2020/02/05 - Filthy Lies

[TheOne]

Where are you seeing this? She literally said "There's nothing wrong with having an attraction," and "You might make mistakes but I trust you." King is being well-intentioned in his interactions with Sasha. Even if something goes too far for Bailey's liking, she'll forgive him because she understands that he's trying his hardest to do the right thing, and she also trusts that he will do his best not to let things go too far in the first place. I think that's wonderful

I'm thinking about the overall attitude, as has been shown throughout the course of the comic. Even when King proposed, Bailey said that nobody takes pet marriages seriously.

I think she proved her loyalty when she agreed to be Pete's avatar, but I'm not sure she expects the same loyalty from King.

By the way, I don't mean to underestimate or understate Bailey's trust. I just wonder what her expectations are, aside from honesty. As in, would it offend Bailey if King fell to his temptation with Sasha? Or would Bailey be too unoffended, if that makes sense?

[NHWestoN]

Where are you seeing this? She literally said "There's nothing wrong with having an attraction," and "You might make mistakes but I trust you." King is being well-intentioned in his interactions with Sasha. Even if something goes too far for Bailey's liking, she'll forgive him because she understands that he's trying his hardest to do the right thing, and she also trusts that he will do his best not to let things go too far in the first place. I think that's wonderful

I'm thinking about the overall attitude, as has been shown throughout the course of the comic. Even when King proposed, Bailey said that nobody takes pet marriages seriously.

I think she proved her loyalty when she agreed to be Pete's avatar, but I'm not sure she expects the same loyalty from King.

By the way, I don't mean to underestimate or understate Bailey's trust. I just wonder what her expectations are, aside from honesty. As in, would it offend Bailey if King fell to his temptation with Sasha? Or would Bailey be too unoffended, if that makes sense?

Guess we'll see. After all, to paraphrase Bailey, "she's only canine." (I'm still waiting for King to say that to somebody, but he's too serious mebbee…)

[Obbl]

Nobody takes pet marriage seriously because pets are animals and animals are second class not-even-citizens. That doesn't mean animals in a relationship don't expect some level of commitment, the same as with people. Some want more commitment to a relationship than other people, but I think the message was pretty clear that monogamy is expected between King and Bailey, similar to how monogamy is pretty clearly expected between Miles and Lucretia, and how Max wasn't sure how to react to Peanut and Grape's mushy stuff.
So, if King breaks his promise to be exclusive with Bailey, then that breaks the trust Bailey has in King. That is certainly going to hurt. But the point of trust is that Bailey is not going to be concerned when she sees King with Sasha, because she trusts in his promise. And if he lets things go a little too far, she trusts that he'll stop himself from going any further. She's holding King to the same standard as she holds herself, she just trusts King. King's worried that his relationship with Sasha will worry Bailey, and she's telling him he needn't worry about that.
Communication and Trust go hand in hand

[NHWestoN]

Nobody takes pet marriage seriously because pets are animals and animals are second class not-even-citizens. That doesn't mean animals in a relationship don't expect some level of commitment, the same as with people. Some want more commitment to a relationship than other people, but I think the message was pretty clear that monogamy is expected between King and Bailey, similar to how monogamy is pretty clearly expected between Miles and Lucretia, and how Max wasn't sure how to react to Peanut and Grape's mushy stuff.
So, if King breaks his promise to be exclusive with Bailey, then that breaks the trust Bailey has in King. That is certainly going to hurt. But the point of trust is that Bailey is not going to be concerned when she sees King with Sasha, because she trusts in his promise. And if he lets things go a little too far, she trusts that he'll stop himself from going any further. She's holding King to the same standard as she holds herself, she just trusts King. King's worried that his relationship with Sasha will worry Bailey, and she's telling him he needn't worry about that.
Communication and Trust go hand in hand

well put.

[Gr8fulFox]

Like others have said, I love that King is embracing his dog status; I expected Bailey to be understanding of an old crush, but King being offended at being compared to a human? Didn't see that one coming!

[FireworkFox]

I love King's face in the last panel. He's so adorable!

King being offended at being compared to a human?

I don't think so. Look, he's smiling!

[Gr8fulFox]

I love King's face in the last panel. He's so adorable!

King being offended at being compared to a human?

I don't think so. Look, he's smiling!

