The dog went on a rampage outside, getting into 3 garbage cans and spreading the contents. To top off his night he gets a tattoo to commemorate it.
Brian is almost certainly correct, but I think this comic is more than just “strange”, it’s really sick.
Dogs don’t generally have regrets in the first place. When they see how unhappy you are at the mess in your living room or on your lawn, they may get contrite… they’re unhappy because you’re unhappy.. but without that prompt, the dog has exactly the same consideration for your property as does the cat, who knocks things off the shelf because she can.
Kilby: Why “sick”?
I thought it was funny.
I’m not sure I see what is “sick” about this. My question is; is ruffians getting “no regret” tattoos to commemorate a night of rowdiness a common enough motif to make a recognizable joke. I wouldn’t have thought it was but maybe I stream the wrong stuff.
“In the real world, the cosmetic tattooing of pets is considered cruel, at least in NY State. ”
Presumably, it would make a difference if the animal walked in alone, picked out the design or slogan that they wanted, and paid up on their own. It’s the PET OWNER deciding to tattoo an animal for cosmetic reasons that is cruel.
Grawlix identified the problem I had with this comic: tatooing the dog. On the other hand, a real dog would never sit still for this nonsense (at least not without anesthesia).
I thought that the trash cans were overturned WHILE the dog was in the parlor getting tattooed. Thus, ironically, he would “regret” that he wasn’t outside to enjoy the bounty of spilled trash.
I now realize I’m wrong, but, with the artwork in this comic, I feel I was lucky to make out trash cans, a dog or a tattoo parlor.
Yep, drawing easy to misunderstand. My mistake was in not recognizing that the scene was outside, and we see thru a window. I thought it was some kind of display box or diorama, as at a museum. And it is boxed in with what looks like a picture frame.
Kilby: This is a sentient cartoon dog, so I don’t see why it can’t do things a normal human would do, like decide to get a tattoo and sit still through it. Cartoon animal sentience is often inconsistent of course, but this seems reasonable by cartoon standards.
“In the real world, the cosmetic tattooing of pets is considered cruel, at least in NY State. ”
Huh? Why? What on earth could be considered “cruel” about tattooing a pet?
Bizarre, stupid and ugly, and tacky, and maybe harmful in the adoption outlook if abandonment or transfer is to occur (but on the other hand it’s dang smart for identification and return of lost pets so that’s a wash) but what on earth is “cruel” about it?
In the article (http://gothamist.com/2014/12/15/maybe_dont_tattoo_pets.php) all the author’s sarcastic comments of “endless list entitled Things That Shouldn’t Require A Law But Apparently Do”, “just because the artist didn’t think tattooing an already traumatized animal is “abusive” doesn’t mean it isn’t”, “Because duh”, and “animal right activists/decent human” seem to be presented as self-evident but I don’t see *any* of them.
My first thought was what waste of effort for a problem that doesn’t exist and what a weird and arbitrary and *pointless* infringement on personal actions. And that’s my second, third, fourth and fifth thoughts as well.
woozy: “Huh? Why? What on earth could be considered “cruel” about tattooing a pet?”
I’ll raise your “Huh? Why?” and express bafflement that you’re baffled that doing something painful to a pet that there’s no medical need for could be considered cruel.
I mean, I’m not looking for a debate about what sort of laws we should have, but why is “don’t hurt your animal” so bizarre?
In the quoted story it was done under anesthetics while doing surgery on the leg. So…. no pain.
This would have worked better as a two-panel comic. Putting everything in one panel is too confusing. The oversized logo in the upper left doesn’t help.
It appears to me that the tattoo artist is doing his work directly over the fur. That is, it doesn’t look like the area is shaved. How does that work? And if the area is shaved, won’t the tattoo be covered up when the fur grows back?
Would the comic be funnier if the tattoo read, “Bad to the Bone”?
Comics I Don't Understand 
The dog went on a rampage outside, getting into 3 garbage cans and spreading the contents. To top off his night he gets a tattoo to commemorate it.
Brian is almost certainly correct, but I think this comic is more than just “strange”, it’s really sick.
