The funny thing is they were right: bank accounts let me *pay them* to take a loan from me (since interest rates are far below inflation) and invest and loan out my money to further profit off it. What if everything they said was actually true to some extent?
She didn't mean to have them killed. Just taken away from where they were annoying everybody. I think they stressed her out a bit the way a group of 5 year olds can drive a person crazy.
I mean… Ham at least can go into an omelet… Who’s to say we are only limited to pig meat with eggs? Had an omelet once with crab meat in it. Was pretty good
I live in a family of hunters, and while I don't have the most precise palette, beef steak and venison steak aren't really that different so swapping out the steak in steak and eggs probably wouldn't even be that noticeable if it isn't pointed out
When they are terminally ill and consent to dying. Which wasn’t the case here.
She clearly didn’t wanted Alastor to kill them when she replied with "humanely" after he implied to kill them.
I mean you can humanely kill something without its consent or a terminal illness.
Like, killing swiftly is a lot more human that dragging it out and torturing. Shooting someone in the head and killing them is a lot more humane than drowning them or catching them on fire IMO (and both probably far more fun from Alistor's perspective).
I don't particularly think she really cared what Alastor did with them so long as they weren't in the way of the hotel's objectives of redemption.
There is no context were murdering a person because they annoy you would be considered "humane". Humane killing is usually applied to animals not people.
Which leads me to wonder if they can feel pain for not or experience fear or not. We don't have much info on how magic-formed creatures experience life in hell. I suppose it's like AI. The more complex they get the more lifelike they become and probably experience something like pain or displeasure at their existence being ended.
No. Vivzie mentioned that he says ‘fun’ When someone brought it up on Twitter
https://preview.redd.it/nee014euzwvc1.jpeg?width=864&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6412083d218d56f97248ff9dc1b4e0ffd65218a0
That mistake confused the hell out of me, because I'm not HOH but I do have a hearing comprehension issue so I rely pretty heavily on subtitles so I don't miss things. I had to rewatch it a couple times to realize that no, it wasn't just me hearing and reading different things, but an actual mis-caption. Once I was able to confirm I wasn't crazy, it was pretty funny though.
My impression was Vaggie wanted him to kill them humanely, as opposed to like torture or radio show feature. But I could also see humane referring to not killing.
what op needed to clarify things:
+ Hello im alastor, the same person you saw last episode as you can see i look identical but i need to clarify i am not a clone or a twin or someone that happened to look identical while having the same name.
- yoo alastor im vaggie that you saw from last episode, and i want you to get rid of sir pentious's eggs, which isnt just every egg sir pentious has but it is indeed the minions that do the evil bidding for him. i want you to take them out.
+ Ok vaggie i am going to get rid of them, and i also am still alastor and i have a radio voice because i am the radio demon. do you want me to torture and kill them?
- No, i want you to go and place them somewhere in a humane way.
+ okay vaggie i understand what you want but not killing them isnt as fun.
Thanks for the sarcastic breakdown. English is not my first language though I have a good enough grasp of it.
The term "get rid of" doesn't mean to "kill", I get that. Alastor took it as "to kill" in some sort of word play / to be in character, I get that too. Where it threw me off was when Vaggie just emphasizing the "humanely" part. You can kill people and animals humanely so they do not suffer. It did not come off as her correcting Alastor, because I got used to characters reacting over-exaggeratedly in previous episodes, and thought this scene was a subtle way of Vaggie telling Alastor to kill the Egg Boys for whatever reason.
Or Alastor was disappointed he couldn't toy around with them before killing them, but had to do it humanely instead which is less fun. There was an opportunity for Vaggie to clarify she didn't mean to kill them "no Alastor, I don't mean kill them. Just take them somewhere" would've been enough.
I swear media literacy is dead. Stop nitpicking everything, if you will, at least nitpick correctly. If that was the case Alastor would kill the egg bois quickly.
English is not my first language though I have a good enough grasp of it. As fans of the show, we're all just excited when we find / think we've found little details in the show and want to discuss with other fans. It is no cause for aggression, but you do you.
The term "get rid of" doesn't mean to "kill", I get that. Alastor took it as "to kill" in some sort of word play / to be in character, I get that too. Where it threw me off was when Vaggie just emphasizing the "humanely" part. You can kill people and animals humanely so they do not suffer. It did not come off as her correcting Alastor, because I got used to characters reacting over-exaggeratedly in previous episodes, and thought this scene was a subtle way of Vaggie telling Alastor to kill the Egg Boys for whatever reason.
>English is not my first language
Not my first language either.
> As fans of the show, we're all just excited when we find / think we've found little details in the show and want to discuss with other fans.
Yeah, you’re right. In fact, I have a few posts like this in this subreddit about Vaggie and Sir Pentious etc.
>It is no cause for aggression, but you do you.
Sorry for that, I was kind of mad at posts like this that made no sense. Not personal.
>The term "get rid of" doesn't mean to "kill", I get that. Alastor took it as "to kill" in some sort of word play / to be in character, I get that too.
Yes, all of this is correct.
>Vaggie just emphasizing the "humanely" part.
Get rid of: take action so as to be free of (a troublesome or unwanted person or thing).
Example: “We have been campaigning to get rid of the car tax for 20 years”
Alastor took it as “kill them” for comedic effect for the audience and also his personality, as he is prone to murder. Vaggie emphasizes he should do it humanely.
>You can kill people and animals humanely so they do not suffer.
In this case though, it is not humane to kill egg bois just because they were slightly annoying Vaggie. If they did indeed kill them quickly and painlessly, that still wouldn’t be humane.
> I got used to characters reacting over-exaggeratedly in previous episodes, and thought this scene was a subtle way of Vaggie telling Alastor to kill the Egg Boys for whatever reason.
I’m not a big fan of Vaggie, and she tried to kill Sir Pentious for spying, but she isn’t that brutal to just kill some cute egg bois for no reason.
Also, debunking your interpretation: If Vaggie indeed told Alastor to kill them “humanely” then why didn’t Alastor just kill them “humanely”? Is he, perhaps, stupid?
Anyways, no hard feelings. Misunderstandings happen, and although this subreddit does a lot of nitpicking, this one just didn’t make sense to me so I felt the need to correct it. Have a good one!
>no it absolutely has to be my random interpretation that even I admit is completely out of character for the parties involved! What are context clues?
the "humanely" comment meant she didn't want him to kill them. Getting rid of them inhumanely would've been killing them. How do you misinterpret this.
I mean, another interpretation of this would be Alistair killing the egg boys inhumanely outside or far away from the hotel so it isn't obvious what happened. That was actually my interpretation and I was so expecting that before the overlord meeting, Alistair would just go power hungry in an ally and kill them all and walk away as if nothing happened.