Well, he does say "How dare you!" when Bailey says that he's only human, suggesting that he takes it like an insult. Again, glad that King is embracing his life as a dog ^_^

[Argent]

Cue Billy Joel.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0pM5dm--yQ

Or

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nEIcTstEmnQ
(Music video isn't exactly G-rated, so this is the lyric video instead.)

Or:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6yYchgX1fMw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhxjNYvJbgM

In that instance, it makes you wonder why in the heck sitcoms are so popular.

Consider soap operas. They pretty much define lowest possible quality television, yet they are watched by millions every week.

Romcoms are the lowest.

Except for "reality television".

Nobody takes pet marriage seriously because pets are animals and animals are second class not-even-citizens. That doesn't mean animals in a relationship don't expect some level of commitment, the same as with people.

Dogs, wolves, and foxes would probably have quite different expectations from a relationship. In the wild, at least. How socialized they are to humans, and what humans they're socialized to, adds another layer of confusion. Sasha's owner would be a completely different kind of influence than, say, Peanut's.

[VeryAngryDeer]

I love King's face in the last panel. He's so adorable!

King being offended at being compared to a human?

I don't think so. Look, he's smiling!

Well, he does say "How dare you!" when Bailey says that he's only human, suggesting that he takes it like an insult. Again, glad that King is embracing his life as a dog ^_^

I took it as sarcasm. The smile suggests he doesn't mean what he's saying, or at least that he's not saying it seriously.

[Amazee Dayzee]

I have to say that I am actually pretty sure that King was being sarcastic as they are joking with each other.

[CunningFox]

Yeah, she was teasing him, so he played along and pretended to be offended. Nothing more to it than that.

[D-Rock]

Yeah, not sure where you're getting "offended" from. Like when some people thought Marion looked "smug" when Lois tackled Keene.

[Amazee Dayzee]

I honestly actually thought that was how he looked for a moment. xD

[Champion Wallace]

So, if King breaks his promise to be exclusive with Bailey, then that breaks the trust Bailey has in King. That is certainly going to hurt. But the point of trust is that Bailey is not going to be concerned when she sees King with Sasha, because she trusts in his promise. And if he lets things go a little too far, she trusts that he'll stop himself from going any further. She's holding King to the same standard as she holds herself, she just trusts King. King's worried that his relationship with Sasha will worry Bailey, and she's telling him he needn't worry about that.
Communication and Trust go hand in hand

You're made it clear over several posts that Bailey trusts King to make the right choice in any situation, but it seems that's the problem here, not the solution. What TheOne saw was that King didn't want Bailey to be so accepting of him being attracted to Sasha. It's not that communication and trust are bad things or he wants Bailey to go on a jealousy fulled rampage, but King needs to be reassured that Bailey loves him at the level she wants him for herself.

[Obbl]

There seem to be 3 courses of action here.
1. Bailey adjusts to become suspicious of King's atraction to Sasha and/or guards King's time with Sasha more jealously. This isn't really a way to show love, and I don't think it's what King really wants even though he seems to be expecting it.
2. King learns to trust himself the same way Bailey does and judge himself based more on the intentions he and Sasha have and less on what he thinks other people will/should think about it. It takes a lot of time to unlearn old thought patterns and learn new ones, and while this seems to be the most desirable outcome, I don't know how capable he's going to be at it any time soon.
3. King and Bailey have a lengthy and detailed discussion about where exactly the lines are and what intentions are good and bad until King feels confident that he can judge himself against this established framework. In a perfect world this wouldn't be necessary (or at least not in such exhaustive form), but King seems to feel anxious when he is not highly confident how to respond to a situation. I guess there's a more long-term solution where King reports regularly to Bailey about everything he's doing with Sasha and what it means until he eventually works out the framework for himself. Again clearly only necessary for his own sanity and not because Bailey needs the reassurance.

I just don't see King as needing reassurance of Bailey's love. Or I don't see how Bailey making any stricter rules for King would constitute as love. If King feels the need to distance himself from Sasha because he's worried he'll accidentally cross a line that will hurt Bailey, that is his decision. Bailey feels comfortable with King and Sasha spending time together and even being intimate friends, and I can't see that as anything other than good, trusting, and loving. King needs help with his anxieties, and Bailey may need to step in and help him come to some conclusions, but it's King who's going to need to ultimately make the decisions for himself, rather than Bailey making them for him. That's my take.

