on the planet is actually moving in that direction.

What you're actively trying to do is re-brand the terms to mean something they don't mean, in practice, because you don't like how the modern world uses them in comparison to the Marxist fantasy world he conjured up to promote his ideals. Marxism will never come to pass, because once you hit the Billions of people mark, there's no way that you'll achieve any form of economic activity without distributing resources according to Some individual or groups authority on deciding who gets what, because there are resources on this planet that are limited and some group that has 'need' of them will always go without.
Not even mentioning all the other pitfalls Marx's fantasy world could never over come for practical reasons, like bad actors within the society.

Moving on:
You're also wrong about capitalism; Capitalism doesn't promise anything, it's an economic system that just means wealth is distributed based on a free market. Proponents of capitalism under a more authoritarian society uphold it, not as an ideal economic system, but as the best available to us as a result of innate human flaws. The main 'upside' of authoritarian capitalism-a free market with restrictions placed on it by a government to ensure the market remains actually free, and not dominated by monopoly-is that it always offers the individual the freedom to choose.
You are not guaranteed a fortune in exchange for hard work; You're also not guaranteed poverty if you never work a day in your life. All you are guaranteed is the option to decide what You do with Your labor, and Your money.
Unfortunately, humans are flawed, and some will devote their labor to endeavors that will not result in great wealth, or even really much wealth at all. Likewise, there are those who will decide to devote their wealth to their children in the form of handing them a business they worked hard to create without any guarantee that said business will flourish under their child's ownership. This creates a host of problems, of course, but that's the price of giving people the freedom to choose. Some people will make poor decisions; However, that will be true regardless of what type of economic system we live in.
Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where I own my own labor, and how I spend my labor and the wealth generated by it is my decision. The fact that people like me exist-and the lack of evidence that we will never cease to exist-is the main reason Marx's fantasy will never come to pass. Even if you somehow created that system, eventually generations will pass and more people will be born who want the rights to their labor back.

Posted on 14 March 2025, 09:26 by: UnknownVariableA

In this comments thread, people are clearly getting worked up over nothing instead of just enjoying the artist's work.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 10:41 by: Villhadig

@Genoshia
Absolute nonsense of an argument. Marx is absolutely the modern authority on the ideas of socialism and communism, his ideas and analysis shaped the movement and all who came after him. Yes, socialism is as you say older than Marx, the ideas had existed before him but we called those people utopians for they only had a vision but no analysis of how getting to that vision. Marx made socialism a science and dedicated his life along with Engels to discern how the working class could reach it.

What libertarian principles could socialism or communism possibly exist under? The definition of it according to you is "just means a society where all things are owned equally by all citizens", libertarianism is the ideology of the liberals but just more insane and more freedom to exploit others. Nothing can be distributed equally either under libertarianism. It is the ideology of people who want to own businesses and be sure that NOBODY interferes in it. It is the private ownership of the means of production that creates the inequality in society which libertarianism just enhances tenfold and with any form of libertarianism, socialism and communism cannot be achieved.

Your argument for capitalism just presents it as a massive lottery, where uncertainty is just the only constant, what is the purpose then of it? Why have such an anarchistic system of economic society dominate us? It is nothing then but a system of complete chaos that utterly ruins billions of people across the world while benefitting the few, that is an even greater argument for it's abolishment.

Also, nice rephrase calling it "human flaws" instead of just saying the usual "human nature", it means the same in this context. You use yourself as evidence as a "fact that people like me exist-and the lack of evidence that we will never cease to exist". That is exactly what anthropology is for, we have studied multiple human cultures and society across the globe and people like you *do not* exist in those were we do not have private ownership. You are but a product of the material conditions of society around you, one of capitalism, greed and culture of individualism. If we change that society people like you would absolutely be phased out of existence.

I am not gonna continue this conversation, you have clearly, absolutely no idea what you are talking about trying to tell others what is and isn't marxism, socialism and communism and continuing to speak with you is utterly meaningless. You have already outed yourself as a libertarian. You wanna talk about fanaticism? Fanaticism is the incessant upholding of a system of exploitation because your belief is that "there is nothing better". You are literally the reactionary of this conversation, cowardly holding onto oppression because it benefits *you* while the majority of the world suffers for it. Absolutely pathetic.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 18:09 by: adamnemo42

@Villhadig
Just a minor correction but libertarian was originally a socialist term. It was co-opted by hypercapitalists in the US so there the association is with the ideology you understand it to mean.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 21:51 by: Villhadig

@adamnemo42
Originally yes, but the discussion was how we see the ideologies today. Hence why I reject their argument of Marx not being an authority of the definitions of socialism and communism for that is how modern socialism and communism today now is defined by. And libertarians, as you say, are now hypercapitalists like Milei and have nothing in common with the left.

Posted on 16 March 2025, 07:22 by: adamnemo42

@Villhadig
I mean there are still people who use the term "libertarian socialism" to describe ideological positions that align with the anarchism side of socialism and libertarian is still fairly commonly used outside the US in its original left-wing meaning. That said it is true that in the modern American understanding of what libertarian means vs socialism then yes they have absolutely nothing to do with one another. And of course Marx is such an influential writer that modern definitions and discussions of socialism and communism have been shaped by his work.

Last edited on 23 March 2025, 05:01.

Posted on 14 April 2025, 15:09 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Fantasy pinkertons inbound?

Posted on 28 April 2025, 03:25 by: redstonemm

I want to see spicy stuff in this, put some horny content in

Posted:	2025-04-01 10:38
Parent:	3284711
Visible:	No (Replaced)
Language:	English
File Size:	310.2 MiB
Length:	47 pages
Favorited:	445 times

language:	english
female:	freckles gloves goblin midget monster girl
other:	comic western non-h

Rating:		133
Average: 4.74