I'm facing a delema of sorts. I have a species that's supposed to illustrate how gene modification can go wrong. They are, in a sense artificially created carnivorous primates of the homo genus. They're bigger, meaner, and designed to kill, as illustrated by their anatomy (hyena like skull shape and teeth, longer arms, double jointed legs, generally stronger build, etc.) except for the most part they're about as violent as we homo sapiens, have a similar level of intelligence, social hierarchy and technological advancement. In general, they simply have a wider range of socially acceptable behaviors. Biting people is fine if they deserve it. And nobody gives a rip if you don't spit it out afterwards. And it's gross, but not illegal if you eat an already dead sapient species. Kind of like eating gum off the undersides of tables. Someone would probably try to stop you, but only because it's nasty, not because it's 'immoral.' Naturally, this doesn't come up often and I don't strictly speaking have to do anything with it in the narrative. But there's a scene where a particularly obnoxious villain decides it's a great idea to taunt one of the Azulian protagonists by poking her in the eye, thinking she would just take it like it's human prisoners had. But no. It gets a good half of it's arm ripped off and then eaten like a cheese stick. The other Azulians just laugh and call her a 'tard as if she simply ate a 3-day old burrito that wasn't stored properly while everyone else is either too horrified to speak or too busy not vomiting to comment. And I wouldn't normally have a problem with that kind of scene, but the fact that it's a main protagonist that does it may be problematic to some readers. It's supposed to elicit a 'what the f*ck' response that comically (?) makes it clear that homo azulians and homo sapiens are not the same thing physically or behaviorally. My question is whether or not this would make you uncomfortable enough that you'd quit reading, if you'd simply stop viewing that character as a protagonist or if you'd see it as funny way of pointing out a difference between the two species.
I'd keep reading, I think it's a very good way to show how different the Azulians are from normal homo sapiens. I like dark stories and darker characters, so it sounds like I'm in your target audience though. Scene-specific though, I wonder how she survives the incident. If I was a guard and a prisoner ate my buddy's arm, that prisoner wouldn't see the next sunrise. But I'm sure you've already got that sorted, go for it!
Part of that particular villain's problem was that even it's own guys didn't like it because it would just as frequently pull that crap on them when there were no prisoners to harass. So while disgusting to see, they weren't upset that it got hurt, they were just horrified by the fact that this otherwise civilized person decided to rip their bosses arm off and eat it just because it was annoying her. If anything they stayed away from the Azulian prisoners after that point since they had plenty of other less frightening ones to pick on.
I think it's fine, but without a doubt there will be readers who won't be able to stomach it. They probably wouldn't buy your book anyway if the blurb mentions this is about savage human species, so yeah, just write it. I think it shows their savagery well. Then again, this from someone who laughs at memes no decent human being should find funny, so of course I'm gonna say, go for it.
I think you'll be fine @DoctorDoom and the story's yours to build in the reasoning. By dialling up your villain's obnoxiousness (that a word?) you'll have readers alongside wanting the 'comeuppance'. You've indicated the trait (chomping on body parts) in your character is a comical flaw (which I think works). So by addressing it like you have in your post; it does well to mitigate perception of the act. I wasn't 'grossed out' or put off.
How could anybody confuse a human with something that looked like Anubis (the jackal-headed god of the Egyptians)? It's a bit like me confusing poking a rabbit in the eye with poking a Rottweiler. I know which outcome I'd expect to be more painful! And, while a guard may hate a fellow-guard, they're not going to put up with one of their own being assaulted by an inmate; that's just asking to be assaulted next time you're alone with the prisoners.
Shadowfax has a good point. That may be something that needs to be worked out. but otherwise, it reminded me of the scene from Kung Fury when he "disarmed" that guy and then beat him with it, and just thinking about it makes me laugh. You're probably good, just keep the narrative in mind because that is what will help the reader know it's meant to be dark humor.