[TheOne]

So, if King breaks his promise to be exclusive with Bailey, then that breaks the trust Bailey has in King. That is certainly going to hurt. But the point of trust is that Bailey is not going to be concerned when she sees King with Sasha, because she trusts in his promise. And if he lets things go a little too far, she trusts that he'll stop himself from going any further. She's holding King to the same standard as she holds herself, she just trusts King. King's worried that his relationship with Sasha will worry Bailey, and she's telling him he needn't worry about that.
Communication and Trust go hand in hand

You're made it clear over several posts that Bailey trusts King to make the right choice in any situation, but it seems that's the problem here, not the solution. What TheOne saw was that King didn't want Bailey to be so accepting of him being attracted to Sasha. It's not that communication and trust are bad things or he wants Bailey to go on a jealousy fulled rampage, but King needs to be reassured that Bailey loves him at the level she wants him for herself.

Yep; that's basically what I was thinking. Bailey, as a dog, has doggie instincts and morals. King, as a human-brain/dog-body, has to balance human instincts/morals with doggie instincts/morals.

So, there's a natural dissonance that needs to be dealt with. It was sorta dealt with in the next update, but not as much as needs to be. King wants to honor his human morals, and that means being 100% devoted to Bailey. Bailey, on the other hand, is a dog, and is therefore partially clueless about human morals, so she doesn't think a male dog needs to be so loyal. After all, dogs do what dogs do, and for dogs, it's not a problem at all.

So to Bailey, there is no divided mind, and she doesn't really understand King's divided mind. Her doggy brain says, "If King makes puppies with Sasha, it's okay and good. If it makes King happy, I'm happy. I don't really desire King to be 100% loyal to me." King, though, has a sort of a loyalty complex. He wants not only to be loyal, but he also wants Bailey to desire his loyalty.

I just don't see King as needing reassurance of Bailey's love. Or I don't see how Bailey making any rules for King would constitute as love. If King feels the need to distance himself from Sasha because he's worried he'll accidentally cross a line that will hurt Bailey, that is his decision.

I agree with you about the reassurance. King already knows that Bailey loves him wholeheartedly. I respectfully disagree with the rules point, though. In a solid relationship, there are clear rules and boundaries as to what you can and can't do. Bailey, at this update, had basically shown her opinion as, "Everything is fine; do whatever or whoever you want; it's alright with me, so long as you're happy."

In doggie rules, that's normal. But King isn't 100% doggie, so his mind is having trouble with that concept. To him, there must be some line somewhere, and having no clear boundary is extremely confusing and harmful to his conscience. It's not merely his sanity that he's dealing with; he also has a personal set of rules. He wants to know that Bailey also has a set of rules, and he wants to know what those rules are.

Bailey feels comfortable with King and Sasha spending time together and even being intimate friends, and I can't see that as anything other than good, trusting, and loving....

That's where King and Bailey differ. Bailey has doggy logic and knows doggy rules. King knows human logic and human rules. What Bailey sees as being loving, supportive, and accepting, King might see as carelessness or flippancy. They'll have to work together to establish what and where the boundaries are.

King needs help with his anxieties, and Bailey may need to step in and help him come to some conclusions, but it's King who's going to need to ultimately make the decisions for himself, rather than Bailey making them for him. That's my take.

It's a valid opinion, for sure. King will need to decide what he's going to allow himself to do. I feel he can't get there on his own, though.

[ZAR22]

Well, if only they had a machine like on the movie "Pacific rim", it kitsune allowed it for bailey to see king's human memories, and vice-versa with king on bailey's memories, then maybe they will understand each other, the boundaries, and what king wants.

[dr_eirik]

Yeah, not sure where you're getting "offended" from. Like when some people thought Marion looked "smug" when Lois tackled Keene.

Wait, I thought he looked smug. He thought he'd found and captured the guy responsible for his predicament. What emotion was that if not smug?

[D-Rock]

Yeah, not sure where you're getting "offended" from. Like when some people thought Marion looked "smug" when Lois tackled Keene.

Wait, I thought he looked smug. He thought he'd found and captured the guy responsible for his predicament. What emotion was that if not smug?

He was frowning.

[Obbl]

Bailey, as a dog, has doggie instincts and morals. King, as a human-brain/dog-body, has to balance human instincts/morals with doggie instincts/morals.