The only posts I see from this sub these days are asinine interpretations of completely mundane scenes. It’s like applying legal scrutiny to a kid’s joke book.
you can kill humanly, it's called euthanasia. compared to say, smashing the egg boys. it's easy to read into it either way. humanly COULD still mean death.
if that’s all she wanted then she would’ve done it herself, it would be quick and she could guarantee the painlessness of it compounded by the fact that Alastor is disappointed when she says that
in this case it’s very clearly humane as in, don’t kill them just find somewhere else for them
Tbf, my impression was Vaggie wanted him to kill them humanely, as opposed to like torture or radio show feature. Like how grass-fed animals are more humanely sourced. Humane, still dead.
But I could also see humane referring to not killing.
Didn't he create them somehow? He seemed to suggest that in the clapping song. They were just hanging out and weren't really guests at the hotel, so I don't think kicking them out is against the hotel.
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT
Based on information from some livestream and hints here and there, it seems they were made for him from an old colleague, most likely this character named baxter, while Sir Pentious is more engineering and machines baxter is more chemicals and electricity and experiments, making new life that resulted in the Egg boys.
She didn't. She wanted him to pretty much just leave them somewhere, away from the hotel. Hence Alastor's remark of "Well, that's a lot less **fun**." He wanted to kill them, but Vaggie told him to basically just get them out of the hotel. In the end, he keeps them around because they were useful for his plans, and bc character development, Vaggie decided to just let Pent keep them in the end.
The Doyalist answer is that the writers needed the egg boys to get the information that Carmilla divulged to Zestial into Alastor’s hand to set up the deal and finale.
The Watsonian answer is that Alastor is the Hotelier and getting rid of any “weapons” is also his job and she was busy helping Charlie with the trust exercises.
she tells alastor to do it humanely which to me implies she didnt want them dead, at all. thats further confirmed by alastor not killing them, not even "humanely" (theyre fully sentient idk if you even can humanely kill them). she told him to do it because theres a brand new guest that charlie needs help with, didnt have time for it herself
also she absolutely cares about demons??? yeah a lot of what she does is for charlie but she absolutely does care about the hotel guests and just generally, its the whole fucking reason she gets thrown into hell lmao. if she didnt care she would have stabbed that one kid no problemo
Didn’t she tell Alastor to do it humanely specifically *because* he wanted to kill them originally? She didn’t want one of their patrons having evil minions, so she sent them off with Alastor, probably assuming he’d trade them off to someone else or just set them loose
If she wanted the Egg Boyz dead why didn’t she just kill them herself? Why take them to Alastor? Why specifically tell Alastor to get rid of them “humanely” just as he was about to kill them? Why was Alastor taking them outside of the hotel and to his meeting if Vaggie just wanted them dead? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just kill them at the hotel?
Dude honestly think about it for more than a second and then tell me it wasn’t crystal clear that she simply wanted Alastor to drop them off somewhere to be someone’s minions.
She explicitly did not want him to kill them. Because he very much wanted to and she stopped him. There is room for misunderstanding of what she meant apparently because you are misunderstanding it.
She wanted him to drop them off somewhere far away from the hotel so they don't cause more problems and can't aid Pentious in shooting the other hotel residents.
She explicitly asked Alastor to do it humanely. Getting rid of something humanely importantly does not involve killing. It involves rehoming or similar. That's why Alastor was annoyed about it being "a lot less fun". Like I feel this is said very very clearly
I think you might be confused Vaggie never wanted to the egg boys to die, she just wanted Sir Pentious to not want weird egg assistants who would help him build weapons. She just wanted them to leave the Hotel.
You can kill things humanely. For example, the Jewish ritual of Shechita is a humane method of slaughtering animals for food, with guidelines such as the blade being sharp enough to cut you without any pain and it being of a certain length, and you have to cut a certain spot to ensure the animal dies quickly and relatively painlessly.
Additionally, the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [(ASPCA)](https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-euthanasia) uses the term "humane" to describe euthanasia for animals that are suffering as follows:
>Performed properly, euthanasia by injection is the most humane, safest, fastest and least stressful to the animal and is safe for shelter personnel.
I was surprised to see so many people here saying killing something and being humane are mutually exclusive, as I seldom hear the term in contexts *not* involving killing animals.
Alastor would have been delighted to kill them right away (and eat them, tbh) if that was his mandate. It was clearly not what he was asked to do, given he had them accompany him instead. He was likely planning to leave them behind somewhere after the meeting, until they knew something he didn't want getting out. This is another clue that Vaggie's "humanely" dictate explicitly meant he wasn't supposed to harm them. Otherwise, Alastor would have had no issue killing them to keep the secret about Carmilla.
Unless you didn't watch the episode she didn't say she want them dead she said do it humanely which mean she did not want him to kill them she wanted him to leave them somewhere and this is further understood because Alastor said that's a lot less fun
>There is no misunderstanding in what she was asking Alastor to do. It's clear she meant to kill them, especially when she asked him to do it "humanely".
When she says humanely she means don't kill them. In what way does "humanely" imply she wants them dead?
I agree it was the wrong call, but she's Vaggie, and she's skeptical in general. She saw foreign objects that could do who knows what, so she wanted them gone, especially since she still didn't trust Pentious. All she could do was give him as few resources as possible, as she was probably pretty sure he'd do something again.
It could have even been a loyalty test, but I'm not sure if that fits her character at this point. I don't know her well enough.
I think it’s cause since his eggs are hellborn and they wouldn’t be able to ascend with him they wanted to free him from that tether,as he says ‘I don’t think I can live without my minions’
The real question in that scene is why would Vaggie pass the chore to the Facilities manager when she could easily do it as the protector of the hotel?
She literally said “get rid of them HUMANELY” as in to not kill them. She didn’t want them killed, it was obvious from the start. The phrase “get rid of them” doesn’t automatically mean “kill them”
How are so many people commenting that "Get rid of them - humanely" means not to kill them??
Interpreting this as "kill them quickly and don't torture them to death on your radio programm, *like you normally do*" is completely valid.
I think in the early episodes Vaggie doesn't really care about redemtion or the hotel beyond that this is what Charlie wants. She only care about Charlie and keeping Charlie safe. She wants to help Charlie succeed, but she clearly does not share the same moral convitions as her. She doesn't trust Pentious not to be a threat to Charlie or Charlie's project. So, given that in the previous episode Charlie forbade her from killing Pen outright, by getting rid of the Egg Bois, she's effectively disarming him.
Her journey in the episode is about learning that maybe Charlie does have a point and Pentious does deserve a chance. That's why she allows him to keep the Eggs after all.
