>>21328
>>21333
>but jesus is it seriously the same as THAT shit?

It's not the same, but it's bad in a different way. I'd also put it in the same league as the other guy too. The characters you draw look extremely grotesque. From their faces, hair, anatomy, to those sandworms you call anuses all look gross. Your linework is inconsistent, and the color theory could use work. The way you draw poop is lacking as well. I'm really sorry, but I'm hard pressed to find anything halfway decent about your art. The least I can say is that you have good concepts and context.
I said something similar about your artwork once before, but I barely see any difference, if anything, between your new stuff and your old stuff. It's ok to improve slowly, as not everybody improves at the same rate, but I can tell you didn't take the words I said before to heart. The girls are still lumps with limbs and vaginas/anuses showing at positions where they shouldn't be. Chubby is fine, and so are visible privates, but you clearly don't have a grasp on weight distribution and 3D space. You can't just put anything wherever for the sake of it being visible, lest you want a broken skeletal structure. I'll say all of this again, but please, do some anatomy studies. Use references. Take inspiration from artists you enjoy. And please stop with the self-loathing and/or long-winded excuses every time someone says your art is bad. People want results, not you undermining someone else's work in attempt at putting yours on a higher pedestal.