So, there's a natural dissonance that needs to be dealt with. It was sorta dealt with in the next update, but not as much as needs to be. King wants to honor his human morals, and that means being 100% devoted to Bailey. Bailey, on the other hand, is a dog, and is therefore partially clueless about human morals, so she doesn't think a male dog needs to be so loyal. After all, dogs do what dogs do, and for dogs, it's not a problem at all.

Interesting that you make this distinction. If you look throughout the vast array of human societies you'll find that the idea of human morals that you seem to be presenting here isn't actually universal. It's just the morals that are part of the society you are living in, and that doesn't necessarily make them better or more deserving of being honored.
The scenario that is playing out in the next strip would not be at all problematic even if all were human as long as everyone understood what was happening and was comfortable with it. And that actually is the only issue: King is uncomfortable with the situation. And if he's uncomfortable, he needs to say so. If all 3 were fine with the situation, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, no lack of loyalty, devotion, nothing. But 1 of them isn't quite fine with it, so that 1 needs to say something and establish the line beyond which he isn't comfortable just for his own mental well-being.

[dr_eirik]

Yeah, not sure where you're getting "offended" from. Like when some people thought Marion looked "smug" when Lois tackled Keene.

Wait, I thought he looked smug. He thought he'd found and captured the guy responsible for his predicament. What emotion was that if not smug?

He was frowning.

Looking back, I can see the frown, but he still seems smug. Maybe it's just because I felt it was smug from the start.

[D-Rock]

Possibly. My guess is people missed that his mouth had a gap. I've seen this done on occasion, so perhaps people didn't notice the end of the line. I think the same confusion happened with Steward when he got tackled.

[Champion Wallace]

Bailey, as a dog, has doggie instincts and morals. King, as a human-brain/dog-body, has to balance human instincts/morals with doggie instincts/morals.

So, there's a natural dissonance that needs to be dealt with. It was sorta dealt with in the next update, but not as much as needs to be. King wants to honor his human morals, and that means being 100% devoted to Bailey. Bailey, on the other hand, is a dog, and is therefore partially clueless about human morals, so she doesn't think a male dog needs to be so loyal. After all, dogs do what dogs do, and for dogs, it's not a problem at all.

Interesting that you make this distinction. If you look throughout the vast array of human societies you'll find that the idea of human morals that you seem to be presenting here isn't actually universal. It's just the morals that are part of the society you are living in, and that doesn't necessarily make them better or more deserving of being honored.
The scenario that is playing out in the next strip would not be at all problematic even if all were human as long as everyone understood what was happening and was comfortable with it. And that actually is the only issue: King is uncomfortable with the situation. And if he's uncomfortable, he needs to say so. If all 3 were fine with the situation, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, no lack of loyalty, devotion, nothing. But 1 of them isn't quite fine with it, so that 1 needs to say something and establish the line beyond which he isn't comfortable just for his own mental well-being.

You make some excellent points about how "human morals" aren't universal and there would be no problems if all three were fine with this, but that doesn't matter. It might be inaccurate to say King's instincts/morals are human instincts/morals because they are just one set and are no better or more deserving of being honored than others, but they happen to be King's and are different than Bailey's. The point is that while they're making an honest attempt at communicating, they're inadvertently talking past each other a little because they are going into this with different expectations on what's normal. Once they get down to that level they'll be better able to sort out the conflict of this arc.

[Amazee Dayzee]

You just know that is only gonna happen when we get to the end of the arc also. :3

[Obbl]

You make some excellent points about how "human morals" aren't universal and there would be no problems if all three were fine with this, but that doesn't matter.

On the contrary, it does matter if, as I suspect, TheOne was demonstrating a belief that King's opinion on how he should behave in this relationship is definitively better.

It might be inaccurate to say King's instincts/morals are human instincts/morals because they are just one set and are no better or more deserving of being honored than others, but they happen to be King's and are different than Bailey's.

I agree, but I don't think you could say it is unfair of me to read TheOne's intended point as doing more than just saying "King's [morals]... are different than Bailey's" completely without judgement (certainly no more unfair that it would be to read mine that way ) In fact, even your post seemed to hint toward the idea that Bailey should hold King to the standards he expects her to regarding his relationship with Sasha. Yet it seems that Bailey would find that to be a disavowel of their mutual trust, and thus unloving. That is what leads me to the opinion that if King wants to distance himself from Sasha, he needs to be the one to do so and without trying to get Bailey to give him an excuse for doing so. Clearly Bailey does not expect it of him, but if King feels the need to do it out of some idea of loyalty that Bailey seems to feel is misguided, that is entirely up to King. Can Bailey help him through this process? Certainly, and I think it the kind thing to do, but not by compromising on her feelings of what is right and loving in their relationship.