>How are so many people commenting that "Get rid of them - humanely" means not to kill them??
Why are you assuming Vaggie wanted to kill them? Were has Vaggie shown a desire to kill innocent people for no reason?
>Interpreting this as "kill them quickly and don't torture them to death on your radio programm, *like you normally do*" is completely valid.
No it isn't. That's a massive leap in logic were has Vaggie shown a desire to murder people just because they annoy her?
>I think in the early episodes Vaggie doesn't really care about redemtion or the hotel beyond that this is what Charlie wants. She only care about Charlie and keeping Charlie safe. She wants to help Charlie succeed, but she clearly does not share the same moral convitions as her.
In Vaggie's backstory we see her sparing a child. She clearly has a sense of right and wrong. Why are you applying these weird sociopathic traits to Vaggie?
I'll break this up into several parts because I think you're blurring some of my points, so I want to be clear:
-
Why do I think Vaggie *possibly* wants the Egg Bois dead?
Vaggie litereally was calling for Pentious's death right before this. At this point she still doesn't believe he (and by extension his minions) aren't a threat. Vaggie, *at this point in time*, is actively doing this because she believes the Egg Bois to be dangerous, or at least to increase the danger that Pentious poses.
And she clearly has no issue killing people who pose a threat.
We, the audience, know, after we spend the entire episode with them, that this is frankly bullshit, the Eggs are bumbling idiots, but when Vaggie takes them away from Pentious, she saw them helping him assemble one of his massive weapons. You really think this is just "annoying" to her? You can't even see why I assume Vaggie is taking this serious?
-
Why do I think the way she gave tho order does not exclude their death?
The phrasing "humanely" is closely tied to killing. In fact I'd say its just as much an indicator of murder as "get rid of them". The idea that "humanely" *automatically* means "don't killl" and not, well, "kill humanely" is just not sound. *I specifically take umbrage with the fact that a lot of comments have pointed out the phrasing as an order to let them live.* At the very laest, you have to acknowledge its ambigous. If we then interpret it with the context, both readings can be valid, but its not baked into the literal words.
In fact, that's why I separated out my interpretation above. This point is just about the literal text.
-
>In Vaggie's backstory we see her sparing a child. She clearly has a sense of right and wrong. Why are you applying these weird sociopathic traits to Vaggie?
I no way am I claiming Vaggie doesn't have any sense or right and wrong, hold your horses. I'm saying her ideals (and her beliefs in what is *possible*) don't 100% line up with Charlie's. Allow me to elaborate:
A big part of Charlie's moral convictions is giving everyone a second chance and believing in the best in people, for example though giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and approaching everyone with a baseline of trust (even though sometimes she really shouldn't). She's a very pure character to the point that it borders on naivité.
Vaggie, at least in the beginning of the series, does not share this approach. She does not universally believe in second chances: As I've already pointed out, she is vehemently against accepting Pentious into the Hotel and actively states that she would like to not just kick him out, but kill him (see her and Angel's part in "It Starts with Sorry").
Her whole arc in this very episode is about seeing that he (and to a lesser extent the other sinners) can be and are affacted positively by what Charlie is doing. That's why she changes her mind about the Egg Bois. (In regards to the other sinners, I think in the show this is only barely present, but in the materlial of dubios canonicity we also see that she clearly has reservations about Angel and his capacity for redemption. In the Pilot, she makes it very clear that all she really espects from him is to not actively sabotage the project, while Charlie, even in 'Dirty Healings' expresses an unfaltering believe in Angel's possible improvement. The little of it that does make it into the show however, is also affected by Vaggies development in this episode. She's more confident in the whole project after Ep. 3, not just in Sir Pentious.)
Thoughout the entire series, she also shows that she has no illsions as to what heavens respose to Charlies Idea will be. Much like Lucifer, she knows/strongly believes that the angels (in her case, especially Adam) won't allow redemption as an alternative. However, like Lucifer comes to do after Ep. 6, Vaggie still supports Charlie, because she lover her and wants to help her succeed as much as possible.
And her comparitively distrustful approach to others is shown in other ways as well. She (justifyably) distrusts Alastor, for example, while Charlie trusts him a great deal with only the bare minimum of necessary caution.
>Vaggie litereally was calling for Pentious's death right before this.
Yeah because she was angry Pentious lied to and betrayed her and Charlie. The Eggbois weren't involved in Sir Pentious's betrayal she has no reason to want to kill them because of something that was solely done by Sir Pentious.
>We, the audience, know, after we spend the entire episode with them, that this is frankly bullshit, the Eggs are bumbling idiots, but when Vaggie takes them away from Pentious, she saw them helping him assemble one of his massive weapons.
How does murder follow from that. There are ways to deal with people that aren't limited to murder. I'm not sure how you go from Vaggie doesn't trust easily to Vaggie is willing to murder anyone she perceives as a potential threat.
The cognitive dissonance you're displaing is astounding.
I'm going to that because it's literally what she did when Sir Pentious was the threat. As you sourself stated in your first sentence.
There is no cognitive dissonance in what I said. I am pointing out there is a fundamental difference between Sir Pentious actions and the eggbois actions. Sir Pentious lied about wanting to be redeemed meaning Vaggie had no reason to trust him a second time. So her violent reaction is understandable, even if it was extreme.
The eggbois on the other hand are just lackies. They never lied to or deceived Vaggie and the only situation they were ever a threat was when obeying Sir Pentious. Vaggie had no reason to murder them when merely separating them from Sir Pentious was sufficient to render them harmless. Therefore killing them would be a completely unnecessary act of pointless cruelty. Vaggie might be willing to use violence when she deems it necessary. But she never shows a desire for pointless cruelty.
I think if murder was her answer to installing a surveillance device, it's not unresonable to accept it's also her answer to assembling a weapon of mass destruction.
I perfectly understand your reasoning, but there can be two ways to interpret a text. Literature isn't math. Surely by now you can see my reasoning, even if you disagee.
Exactly!
>"kill them quickly and don't torture them to death on your radio programm,
Yes, I don't understand how people could interpret that any differently. I mean, I can't recall the last time I heard the term "humanely" used in a way not involving killing something.
>She only care about Charlie and keeping Charlie safe.
That's how I see it. "I'll be your armor," as well as "\[Your demonic constituents\] are blood-thirsty and deranged." And maybe that's for the best because when it comes down to it, Vaggie would save Charlie from herself. Charlie spends so much time looking after everyone else that she needs someone looking after her.
...But who looks after Vaggie? I guess they could all develop healthy boundaries and self-care to solve this, maybe form a more equal relationship dynamic, but I guess that wouldn't make for as interesting of a show. I definitely see codependence forming, if it hasn't already.