Dogs don’t generally have regrets in the first place. When they see how unhappy you are at the mess in your living room or on your lawn, they may get contrite… they’re unhappy because you’re unhappy.. but without that prompt, the dog has exactly the same consideration for your property as does the cat, who knocks things off the shelf because she can.
Kilby: Why “sick”?
I thought it was funny.
I’m not sure I see what is “sick” about this. My question is; is ruffians getting “no regret” tattoos to commemorate a night of rowdiness a common enough motif to make a recognizable joke. I wouldn’t have thought it was but maybe I stream the wrong stuff.
I think these are funnier . . .
http://www.bridesblush.com/trends/funny-tattoos-yh/?utm_campaign=Funny%20Tattoos%20Linore%20En%20-%20Desktop%20USA%20YA&utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=NEWS_US
I think that dog is going to regret that tattoo, since it’s apparently on his fur and will slowly be shed off.
In the real world, the cosmetic tattooing of pets is considered cruel, at least in NY State.
http://gothamist.com/2014/12/15/maybe_dont_tattoo_pets.php
Don’t tattoo your hairless cat either:
https://pethelpful.com/cats/The-Tattooed-Cat-Trend
“In the real world, the cosmetic tattooing of pets is considered cruel, at least in NY State. ”
Presumably, it would make a difference if the animal walked in alone, picked out the design or slogan that they wanted, and paid up on their own. It’s the PET OWNER deciding to tattoo an animal for cosmetic reasons that is cruel.
Grawlix identified the problem I had with this comic: tatooing the dog. On the other hand, a real dog would never sit still for this nonsense (at least not without anesthesia).
I thought that the trash cans were overturned WHILE the dog was in the parlor getting tattooed. Thus, ironically, he would “regret” that he wasn’t outside to enjoy the bounty of spilled trash.
I now realize I’m wrong, but, with the artwork in this comic, I feel I was lucky to make out trash cans, a dog or a tattoo parlor.
Yep, drawing easy to misunderstand. My mistake was in not recognizing that the scene was outside, and we see thru a window. I thought it was some kind of display box or diorama, as at a museum. And it is boxed in with what looks like a picture frame.
Kilby: This is a sentient cartoon dog, so I don’t see why it can’t do things a normal human would do, like decide to get a tattoo and sit still through it. Cartoon animal sentience is often inconsistent of course, but this seems reasonable by cartoon standards.
“In the real world, the cosmetic tattooing of pets is considered cruel, at least in NY State. ”
Huh? Why? What on earth could be considered “cruel” about tattooing a pet?
Bizarre, stupid and ugly, and tacky, and maybe harmful in the adoption outlook if abandonment or transfer is to occur (but on the other hand it’s dang smart for identification and return of lost pets so that’s a wash) but what on earth is “cruel” about it?
In the article (http://gothamist.com/2014/12/15/maybe_dont_tattoo_pets.php) all the author’s sarcastic comments of “endless list entitled Things That Shouldn’t Require A Law But Apparently Do”, “just because the artist didn’t think tattooing an already traumatized animal is “abusive” doesn’t mean it isn’t”, “Because duh”, and “animal right activists/decent human” seem to be presented as self-evident but I don’t see *any* of them.
My first thought was what waste of effort for a problem that doesn’t exist and what a weird and arbitrary and *pointless* infringement on personal actions. And that’s my second, third, fourth and fifth thoughts as well.
woozy: “Huh? Why? What on earth could be considered “cruel” about tattooing a pet?”
I’ll raise your “Huh? Why?” and express bafflement that you’re baffled that doing something painful to a pet that there’s no medical need for could be considered cruel.
I mean, I’m not looking for a debate about what sort of laws we should have, but why is “don’t hurt your animal” so bizarre?
In the quoted story it was done under anesthetics while doing surgery on the leg. So…. no pain.
This would have worked better as a two-panel comic. Putting everything in one panel is too confusing. The oversized logo in the upper left doesn’t help.
It appears to me that the tattoo artist is doing his work directly over the fur. That is, it doesn’t look like the area is shaved. How does that work? And if the area is shaved, won’t the tattoo be covered up when the fur grows back?
Would the comic be funnier if the tattoo read, “Bad to the Bone”?
“why is “don’t hurt your animal” so bizarre?”
Because people eat meat?