Why didn't the Greed victim just take a pound of flesh out of his leg? The side of his stomach makes no sense.
Femoral artery
>>70173755
Wouldn't be too hard to avoid that. Or take flesh from an arm, or the ass.
>>70173856
Did you see what he looked like? Hard to imagine he could even reach his leg, let alone operate on what looks nothing like pic related
They literally explain "love handles." Not stomach.
I thought this was a reference to "The Merchant of Venice" and he had to take a pound of flesh nearest his heart.
>>70174519
"Love handle" was a sarcastic quip. He went on to say "cut along the side of his own stomach".
>>70175123
... Yea I don't know where your lovehandles are, but the cherry syrup is clearly around his love-handle area. Which also qualifies as "side of (lateral to) the stomach."
>>70175236
I don't know what we're disagreeing about. We're both talking about the same area. My gripe is why he chose that area to begin with instead of a more expendable part, like his leg or arm, or buttocks.
>>70175420
How is permanently mangling a leg/arm preferential to cutting away what can be felt to be nothing but fat?
how was he going to reach his own ass with a knife?
>>70175529
I'm pretty sure he had the ability to wipe his own ass. And mangling a leg is way more preferential to hacking away at a sack of organs.
