1. Dude was trying to kill red-sweater guy. Red-sweater guy is allergic to peanuts but can eat walnuts. Red-sweater guy finds the nut, doesn’t eat it, so no allergic reaction. He is able to sell it off a bunch of money, so his rival is very unhappy.

  2. I don’t know ’bout the allergy part, BUT . . . once he’s opened it and ‘discovered’ the peanut, HOW does he prove it was inside the walnut??

    Yes, I know peanuts are not nuts, BUT many people (hubby among them) have allergies to both, sooooo . . . red-sweater guy wouldn’t be eating walnuts in the first place. Which is why I don’t the ‘Dude was trying to kill red-sweater guy.’ part of the comic.

  3. Um…. It’s just … not funny. And it’s hard to think that anyone would think it was.

    The guy is trying to play a practical joke on the other guy by giving him a walnut that’s actually a peanut. But the jokes on him when the guy being pranked makes millions on the novelty of having a peanut-walnut.

    It’s basically this joke… again… only weird ….


  4. Try again:

    This joke… only not funny…. and utterly impossible to accept the premise in any way (why would anyone make a practical joke with a walnut? How would anyone make millions? Why would the reader care and feel *any* emotion twist when it fails?)

  5. It is very much not that joke, or even the same genre of joke.

    Here, the protagonist attempts a harmless prank on his friend (and since when have pranks ever made sense?) and his friend profited from it.
    In the one you link, the protagonist attempts to scam the people looking for the photo, puts a lot of effort into it, and then discovers he could have profited with less effort when somebody else gets a real photo of the monster.

    The only thing similar about them is the protagonist failed at what they attempted to do. But…

    The protagonist’s efforts: First joke – backfire. Second joke – wasted effort.
    The intended victim: First joke – profits. Second joke – no better or worse off (either way, they’ve paid $10k for a photo that some people are going to believe, and some will assume is a fake).
    Third parties: First joke – insignificant. Second joke – profit.

  6. Similarity, the perpetrator of the sham had the means of great wealth at their fingertips but didn’t recognize what they had and instead the wealth fell to those who were their would be victims.

  7. @Andréa
    Mrs. Singapore Bill is allergic to peanuts and most other nuts, but not walnuts. I stand by my murder plot explanation.

  8. The thing wasn’t drawn that carefully… to me, at first it looked like the red-sweater guy was giving the bag of nuts to the other guy, who was either saying, thanks, I shouldn’t really, or already eating a nut. But on closer inspection, the two “movement” boomerangs above blue guy’s hand shows he is handing the bag to red guy, and hiding a smirk behind his hand. He must have beeen expecting red guy to eat a lot of nuts to be sure of getting his prank nut.

    I think any organisation handing out $1m for a mutant peanut would do some due diligence, like checking for traces of glue around the edge of the nut, or looking for a pattern of prank-playing from any of the parties. Recent cases of needles found in punnets of strawberries sold in Australia did not lead to a A$1million prize to someone for discovering a new sustainable source of metal objects usable in the garment creation trade, but a criminal investigation.

  9. When I was 8, I did this exact stunt, only I put a note inside instead of a peanut:
    “Help, I am trapped inside a walnut factory”. Someone opened it at a dinner party, got a good laugh. More than this sorry comic did for sure!

  10. Similar to an old Dave Berg of MAD joke. DIsgruntled customer wants to humiliate a bad waiter by leaving a penny for a tip. Customer gloats when waiter looks at the penny then is shocked when waiter declares it is a 1909 BVD penny worth thousands of dollars.

  11. Thank you all for at least decoding the shapes. I confess I didn’t know what anything was supposed to be (apart from cues in the headlines).

    I was also worried about what kind of edible glue it would be, but then thought nobody will be eating the shell.

    When you get salted peanuts in the shell, do you know if the process is just what it seems to be — soaking them in a salty brine to permeate inside the shell, then drying out? Or am I falling for an error?

  12. “Similar to an old Dave Berg of MAD joke. ”

    I remember that one. I wondered if the waiter might be lying about the coin.

  13. “When you get salted peanuts in the shell”

    At least one commercial outfit puts the raw peanuts in a chamber with the brine, then evacuates the air to force the air out of the interior of the peanuts. This speeds up the brine entering when the pressure is returned.

  14. “I think any organisation handing out $1m for a mutant peanut would do some due diligence,”

    Actually it’d be kind of silly if the article had gone on to say, “it’d have been worth even more if there had been any of the flesh but someone had removed the nut and inexplicably glued a peanut inside; still the shell alone was worth a million dollars”.

    Well, that’s just silly…

  15. Another one here who did this when I was 8 or thereabouts.
    The only difference was that we put bolts into the shell. 1/4-20, I think.

  16. @ Dwight – I remember one Christmas when we hid cufflinks for my dad in a walnut shell, and put the nut(s) in with the others in his stocking. The joke didn’t work, of course: we had to remind him to open all the nuts.

Add a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.