Presumably means “blackmailers” or something, because going on a hunger strike doesn’t make you a terrorist. Imprisoned terrorists have been known to go on hunger strikes, but they’re already done something terroristic to get there in the first place.
Trophy Wife’s “same difference” makes no sense to me either way. Unless she equates daughters with terrorists, which is kind of dysfunctional.
Comics I Don't Understand 
So your point, Bill, is the same as Cynthia’s: that she is not a terrorist. Lucretia’s response essentially is “close enough” – agreeing with you but suggesting that there nevertheless is some important similarity between a terrorist and a blackmailing daughter. Which I think is true, taking humorous hyperbole into account.
I think it’s a pretty funny strip.
Does ANY terrorist self-identify as a “terrorist”?
I had pretty much the same response as Usual John. The father isn’t quite right, but he’s not so far wrong that you couldn’t see people having this conversation.
The phrase “I (or we) don’t negotiate with terrorists” has been pretty common, both in movies and politics. Much more so than “I don’t negotiate with blackmailers”
I’m guessing that’s why that phrasing was used
I’m guessing multiple definitions of the word. The daughter can be a terror, which is just another form of terrorist.
Again I have to ask. Is thinking a comic is logistically in error *really* CIDU? “You manipulate me with strong arm tactics to try to force me to do things out of the fear of what you will do if I don’t” may not be “terrorism” but surely we understand why a cartoonist would mistake it, don’t we? It’s fair to critique this strip and explain why we don’t like it but it’d be disingenuous to put on the French Waiter act and pretend we just can’t comprehend it.
And equating daughters with terrorists is hardly disfunctional. It’s playful sarcasm in that daughters manipulate parents with threats and are dogmatic and without reason and hence are really the same thing as terrorists.
Woozy is right!
Is ordering expensive food and letting it go to waste an appropriate way to show your support for people who are starving? She should have shown up to dinner, refused to order a meal and then made the evening uncomfortable with a relentless stream of observations about their decadent lifestyle in comparison to the many who go without. If she then said, I’ll shut up when you donate 10 million, that may have made her a bit of a terrorist.
You guys need to re-watch “Blazing Saddles.” “Give me money or I’ll starve your daughter!” Clearly a terrorist.
Republican worldview: “If you want my money, you’re a terrorist. If I want your money, I don’t have to explain myself.”
This scene?
A language advisory might be in order here, though -Bill
“s ordering expensive food and letting it go to waste an appropriate way to show your support for people who are starving?”
I wondered that, too . . . in fact, I double-checked to see if there was already food on her plate, and there was.
“Is ordering expensive food and letting it go to waste an appropriate way to show your support for people who are starving?”
You don’t know if she ordered it or one of the parents ordered it.
Cynthia is old enough and independent enough that she would definitely have ordered her own food. But it does make sense that she would do so. Barney would be more bothered that she is wasting the cost of a meal. Not that that would make him change his mind; he can count, and $10 million is more than the cost of any restaurant meal.
“Cynthia is old enough and independent enough that she would definitely have ordered her own food.”
Unless, say, NOT ordering any food was a point she was trying to make.
I _think_ they’re eating at home – that’s pretty much what their table has looked like before. So not precisely ordering a meal and ignoring it. Though the cook may have words for Cynthia for wasting food…
They have curved banquette seating at home?
Here’s their home dining layout…https://www.gocomics.com/barneyandclyde/2019/04/18