As for an explanation in regards to 173's design: The artist Izumi Kato made the statue and the wiki "illegaly" used it. The artist actually doesn't have a problem with non-profit uses, though it goes against the s-wiki license, making it somewhat illegal. As for the comic artist, in theory they are liable for a lawsuit if they used the original design and sold the comic in any way, which they probably did. It's smart on their behalf to switch 173 peanut for a much better design... well that is if the sex appeal wasn't the first thing they actually thought of anyway.
As for an explanation in regards to 173's design: The artist Izumi Kato made the statue and the wiki "illegaly" used it. The artist actually doesn't have a problem with non-profit uses, though it goes against the s-wiki license, making it somewhat illegal. As for the comic artist, in theory they are liable for a lawsuit if they used the original design and sold the comic in any way, which they probably did. It's smart on their behalf to switch 173 peanut for a much better design... well that is if the sex appeal wasn't the first thing they actually thought of anyway.