
… for ratio of painstaking art work over contribution to resulting joke value?

… for ratio of painstaking art work over contribution to resulting joke value?
Have we seen this Newton’s Swingset before?


Even going up?



His last words will be “This’ll be the day that I die”.



“Uh-oh, I had it mixed up with uxorious!” — from the Comments
They went to the right place for “Dad jokes”, evidently.



Is this some homage to XKCD? Or to some other cultural reference? Why would stick figures be affected by a hot tub? What’s the problem with putting their heads in? Are those towels?
It’s more interesting without checking the Carolyn Hax column it may have been drawn to illustrate.

I saw this cartoon on Facebook, and thought there was a little something wrong with the wording of the dialog, or something like that.

Anybody else confused by this?
I made a comment, and got what I thought was a snarky reply. But that commenter added something about “not trying to be snarky” and actually explained something I hadn’t understood. (But that’s what we’re all about here, Not-Understanding Comics.)
(But in the comments discussing the content of the cartoon, Mr. Greenbar did come off as argumentative and rather, yes, snarky.)

Is this convention/technique something that people here know about?
There are actually several of these I don’t readily get.

















\

A last few in color again



\
And while this post was languishing in Draft queue, there were still good new duffies getting published. This one, for instance, which found its way into one of our weekly OY collections:

.. and prompted this intro: OY by virtue of ambiguous parsing of [[comic strip] bar] versus [comic [strip bar]]. But y’know, as Will Rogers is never quite quoted as saying, I never meta man I didn’t like. And also a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a metaphor?
Or similar for this :