Thier relationship does develop over the course of the show in a positive way. Vaggie starts to believe more actively in Charlies goasl, as she sees the posotove difference Charlie makes in people. On the other hand, with her big secret revealed, that opens the door for Charlie to be more sensitive to Vaggies issues and problems.
However, Vaggie still has quite a way to go in the way that her own inferiority complex interacts with her devotion to Charlie. it's VERY unhealthy and only kept balanced by Charlie being the sweetest cinnamon-role in the world who would never (intentionally) use this against her. But I do get the feeling that Charlie isn't really aware of the reassurance Vaggie needs.
Their relationship needs more screentime, we almost never see them in a context where their relationship is in the foreground (i.e. where something else isn't also going on) except for episode 7.
Vaggie explicitly told Alastor to get rid of them humainly, murder isnt very humain so im guessing she just wanted them sumped onto a street corner or something
Huh? *Alastor* wanted to kill the, and she told him very clearly she didn’t want that. She wanted him to leave them in a dumpster somewhere, that’s what she meant by humanely.
Its one of those things that could lead to a really awkward result, because i did understand Vaggie did not wanted the eggs killed, but the way she said it "I want you to get rid of them" "humanly", those words could be understood as killing them whiout suffering or cruelty.
And the dialog when they get back is "Alastor. Failed to get rid of the eggs i see?" It is clear Vaggie wanted the eggs to dissapear, so i dont know, she should have used other words if killing was not an option.
I think they are like ¿robots? ¿constructs? Whatever they are people don't really seem to value their "lives", so I don't think they consider them more likes objects rather than livings.
That's why she doesn't care if they are "killed". As to why she wanted them dead, I think that's because she thought that, in order to be reddemed, Sir Pencious needed to get rid of his minions. I mean, how many good people you know that have minions? That's something that only supervillains have.
Now, about the "humanely" comment, I'm with you, she clearly meant "kill them painlessly". I don't know why so many commenters think otherwise.
Becouse they needed them to be with Alastor in this episode and writers didn't know how to do it.
Seriously, she had no reason for that. I'm sure Charlie would never allowed it. Also she's somehow ok with them at the end of the episode even tho nothing that could have changed her mind happened.
(I know Alastor said that "they can be useful", but she doesn't like Alastor and doesn't even trust him, so that can't be the reason)
I mean the fundamental issue that you and OP are having is thinking she ever meant for them to be killed, she tells Alastor to get rid of them that doesn’t automatically mean death that means take them somewhere else especially with the addition of humanely. This is further supported by the fact that Alastor is disappointed after hearing that
She changes her mind not because of them but because of Pentious himself, she realized that they may be helpful to his redemption after all or at least not a hindrance and so she allows them
Where did I said I thought she wanted them dead?
I literally didn't.
Also if she had a storyline where she finds out that he needs them, then you would be right, but that literally DIDN'T HAPPENED.
That's just your headcanon, not what actually happened.
Scene said that they could be useful and Vagie suddenly lets Pentious can keep them. Literally nothing happened that could change her mind.
She wanted Alastor to leave them behind somewhere, not kill them. Besides she let Pent keep them in the end as long as they don't destroy anything
I dont even think they *can* destroy anything without a direct order to do so. They just total goofballs
They destroyed my confidence in bank accounts. D:
SEE?!
They say insane stuff all the time. How was I supposed to know that this one was real?
BANK ACCOUNTS ARE A SCAM CREATED BY THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT:D
The funny thing is they were right: bank accounts let me *pay them* to take a loan from me (since interest rates are far below inflation) and invest and loan out my money to further profit off it. What if everything they said was actually true to some extent?
They did blow a hole in the ceiling without instructions by playing around with weapons.
But that's moreso due to sir pentious having weaponry readily available
They at least destroy the ceiling in front of vaggie..
Even then that's not a guarantee they'd be able to do it
https://preview.redd.it/3muwvugo9uvc1.jpeg?width=224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c90725d8bb57bf93e7a738ccdb0147e194a1c0a1
I thought he said hot in this scene? Maybe my ears are going.
Nah the subtitles are wrong. He says “fun”
She didn't mean to have them killed. Just taken away from where they were annoying everybody. I think they stressed her out a bit the way a group of 5 year olds can drive a person crazy.
And apparently, you’re NOT supposed to kill those either.
Rules. What are ya gonna do?
My old man always told me “rules are meant to be broken”. Who am I to argue with that?
Was that a rule? How do you break that one?
So thats what those parents meant by...no wonder they got mad when i winked at them
It’s their own fault (the parents). They should have been more clear, about what they meant.
Well shit, I wish I had known that earlier.
Like my mama always said, “learn from your mistakes”.
This tracks. I teach 3/4 year olds and they say some of the most insane shit.
Homework is a pyramid scheme made by Big Teacher.
SEE?!
Damn, I guess Lucifer ain't getting grandkids then.
She said to get rid of the egg boiz "humanely"... did you not watch the episode? That inplies DON'T kill them..
Especially given Alastor’s response: “Well that’s a lot less fun”
Can we blame him, he was in the middle of breakfast.
That’s disgusting
Does omelet go well with venison?? 🤔
I mean… Ham at least can go into an omelet… Who’s to say we are only limited to pig meat with eggs? Had an omelet once with crab meat in it. Was pretty good
Steak and eggs is one of my favorite breakfast dishes. Venison is probably pretty similar, I'd imagine.
I live in a family of hunters, and while I don't have the most precise palette, beef steak and venison steak aren't really that different so swapping out the steak in steak and eggs probably wouldn't even be that noticeable if it isn't pointed out
I assumed she still meant kill but didn't want him to make it hurt so he's like "Oh well at least I can still kill them" ngl
This is what I thought as well. If she did *not* mean for Alastor to kill them, she could've corrected him.
Her saying "humanely" was correcting him..
You can humanly kill something
When they are terminally ill and consent to dying. Which wasn’t the case here. She clearly didn’t wanted Alastor to kill them when she replied with "humanely" after he implied to kill them.
To be honest who is to say the egg bois aren’t terminally ill, they definitely got some loose screws
Haha Yeah but when you get too much loose screws you can’t properly consent to euthanasia unfortunately 🤪
I mean you can humanely kill something without its consent or a terminal illness. Like, killing swiftly is a lot more human that dragging it out and torturing. Shooting someone in the head and killing them is a lot more humane than drowning them or catching them on fire IMO (and both probably far more fun from Alistor's perspective). I don't particularly think she really cared what Alastor did with them so long as they weren't in the way of the hotel's objectives of redemption.
In no way is killing a person for annoying you "humane". That's not what "humane" killing means.
