Also I already told you Sohmer aka LICD writer IS mysoginistic. Like, badly. Fans know it, his entire comic premise is "women are penis plugs for Rayne", and it oozes over into LFG and his other comic. So the fact that you believe a comuc shouldn't be taken seriously, sure. But this guy had REAL FANS say that he treated them like shit IN REAL LIFE for being women. So yes, he is a mysoginist so is his comic.
Still it's hard to see how that would affect anyone's opinion on a bare bones sex, raunchy comedy. If anything, that should only be mentioned in a segment on the author because that's basically the only thing that incriminates the treatment of women in the comic. I sincerely doubt that they had no problem with the treatment of women in the comic before they found out he was a dick. Again, even if we accept that it's misogynistic, I'd still be forced to say that it doesn't matter. Also, not to be disrespectful, but you're spelling "misogynistic" incorrectly.
Serioulsy, have you read Least I Could Do?
If your operational definition of misogyny is skewed so far that it doesn't cover a blatant piece of work like LICD, then you're effectively rendering the word useless. And no, admitting US Angel Corps was geuinely hateful doesn't make your argument any stronger -- it just shows you require a case of misogyny to be absurdly extreme to show up on your own radar.
So... what's your stake in this? Why does it rub you the wrong way to see "misogyny" applied to Shadbase, VG Cats, and LICD?
Because Angel Corps is almost completely centered on bringing misery to female characters (along with the intent being misogyny), and this could seriously hinder a comic. I've said this next part probably 4 times in this thread already so bear with me. Stupid, minimalistic joke comics should not be treated as if they're trying to do anything other than get a laugh; no matter what their crutch is. Shadbase and VG Cats use indiscriminate shock and LICD uses sex. It's OK to point out how their humor has crutches but it's almost completely asinine to point out unintentional connotations created by their jokes. If the humor is solely based around demeaning women (LICD is the closest to this but I'd still say it's fairly inoffensive in the way it does it) or if they're trying to actually make characters (where the women are all underdeveloped fuck-ups and the men don't get the same treatment) then it'd be a legitimate criticism for the writing. If I have to say this again, I will. I'm not trying to censor anyone, this is simply my opinion.
You assume a lot of insider knowledge about what is "intended" by these comics, which is interesting in and of itself. However, I submit that "intention" is a weak basis for your argument. Most bigoted assholes do not actually intend to be bigoted assholes, yet somehow they manage it anyway. If you think the only way misogyny is able to occur in a webcomic is if author cackles madly, "Yes, this will show those foolish women! How I hate them!" while writing, you're rendering the term useless.
Because it bothers you. Obviously.
Here's my guess: no telepathy, just deduction. It bothers you because you find those comics entertaining, and you don't want to be called a misogynist for it.
See, I doubt it would bother you quite so much if the reviews said these things:
1) Anyone who enjoys Shadbase should print the comics out and wipe their ass with it. When your rectum develops cancerous polyps, consider that to be your wiser self speaking to you about how bad this comic is.
2) Least I Could Do is the cause of global warming. Every time knuckle-dragging dumbshit laughs at LICD, the Earth itself makes an incremental move towards wiping out the whole human race.
3) If you enjoy VG Cats, perhaps you should try drinking your own diarrhea. Clearly, your sense of taste is just that bad.
As insulting and outlandish as those statements would be in a review, I strongly doubt they would've inspired you to pipe up with a "general grievance." But "misogyny?" Ah... that tweaks a nerve. Now the reviewers are being "almost completely asinine" and jumping to conclusions that you're certain are "completely unintentional."
Of course it's your opinion. Isn't that implicit? And it's comforting to know that you aren't trying to censor anyone, since you don't have the power to do so anyway. My opinion (in case you need me to declare that what I'm saying is indeed my opinion) is that you're uncomfortable with the possibility that finding hateful "humor" funny makes you, somehow, complicit in its hatefulness. So you're doing your darndest to rationalize innocent intent on the part of the creators of said humor, and draw borders around what is and isn't "legitimate criticism" to protect your own sensibilities.