The point is that while they're making an honest attempt at communicating, they're inadvertently talking past each other a little because they are going into this with different expectations on what's normal. Once they get down to that level they'll be better able to sort out the conflict of this arc.

I don't know if I agree that they're talking past each other. Bailey seems to be speaking rather plainly, and to me it seems mostly to be King's somewhat nebulous worries that are getting in the way. Though I think I kind of agree with your basic point here, terminology aside.
My main point is, if King wants to hold himself to his own standards (whether or not they're the best, whether or not they're even good) he can, but I don't believe Bailey should have to hold King to those standards if she doesn't agree with them.

[Amazee Dayzee]

I'm also sure that King won't hold Bailey up to her own standards because he doesn't agree with them either and of course with that, there is where the problems in the relationship might begin.

Hopefully though this will make the two of them have a much stronger and fulfilling relationship.

[Champion Wallace]

Now, I can't speak for TheOne on his bias or how he thinks relationships should be. I tried to be neutral with my previous post, emphasizing King and Bailey are coming from different backgrounds and they both need to realize that. I'm not a professional therapist and I don't know what sort of compromise is the best for them, but it's not like I pretended to in my last post. I hope my post didn't hint to you King should get his way and Bailey should does something she considers unloving because I wasn't agreeing with you Bailey is wholly in the right. After joking it would be unfair to read your post as passing more judgment than the post by TheOne you sure use a lot of judgmental language. You call King's stance "nebulous", but said "Bailey seems to be speaking rather plainly". On top of that you say King is "misguided", the conflict "is entirely up to King" and that Bailey should be uncompromising. I don't know how much this matters overall, but you are demonstrating a belief that Bailey's opinion on how King should behave in this relationship is definitively better.

[Obbl]

My post is actually referencing back to this earlier post of yours a bit:

You're made it clear over several posts that Bailey trusts King to make the right choice in any situation, but it seems that's the problem here, not the solution. What TheOne saw was that King didn't want Bailey to be so accepting of him being attracted to Sasha. It's not that communication and trust are bad things or he wants Bailey to go on a jealousy fulled rampage, but King needs to be reassured that Bailey loves him at the level she wants him for herself.

in which you do attempt to speak for TheOne and I can't tell the difference between your opinion and your opinion of TheOne's opinion, so I just went with "seem to hint toward the idea that Bailey should hold King to the standards he expects her to regarding his relationship with Sasha". Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

[quote="Champion Wallace"]You call King's stance "nebulous", but said "Bailey seems to be speaking rather plainly".[/quote] Actually, I called King's worries "nebulous". He's worried that some unspecified action of his might end up hurting Bailey by crossing a line that he doesn't know about. It feels like one of those really vague worries that some people get when they're too focused on the possibility that something will go wrong (even if they can't articulate what it might be). [quote="Champion Wallace"]On top of that you say King is "misguided"[/quote] No? I specifically said "Bailey seems to feel it [King's idea of loyalty] is misguided," which I believe is pretty clear from what she's saying [quote="Champion Wallace"]the conflict "is entirely up to King"[/quote] This also doesn't jive with what I feel like I'm trying to say. "If King feels the need to [distance himself from Sasha]... that is entirely up to [him]." (which I explain better next) [quote="Champion Wallace"]and that Bailey should be uncompromising.[/quote] Yes. Bailey should not compromise on her values in order to help King. If you want to turn that around and say that King shouldn't compromise on his values either, then we get back to the other thing I said: that if King wants to distance himself from Sasha, he needs to be the one to do so without trying to get Bailey to change her values. Bailey is giving King more freedom than he is giving himself, but it seems like he wants Bailey to restrict his freedom so that he can use that as an excuse to distance himself from Sasha. "Bailey said we can't, and I have to respect her wishes." Except they aren't her wishes, so that would be a little unfair to Bailey. So Bailey shouldn't compromise, and King should set his own boundaries with Sasha if he wants them to be more restrictive. [quote="Champion Wallace"]I don't know how much this matters overall, but you are demonstrating a belief that Bailey's opinion on how King should behave in this relationship is definitively better.[/quote] That would be why I said it would be "no more unfair... to read [my point]" as "doing more than just saying 'King's [morals]... are different than Bailey's' completely without judgement" than it would be to read TheOne's point that way. (That is, it would be perfectly fair to read both of us as casting our judgement one way and the other (in case my wording is super confusing, which it probably is))

[TheOne]

Wow. I wasn't expecting to see all this when I clicked the email link!