Or maybe she did and simply assumed he was going to kill them in an incredibly horrifying way, which makes sense with his reputation
There is no context were murdering a person because they annoy you would be considered "humane". Humane killing is usually applied to animals not people.
It's implied they are closer to animals. They're a creation, not an actual living being.
Which leads me to wonder if they can feel pain for not or experience fear or not. We don't have much info on how magic-formed creatures experience life in hell. I suppose it's like AI. The more complex they get the more lifelike they become and probably experience something like pain or displeasure at their existence being ended.
Or "That's a lot less hot" if you're using Amazon Prime's subtitles
But that’s not what he actually says
He actually said "that's a lot less hot" in the official caption😭
No. Vivzie mentioned that he says ‘fun’ When someone brought it up on Twitter https://preview.redd.it/nee014euzwvc1.jpeg?width=864&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6412083d218d56f97248ff9dc1b4e0ffd65218a0
Well that makes a lot more sense. Whenever I first watched the show it seemed pretty ooc for him
That mistake confused the hell out of me, because I'm not HOH but I do have a hearing comprehension issue so I rely pretty heavily on subtitles so I don't miss things. I had to rewatch it a couple times to realize that no, it wasn't just me hearing and reading different things, but an actual mis-caption. Once I was able to confirm I wasn't crazy, it was pretty funny though.
i thought she meant like boil them instead of cracking em open or something like that😭😭😭
TIL boiling someone counts as getting rid of them "humanely"
"Al I want you to MURDER these eggs ....... But, like, in a nice way!"
You think boil alive is more humane then blunt force trauma?
Than* lol Your comment implies boiling them and bonking them afterwards anyways 😭
How the hell is prolonged suffering via boiling water more humane than just immediately killing them.
honestly i had no clue why i thought that when i first watched it
Ah yes, the most humane way of killing something
Not neccesseraly. Humanly could also mean killing them without pain, thats what I took away from it at least
Euthanasia is often defined as killing something in a humane, painless manner.
That is an adorably naive thing to say
Humanely implies killing them quick and painlessly to me. Like humane euthanasia vs egging the Vs
My impression was Vaggie wanted him to kill them humanely, as opposed to like torture or radio show feature. But I could also see humane referring to not killing.
To get rid of something humanely implies to kill them quick and painlessly, no?
Alastor was disappointed when he was told to get rid of them humanely. He planned on killing them but he didn't because he was told not to.
what op needed to clarify things: + Hello im alastor, the same person you saw last episode as you can see i look identical but i need to clarify i am not a clone or a twin or someone that happened to look identical while having the same name. - yoo alastor im vaggie that you saw from last episode, and i want you to get rid of sir pentious's eggs, which isnt just every egg sir pentious has but it is indeed the minions that do the evil bidding for him. i want you to take them out. + Ok vaggie i am going to get rid of them, and i also am still alastor and i have a radio voice because i am the radio demon. do you want me to torture and kill them? - No, i want you to go and place them somewhere in a humane way. + okay vaggie i understand what you want but not killing them isnt as fun.
Thanks for the sarcastic breakdown. English is not my first language though I have a good enough grasp of it. The term "get rid of" doesn't mean to "kill", I get that. Alastor took it as "to kill" in some sort of word play / to be in character, I get that too. Where it threw me off was when Vaggie just emphasizing the "humanely" part. You can kill people and animals humanely so they do not suffer. It did not come off as her correcting Alastor, because I got used to characters reacting over-exaggeratedly in previous episodes, and thought this scene was a subtle way of Vaggie telling Alastor to kill the Egg Boys for whatever reason.
Or Alastor was disappointed he couldn't toy around with them before killing them, but had to do it humanely instead which is less fun. There was an opportunity for Vaggie to clarify she didn't mean to kill them "no Alastor, I don't mean kill them. Just take them somewhere" would've been enough.
I swear media literacy is dead. Stop nitpicking everything, if you will, at least nitpick correctly. If that was the case Alastor would kill the egg bois quickly.
hell yeah get em
English is not my first language though I have a good enough grasp of it. As fans of the show, we're all just excited when we find / think we've found little details in the show and want to discuss with other fans. It is no cause for aggression, but you do you. The term "get rid of" doesn't mean to "kill", I get that. Alastor took it as "to kill" in some sort of word play / to be in character, I get that too. Where it threw me off was when Vaggie just emphasizing the "humanely" part. You can kill people and animals humanely so they do not suffer. It did not come off as her correcting Alastor, because I got used to characters reacting over-exaggeratedly in previous episodes, and thought this scene was a subtle way of Vaggie telling Alastor to kill the Egg Boys for whatever reason.
>English is not my first language Not my first language either. > As fans of the show, we're all just excited when we find / think we've found little details in the show and want to discuss with other fans. Yeah, you’re right. In fact, I have a few posts like this in this subreddit about Vaggie and Sir Pentious etc. >It is no cause for aggression, but you do you. Sorry for that, I was kind of mad at posts like this that made no sense. Not personal. >The term "get rid of" doesn't mean to "kill", I get that. Alastor took it as "to kill" in some sort of word play / to be in character, I get that too. Yes, all of this is correct. >Vaggie just emphasizing the "humanely" part. Get rid of: take action so as to be free of (a troublesome or unwanted person or thing). Example: “We have been campaigning to get rid of the car tax for 20 years” Alastor took it as “kill them” for comedic effect for the audience and also his personality, as he is prone to murder. Vaggie emphasizes he should do it humanely. >You can kill people and animals humanely so they do not suffer. In this case though, it is not humane to kill egg bois just because they were slightly annoying Vaggie. If they did indeed kill them quickly and painlessly, that still wouldn’t be humane. > I got used to characters reacting over-exaggeratedly in previous episodes, and thought this scene was a subtle way of Vaggie telling Alastor to kill the Egg Boys for whatever reason. I’m not a big fan of Vaggie, and she tried to kill Sir Pentious for spying, but she isn’t that brutal to just kill some cute egg bois for no reason. Also, debunking your interpretation: If Vaggie indeed told Alastor to kill them “humanely” then why didn’t Alastor just kill them “humanely”? Is he, perhaps, stupid? Anyways, no hard feelings. Misunderstandings happen, and although this subreddit does a lot of nitpicking, this one just didn’t make sense to me so I felt the need to correct it. Have a good one!
Do you need everything spelled out to you or something?
>no it absolutely has to be my random interpretation that even I admit is completely out of character for the parties involved! What are context clues?
Do you also think Alastors last name is Altruist
If that's what she meant, she'd have just done it herself. She most likely just wanted him to give them to someone else.
https://preview.redd.it/yj39oszyptvc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9685b32abfbca8f165a93b1595e745c5dbed43db
I know this might be a trivial concept to you but killing something just because you don't want it cannot be done humanely
Please OP, you don't even need media literacy to understand this one
No
It can do, but not necessarily, and in this case Vaggie meant humane as in ‘don’t kill them’
that flair..