If that is going to far, then you definitely haven't the foggiest of what goes on in WH 40K. Sounds kinda funny, because it seems like part of their culture. Eye for an arm? Going a bit far, would be if they kept them locked up and consumed them piece by piece while they are still alive and watching. Though on the other hand, it would be interesting to see what the upperclass are like in such a society.
The only bit that I think goes a bit far is the 'tard' name calling. Why not something less offensive in our world, but maybe more offence to your species. E.g. 'You sapien'
Culturally they're still metaphorically in the 19th century so they tend to use phrases we would find highly offensive and discriminatory and still have very strict gender roles (just in more or less the opposite direction due high androgen levels in the females and fecundity rate about triple that of humans) and depending on what demographic you're talking about, (in this particular case a group of college students) the severity of the language will change. It's not that I'm condoning the usage of the term, just as I'm not condoning eating people, it's just that these particular people are particularly likely to say something like that because their society still views certain races and those with disabilities as defective and of little use to them. A subject that a constant source of political conflict in the story. Though I do find it interesting that slurs can be considered more off putting than violence. I hadn't thought of that before. As for how the villain thought it could treat the azulians the same as sapiens, that's because the villain is in a completely different class (and one could argue kingdom) of life and they probably look about as different as a king snake and a rattle snake to it. Yes there are indicators that one is more dangerous, but if you're not educated on the subject you're not likely to know any better. Plus, as indicated by it's pronouns, the villain reproduces asexually and so the loss of limb is not as severe as it is for other critters. If you're interested in the specifics, the villain's species falls approximately between starfish and salamanders and so a proclivity to getting diced is a evolutionary advantage, thus the villain's skill at irritating people. As for their upperclassmen (well, women, technically speaking.) it depends on what nation you're looking at. Some nations have a weird hybrid between the Amir and yuppies with a population governed by a caste system. Others are populated by people with either a new age or a more atheistic philosophy that also draws on a combination of Catholicism and polytheistic cultures (and there are a surprising number of parallels), but only informally. Like how hippies compare to Buddhist monks. It's like on earth. There is no united planet. There's hundreds of nations and exponentially more cultures, ideologies and religions, most of which are more interconnected than not. When it comes to the subject at hand, in some cultures cannibalism would probably be one of those things that's classy if you're rich and trashy if you're poor. Escargot is a good equivalent. If you live out in the country and you ate Wilma the rapist, that would be considered disgusting by your social class. (Why would you eat the same thing you are when you can eat something further removed genetically? Wilma probably had pathogens and infections, worms and aids. Do you really want to stick that in your mouth? No.) Same with snails. If you learned Joe ate snails you'd be grossed out, and you'd probably ask what Joe was thinking/who dared him, but you wouldn't point and scream "SNAIL EATER! SNAIL EATER! CALL THE COPS, IT'S A SNAIL EATER! AHHH!" -Actually that does sound remarkably like what a first grader would say after daring Joe. Lol. But if you're rich, you go on about where the snails came from, what they were fed, why they taste the way they do, how hard they were to get a hold of, blah blah blah. And you sound super fancy and conceited while doing so. Historically, that's what cannibalism was to them. A status symbol. And as the culture evolved and became more educated things split in one of two ways, either the method for obtaining people meat was refined so as to prevent the spread of disease, meet high hygienic standards and at the same time maintain the facade of ethics thus driving the price up, creating a black market, or, it was purged from the culture and considered despicable for the same reason that Foie Gras is not popular in the states (California specifically) but is in France. Similarly, if your friend ate Foie Gras, you wouldn't immediately cut off contact with them. You'd just find that particular thing about them to be gross, but that's it. Which is how their species, in general treats eating sapient species. Oh, and this is what their heads look like:
A lot of the answers seem to hint at this, but I think it comes down to is this the kind of story where this happens? I think, from what I've read in your posts, the answer is yes. Making sure the readers know what they're in for is all you need to do, imho.