Originally posted by Beniboybling
Neutral expression? Lmao.This is a neutral expression:
This is a grimace:
I'll leave you to play spot the difference in your own time.
Other than the overcast shadow exaggerating a brow line making his eyes disappear, there doesn't appear to be much difference. So why is the second image representing some intense physical pain that isn't suggested by any other pointers one can intensely scan the panel for? Finding an image of Kun using a different facial expression doesn't prove why he's injured in another. Otherwise I could just find an expression of him laughing in one panel to prove that he's sad in another. You need to tell me why the second face is contorted in a sufficient enough manner to represent harm done, because the expression isn't much different to the one Qel Droma wears in custody here :
As far as I'm aware, Qel Droma wasn't suffering from injury, lasting or superficial. As I said before, you might have a point if there was some clear indication that Kun was hurt; an explained narration, perhaps a comical grunt or exhalation to show that there's clearly something wrong, but there isn't, so we can assume he's completely unscathed.
I don't tend to do that lol
You absolutely do, but I'm unsurprised that you'd deny it right now in an attempt to regain some sort of credibility within this example. Stair railings are not just designed to support those who need it, they're designed with mother nature's decision for humans to walk upright on two legs as a trait that defines the hominid lineage, and that for us, it's pretty much instinctive to use an arm for support against an incline, when support is present at least. A person will almost always do so when falling over, even if they're a trained gymnast.
I need to. On the other hand from the perspective of a fictional work, the panel choosing to focus on Kun leaning on said object for support, certainly begs the question of why they bothered.
If they wanted to show Kun suffering from some injury in the perspective of a fictional work, then they had a lot more opportunities to so. They could have made him crawl around to find some leverage before hoisting himself up, rather than it conveniently being there in the first place. If his ability to walk was impaired, they shouldn't have shown him getting up without much difficulty and not showing any signs of harm in the consecutive panels - which seemingly occurs seconds after the event. This is also arguing from intent, which muddles the suspense of disbelief, and especially where the intent is not made clear in any manner.
A fair example, and I won't argue that motion lines always depict trembling.
Concession accepted
However this is a cumulative argument. And within the contexts of the aforementioned pointers the intentions become increasingly obvious.
I wonder how cumulative this argument is when all the other points are just as moot.
More to the point though, just as an overprotective mother will only rush to the aid of her child in the event he appears harmed, a Massassi with mothering instincts (still waiting for proof naturally) would only do the same if Kun appeared to the same. In which case his primitive intelligence must be more observant than yours.
I don't think there's much evidence to be found here. unless you argument is that Kun appeared to be harmed, but ultimately wasn't, which contradicts the original idea. In any case, the facial expression doesn't appear to represent pain and the motion lines don't represent trembling. We know that his ability to stand upright isn't impaired, nor is he suffering from an injuries; lasting seconds or otherwise. So is it a concession?
The fact that Kun was knocked on his ass is completely besides the point.
Well... seen as you can't prove that he was in harm, or even in pain, being knocked on his ass seems to be the only saving grace of this anti-kun argument. In which case, your arguing against hordes of other super strong characters that have been knocked over too, including Luke.
I don't know how you inferred such a time frame when none is given, but I realise you're being deliberately retarded by fixating on the word injury.
If we assume the events are occurring one after the other without some change scenery or some overlapping monologue from one or more characters, then the time frame is literally seconds.
In which case no, we can be pretty sure Kun was not cut, bruised or otherwise wounded,
Concession accepted then. We can add not being in pain to the list of ailments Kun isn't suffering from too.
but in the same way you might be able to walk off me doubling you over with a punch in the stomach.
If I'm being doubled over, it either means you've winded me or caused an internal bruise. Unless it was a reflex action, in which case, i wouldn't really be suffering and it might simply look that way to an observer, and I would be fine a second later - not too different from what we're describing.
That I did not harm you would hardly stand up in a court of law because "hurr durr no blood and you fine now."
So now we're arguing the legal definition of assault to prove what? Just to clarify, you could punch me in the stomach, and even if I didn't budge a centimeter, you could still get charged with assualt. So i'm not seeing what the point is here... that Kun could claim compensation from Bnar?