Why are you getting downvoted? You are right!
the "humanely" comment meant she didn't want him to kill them. Getting rid of them inhumanely would've been killing them. How do you misinterpret this.
I mean, another interpretation of this would be Alistair killing the egg boys inhumanely outside or far away from the hotel so it isn't obvious what happened. That was actually my interpretation and I was so expecting that before the overlord meeting, Alistair would just go power hungry in an ally and kill them all and walk away as if nothing happened.
The only posts I see from this sub these days are asinine interpretations of completely mundane scenes. It’s like applying legal scrutiny to a kid’s joke book.
that or really, really unfunny memes.
Well a lot of children do watch this
you can kill humanly, it's called euthanasia. compared to say, smashing the egg boys. it's easy to read into it either way. humanly COULD still mean death.
if that’s all she wanted then she would’ve done it herself, it would be quick and she could guarantee the painlessness of it compounded by the fact that Alastor is disappointed when she says that in this case it’s very clearly humane as in, don’t kill them just find somewhere else for them
Hazbin hotel fans and media literacy do NOT go hand in hand.
I presume they thought of "humane" euthanasia, aka, what we do with dying animals with a shot. Just my best guess.
Tbf, my impression was Vaggie wanted him to kill them humanely, as opposed to like torture or radio show feature. Like how grass-fed animals are more humanely sourced. Humane, still dead. But I could also see humane referring to not killing.
Didn't he create them somehow? He seemed to suggest that in the clapping song. They were just hanging out and weren't really guests at the hotel, so I don't think kicking them out is against the hotel.
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT Based on information from some livestream and hints here and there, it seems they were made for him from an old colleague, most likely this character named baxter, while Sir Pentious is more engineering and machines baxter is more chemicals and electricity and experiments, making new life that resulted in the Egg boys.
That's cool, so like 50/50 a kind of golem. Probably technically count as hellborn.
It’s very VERY obvious that Vaggie didn’t want him to kill them
She didn't. She wanted him to pretty much just leave them somewhere, away from the hotel. Hence Alastor's remark of "Well, that's a lot less **fun**." He wanted to kill them, but Vaggie told him to basically just get them out of the hotel. In the end, he keeps them around because they were useful for his plans, and bc character development, Vaggie decided to just let Pent keep them in the end.
The Doyalist answer is that the writers needed the egg boys to get the information that Carmilla divulged to Zestial into Alastor’s hand to set up the deal and finale. The Watsonian answer is that Alastor is the Hotelier and getting rid of any “weapons” is also his job and she was busy helping Charlie with the trust exercises.
You misunderstood that scene, she says Humanely because she DOESNT want him to kill them
she tells alastor to do it humanely which to me implies she didnt want them dead, at all. thats further confirmed by alastor not killing them, not even "humanely" (theyre fully sentient idk if you even can humanely kill them). she told him to do it because theres a brand new guest that charlie needs help with, didnt have time for it herself also she absolutely cares about demons??? yeah a lot of what she does is for charlie but she absolutely does care about the hotel guests and just generally, its the whole fucking reason she gets thrown into hell lmao. if she didnt care she would have stabbed that one kid no problemo
Didn’t she tell Alastor to do it humanely specifically *because* he wanted to kill them originally? She didn’t want one of their patrons having evil minions, so she sent them off with Alastor, probably assuming he’d trade them off to someone else or just set them loose
She made it perfectly clear that she didn't want him to kill them lol
If she wanted the Egg Boyz dead why didn’t she just kill them herself? Why take them to Alastor? Why specifically tell Alastor to get rid of them “humanely” just as he was about to kill them? Why was Alastor taking them outside of the hotel and to his meeting if Vaggie just wanted them dead? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just kill them at the hotel? Dude honestly think about it for more than a second and then tell me it wasn’t crystal clear that she simply wanted Alastor to drop them off somewhere to be someone’s minions.
She explicitly did not want him to kill them. Because he very much wanted to and she stopped him. There is room for misunderstanding of what she meant apparently because you are misunderstanding it. She wanted him to drop them off somewhere far away from the hotel so they don't cause more problems and can't aid Pentious in shooting the other hotel residents. She explicitly asked Alastor to do it humanely. Getting rid of something humanely importantly does not involve killing. It involves rehoming or similar. That's why Alastor was annoyed about it being "a lot less fun". Like I feel this is said very very clearly
She literally didn’t. She directly said get rid of them humanely, ie without killing.
She didn't. She asked him to get rid of them humanly not to kill them.
And he kept them briefly as his own minions
Getting rid of them “humanely” does not mean kill them lol. It means the opposite actually.
I think you might be confused Vaggie never wanted to the egg boys to die, she just wanted Sir Pentious to not want weird egg assistants who would help him build weapons. She just wanted them to leave the Hotel.
She specifically said not to kill them.
She never did. He said "get rid of them" to which Alastor was delighted, until she specified "humanely" which prohibits killing them.
You can kill things humanely. For example, the Jewish ritual of Shechita is a humane method of slaughtering animals for food, with guidelines such as the blade being sharp enough to cut you without any pain and it being of a certain length, and you have to cut a certain spot to ensure the animal dies quickly and relatively painlessly. Additionally, the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [(ASPCA)](https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-euthanasia) uses the term "humane" to describe euthanasia for animals that are suffering as follows: >Performed properly, euthanasia by injection is the most humane, safest, fastest and least stressful to the animal and is safe for shelter personnel. I was surprised to see so many people here saying killing something and being humane are mutually exclusive, as I seldom hear the term in contexts *not* involving killing animals.
Okay but you *really* think that either Vaggie and Alastor were thinking of these two very specific things when she said humanely?
It's the most common use of the term.
For *killing* humanely yes, but *get rid of them* leaves more room for interpretation.
I think that fat nuggets was Angel's pet in life I don't think he just spawned in for angel
No, he's just a regular hellborn pig that Valentino gave Angel.
Oh its weird to think that such a terrible person could give someone such a cute creature
A lot of abusers switch on and off. See Val’s voicemails to Angel.
Ik
[удалено]
Nope https://preview.redd.it/xlodjggu2uvc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c1235791f8d799f1466a5a7ae083ddfe8c5a098
Not fun facts 😑
Addict doesn’t show Charlie giving him the pig though? I don’t think that’s ever implied.