(I'm going to go off-topic for a bit, to try to clear up something. If anyone wants to move this bit to the rules discussion page, I won't be offended if you do, but I ask you to hold off for a few days so people can read this here, as it's relevant to the way the thread is going.)

I've noticed a tendency in several threads that people will say things like, "I don't want to speak for TheOne, but..." Or, "I don't want to assume what TheOne is thinking, but..."

Then they immediately proceed to speak for me or assume that I'm thinking xyz. It's a bit annoying. I don't think it's terrible, but I also don't really like it. Instead of speaking for me or assuming what I'm thinking, please just ask me. You can directly ask me, "Do you think xyz?" If that's how I think, I'll say it. If I think zyx or yzx or yxz, I'll clarify. If I don't respond quickly, I'm probably just at work, and I'll reply when available. But please don't assume what I believe or speak for me.


Okay; that's done. Now back to the topic.

Obbl, I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible's rules are best. It just so happens that King's desired monogamy lines up with what the Bible says what humans are supposed to do.

King used to be human. (at least in the fictional world of Housepets! comic) I think we can all agree on this.

Humans, usually, are taught that monogamy is best. It's not always taught as a part of religion. My high school taught it as the best way to prevent spreading disease.

Based on the 2 concepts above, I'm assuming Joel was taught that monogamy is best. Maybe as part of religion; maybe not; religion isn't the point; the point is that Joel likely had monogamy taught to him.

As the result of the "monogamy is best" teaching, King, formerly Joel, is struggling with the concept. He now possesses the body of an animal. (I don't mean that as an insult; merely as a point of fact.)

Animals, specifically dogs, aren't taught monogamy. Also, dogs, unlike some animals, (bald eagles, for example) aren't naturally monogamous. They don't naturally understand the concept of monogamy.

Bailey is a dog, and she always has been. Therefore, she doesn't naturally understand the concept of monogamy.


Now, Housepets! Comic varies quite a bit from the real world. (Pardon me for being Captain Obvious.) But, one of the major differences is that in the Housepets! world, animals have the capacity to learn more advanced and abstract concepts. To keep it on track, Bailey could be taught the concept of monogamy. When she accepted King's proposal, she understood that King was offering his monogamy.

However, the general attitude among the animals is basically, "Why should I?" when it comes to monogamy. They understand what it is, but no one has taught them why they should be monogamous.

Bailey is not an exception to the rule. She has shown through her attitude and speech that she's okay with King's monogamy to her, but she doesn't understand why he is monogamous to her, or why it's so important to him.

Sure, Bailey knows King used to be human, and she knows that humans have more rules, but she also has the attitude of, "You're not human anymore, King, so those rules don't apply to you anymore."

And there's the disconnect between them. King also knows he's not human anymore, but he doesn't want to completely let go of his humanity. Or perhaps he just can't. Whichever option it is, there is something preventing him from letting go of the human rules he's been taught.

Bailey, having never been human, can't understand that. She perhaps can empathize and console, but she's unable to understand the why of King's situation. (And therefore unable to as yet to understand the why of his monogamy.)


I think the best outcome is for Bailey to understand the why. I think she can learn it, and I think King can teach it. It's just a matter of King giving Bailey a wall of text, lol.

As for whether or not King abandons his monogamy, that's not for me to decide what's best. (work of fiction; human rules don't apply even to fictional humans, let alone fictional species-changers, lol)

If this was a real-life situation, Bible rules would apply. But this isn't a real-world situation.

What do I think is best? As I said before, I think it's best if King and Bailey work out together just what the rules are, and why. Only then will King have peace of mind.

[Amazee Dayzee]

I think that the two have already established rules as explained in the next strip and King is trying to abide by them but he is making it sound like its incredibly bad to Sasha.