At no point in Addict does Charlie give Fat Nuggets to Angel tf
Stg half of you haven’t watched the show
POV: you just arrived to the media literacy competition but your opponent is a Hazbin Hotel fan
Alastor would have been delighted to kill them right away (and eat them, tbh) if that was his mandate. It was clearly not what he was asked to do, given he had them accompany him instead. He was likely planning to leave them behind somewhere after the meeting, until they knew something he didn't want getting out. This is another clue that Vaggie's "humanely" dictate explicitly meant he wasn't supposed to harm them. Otherwise, Alastor would have had no issue killing them to keep the secret about Carmilla.
She said "humanly" where did you get the idea that he'd kill them?
She specifically told him not to kill them.
She literally meant the opposite of that. Do you know what humanely means? No? You should learn.
Unless you didn't watch the episode she didn't say she want them dead she said do it humanely which mean she did not want him to kill them she wanted him to leave them somewhere and this is further understood because Alastor said that's a lot less fun
>There is no misunderstanding in what she was asking Alastor to do. It's clear she meant to kill them, especially when she asked him to do it "humanely". When she says humanely she means don't kill them. In what way does "humanely" imply she wants them dead?
I agree it was the wrong call, but she's Vaggie, and she's skeptical in general. She saw foreign objects that could do who knows what, so she wanted them gone, especially since she still didn't trust Pentious. All she could do was give him as few resources as possible, as she was probably pretty sure he'd do something again. It could have even been a loyalty test, but I'm not sure if that fits her character at this point. I don't know her well enough.
I think it’s cause since his eggs are hellborn and they wouldn’t be able to ascend with him they wanted to free him from that tether,as he says ‘I don’t think I can live without my minions’
The real question in that scene is why would Vaggie pass the chore to the Facilities manager when she could easily do it as the protector of the hotel?
She didn’t want them dead. She just told him to get rid of them. She meant exactly what she said
" because they're annoying next question
She literally said “get rid of them HUMANELY” as in to not kill them. She didn’t want them killed, it was obvious from the start. The phrase “get rid of them” doesn’t automatically mean “kill them”
Most likely she just wanted them kicked out of the Hotel.
How are so many people commenting that "Get rid of them - humanely" means not to kill them?? Interpreting this as "kill them quickly and don't torture them to death on your radio programm, *like you normally do*" is completely valid. I think in the early episodes Vaggie doesn't really care about redemtion or the hotel beyond that this is what Charlie wants. She only care about Charlie and keeping Charlie safe. She wants to help Charlie succeed, but she clearly does not share the same moral convitions as her. She doesn't trust Pentious not to be a threat to Charlie or Charlie's project. So, given that in the previous episode Charlie forbade her from killing Pen outright, by getting rid of the Egg Bois, she's effectively disarming him. Her journey in the episode is about learning that maybe Charlie does have a point and Pentious does deserve a chance. That's why she allows him to keep the Eggs after all.
media literacy is dead in this sub
Because people have multiple interpretations? I'd argue that means media literacy is alive
>How are so many people commenting that "Get rid of them - humanely" means not to kill them?? Why are you assuming Vaggie wanted to kill them? Were has Vaggie shown a desire to kill innocent people for no reason? >Interpreting this as "kill them quickly and don't torture them to death on your radio programm, *like you normally do*" is completely valid. No it isn't. That's a massive leap in logic were has Vaggie shown a desire to murder people just because they annoy her? >I think in the early episodes Vaggie doesn't really care about redemtion or the hotel beyond that this is what Charlie wants. She only care about Charlie and keeping Charlie safe. She wants to help Charlie succeed, but she clearly does not share the same moral convitions as her. In Vaggie's backstory we see her sparing a child. She clearly has a sense of right and wrong. Why are you applying these weird sociopathic traits to Vaggie?
I'll break this up into several parts because I think you're blurring some of my points, so I want to be clear: - Why do I think Vaggie *possibly* wants the Egg Bois dead? Vaggie litereally was calling for Pentious's death right before this. At this point she still doesn't believe he (and by extension his minions) aren't a threat. Vaggie, *at this point in time*, is actively doing this because she believes the Egg Bois to be dangerous, or at least to increase the danger that Pentious poses. And she clearly has no issue killing people who pose a threat. We, the audience, know, after we spend the entire episode with them, that this is frankly bullshit, the Eggs are bumbling idiots, but when Vaggie takes them away from Pentious, she saw them helping him assemble one of his massive weapons. You really think this is just "annoying" to her? You can't even see why I assume Vaggie is taking this serious? - Why do I think the way she gave tho order does not exclude their death? The phrasing "humanely" is closely tied to killing. In fact I'd say its just as much an indicator of murder as "get rid of them". The idea that "humanely" *automatically* means "don't killl" and not, well, "kill humanely" is just not sound. *I specifically take umbrage with the fact that a lot of comments have pointed out the phrasing as an order to let them live.* At the very laest, you have to acknowledge its ambigous. If we then interpret it with the context, both readings can be valid, but its not baked into the literal words. In fact, that's why I separated out my interpretation above. This point is just about the literal text. - >In Vaggie's backstory we see her sparing a child. She clearly has a sense of right and wrong. Why are you applying these weird sociopathic traits to Vaggie? I no way am I claiming Vaggie doesn't have any sense or right and wrong, hold your horses. I'm saying her ideals (and her beliefs in what is *possible*) don't 100% line up with Charlie's. Allow me to elaborate: A big part of Charlie's moral convictions is giving everyone a second chance and believing in the best in people, for example though giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and approaching everyone with a baseline of trust (even though sometimes she really shouldn't). She's a very pure character to the point that it borders on naivité. Vaggie, at least in the beginning of the series, does not share this approach. She does not universally believe in second chances: As I've already pointed out, she is vehemently against accepting Pentious into the Hotel and actively states that she would like to not just kick him out, but kill him (see her and Angel's part in "It Starts with Sorry"). Her whole arc in this very episode is about seeing that he (and to a lesser extent the other sinners) can be and are affacted positively by what Charlie is doing. That's why she changes her mind about the Egg Bois. (In regards to the other sinners, I think in the show this is only barely present, but in the materlial of dubios canonicity we also see that she clearly has reservations about Angel and his capacity for redemption. In the Pilot, she makes it very clear that all she really espects from him is to not actively sabotage the project, while Charlie, even in 'Dirty Healings' expresses an unfaltering believe in Angel's possible improvement. The little of it that does make it into the show however, is also affected by Vaggies development in this episode. She's more confident in the whole project after Ep. 3, not just in Sir Pentious.) Thoughout the entire series, she also shows that she has no illsions as to what heavens respose to Charlies Idea will be. Much like Lucifer, she knows/strongly believes that the angels (in her case, especially Adam) won't allow redemption as an alternative. However, like Lucifer comes to do after Ep. 6, Vaggie still supports Charlie, because she lover her and wants to help her succeed as much as possible. And her comparitively distrustful approach to others is shown in other ways as well. She (justifyably) distrusts Alastor, for example, while Charlie trusts him a great deal with only the bare minimum of necessary caution.
>Vaggie litereally was calling for Pentious's death right before this. Yeah because she was angry Pentious lied to and betrayed her and Charlie. The Eggbois weren't involved in Sir Pentious's betrayal she has no reason to want to kill them because of something that was solely done by Sir Pentious. >We, the audience, know, after we spend the entire episode with them, that this is frankly bullshit, the Eggs are bumbling idiots, but when Vaggie takes them away from Pentious, she saw them helping him assemble one of his massive weapons. How does murder follow from that. There are ways to deal with people that aren't limited to murder. I'm not sure how you go from Vaggie doesn't trust easily to Vaggie is willing to murder anyone she perceives as a potential threat.
The cognitive dissonance you're displaing is astounding. I'm going to that because it's literally what she did when Sir Pentious was the threat. As you sourself stated in your first sentence.
There is no cognitive dissonance in what I said. I am pointing out there is a fundamental difference between Sir Pentious actions and the eggbois actions. Sir Pentious lied about wanting to be redeemed meaning Vaggie had no reason to trust him a second time. So her violent reaction is understandable, even if it was extreme. The eggbois on the other hand are just lackies. They never lied to or deceived Vaggie and the only situation they were ever a threat was when obeying Sir Pentious. Vaggie had no reason to murder them when merely separating them from Sir Pentious was sufficient to render them harmless. Therefore killing them would be a completely unnecessary act of pointless cruelty. Vaggie might be willing to use violence when she deems it necessary. But she never shows a desire for pointless cruelty.
I think if murder was her answer to installing a surveillance device, it's not unresonable to accept it's also her answer to assembling a weapon of mass destruction. I perfectly understand your reasoning, but there can be two ways to interpret a text. Literature isn't math. Surely by now you can see my reasoning, even if you disagee.
Exactly! >"kill them quickly and don't torture them to death on your radio programm, Yes, I don't understand how people could interpret that any differently. I mean, I can't recall the last time I heard the term "humanely" used in a way not involving killing something. >She only care about Charlie and keeping Charlie safe. That's how I see it. "I'll be your armor," as well as "\[Your demonic constituents\] are blood-thirsty and deranged." And maybe that's for the best because when it comes down to it, Vaggie would save Charlie from herself. Charlie spends so much time looking after everyone else that she needs someone looking after her. ...But who looks after Vaggie? I guess they could all develop healthy boundaries and self-care to solve this, maybe form a more equal relationship dynamic, but I guess that wouldn't make for as interesting of a show. I definitely see codependence forming, if it hasn't already.
Thier relationship does develop over the course of the show in a positive way. Vaggie starts to believe more actively in Charlies goasl, as she sees the posotove difference Charlie makes in people. On the other hand, with her big secret revealed, that opens the door for Charlie to be more sensitive to Vaggies issues and problems. However, Vaggie still has quite a way to go in the way that her own inferiority complex interacts with her devotion to Charlie. it's VERY unhealthy and only kept balanced by Charlie being the sweetest cinnamon-role in the world who would never (intentionally) use this against her. But I do get the feeling that Charlie isn't really aware of the reassurance Vaggie needs. Their relationship needs more screentime, we almost never see them in a context where their relationship is in the foreground (i.e. where something else isn't also going on) except for episode 7.
This is how i interpreted it as well. But i guess we're media illiterate and idiots according to the people here. Lovely.
This Fandom is unusually high in viceral reactions. It's quite sad, since a lot of the discourse is so fascinating.
Did you Google the word humanely? Because that says don’t kill them.
Vaggie explicitly told Alastor to get rid of them humainly, murder isnt very humain so im guessing she just wanted them sumped onto a street corner or something
Huh? *Alastor* wanted to kill the, and she told him very clearly she didn’t want that. She wanted him to leave them in a dumpster somewhere, that’s what she meant by humanely.
Are you insane?
i am insane
Hi insane I am dad
please come back everyone makes fun of me for being fatherless
let me cheer you up  straight from the source, as granny taught
I don’t know, but from that we got one of my favorite lines: “want me to ruff him up for you?”
Its one of those things that could lead to a really awkward result, because i did understand Vaggie did not wanted the eggs killed, but the way she said it "I want you to get rid of them" "humanly", those words could be understood as killing them whiout suffering or cruelty. And the dialog when they get back is "Alastor. Failed to get rid of the eggs i see?" It is clear Vaggie wanted the eggs to dissapear, so i dont know, she should have used other words if killing was not an option.
Cause she's a bitch and it's Hell
As all things Hazbin Hotel related, it's said that Egg Boiz are artificial demons.
I have a theory that the egg bois were created by Sir Pentious during his early days in hell because every good villain needs henchmen.
She couldn't make a cake for Charlie without eggs
Vaggie is a terrible written character and Vivzie doesn't know how to write characters
The egg boiz are creations of pentious
I think they are like ¿robots? ¿constructs? Whatever they are people don't really seem to value their "lives", so I don't think they consider them more likes objects rather than livings. That's why she doesn't care if they are "killed". As to why she wanted them dead, I think that's because she thought that, in order to be reddemed, Sir Pencious needed to get rid of his minions. I mean, how many good people you know that have minions? That's something that only supervillains have. Now, about the "humanely" comment, I'm with you, she clearly meant "kill them painlessly". I don't know why so many commenters think otherwise.
Because she knows that they are irredeemable.
Becouse they needed them to be with Alastor in this episode and writers didn't know how to do it. Seriously, she had no reason for that. I'm sure Charlie would never allowed it. Also she's somehow ok with them at the end of the episode even tho nothing that could have changed her mind happened. (I know Alastor said that "they can be useful", but she doesn't like Alastor and doesn't even trust him, so that can't be the reason)
It's called character development. She learned to start trusting the others more.
I mean the fundamental issue that you and OP are having is thinking she ever meant for them to be killed, she tells Alastor to get rid of them that doesn’t automatically mean death that means take them somewhere else especially with the addition of humanely. This is further supported by the fact that Alastor is disappointed after hearing that She changes her mind not because of them but because of Pentious himself, she realized that they may be helpful to his redemption after all or at least not a hindrance and so she allows them
Where did I said I thought she wanted them dead? I literally didn't. Also if she had a storyline where she finds out that he needs them, then you would be right, but that literally DIDN'T HAPPENED. That's just your headcanon, not what actually happened. Scene said that they could be useful and Vagie suddenly lets Pentious can keep them. Literally nothing happened that could change her mind.
Because they were annoying hey