Dirk The Daring found this in The New Yorker. Of course a statistically significant percentage of New Yorker cartoons are CIDUs, but this one seems close to making sense. Something about her big ears and the ENT in the window?! Anyone? Bueller??
…
Yes, yes! One of these guys sold me a “This is not a shirt” tee shirt.
…
Unless it was one of these guys! Number five looks very sus!
Boise Ed sent this one in, noting “The robotic lawn mower is just doing what it is supposed to do, right?”
Your editor, drawing from unfortunate personal experiences, sees allusions to the problems caused when one dog is on leash, but another dog is not, or maybe just barking dogs in general. So we’re marking this CIAU (Comic I almost understand)
It seems like we will be getting a lesson, about caring or something like that. But who is the “invisible woman”? The strongly drawn character in the foreground, whose story we have no difficulty seeing? Or one of the dimmed-out supernumeraries in the background, whose narrative we see only in chopped-up pieces? And either way, … so what?
I have no idea what Leigh Rubin intended with this cartoon:
…
The symbols on the wall are indeed a pair of ankhs, but why is it supposed to be funny when a goose says that?
Or is either genuinely what the costume suggests?
Also published as single-panel (under the title Reply All Lite), with revised drawing for another view, but retaining same dialog. Dee Lewis had long been maintaining two versions in parallel, but with the one-panel “Lite” version having a different (not just re-cropped) scene drawn, and a different (not just printed more compactly) dialog and story, with some thematic resemblance but that would be it.
Hopefully, this closer-to-identical protocol makes it easier for her to fulfill the need to provide both footprints. Wayno, on his blog for the daily Bizarro comic, sometimes discusses how he similarly has to rearrange elements to provide both a squareish panel and an elongated strip (tho the strip is not multi-panel).
The two-panel version gives a more complete view of the car in its space, revealing it as somewhat askew. Does the one-panel version still work without this being so clear? Is he there still complaining about her active advisement even if it didn’t so obviously lead to a bad result (in his version of the story!)?
And indeed, is some passenger-seat advisement the main burden of his complaint? I mean, she didn’t hop out and try to flag him into the space, did she?
Maybe this one from a following day can cast some light on this couple’s driving habits.
Sent by Stan as a CIDU. While he didn’t specify what aspect seems opaque, the “Block Party” title can yield to your pun-sense, but it may remain dubious why Mr. Wilson’s analogy to microbial resistance would count as an inside joke.
Le Vieux Lapin also contributed the following, also from the September Funny Times:
I assume this is an Oprah reference, but beyond that??
Le Vieux Lapin offers this, from the September issue of Funny Times:
I keep thinking I almost get it: perhaps if someone recognizes the ?badger? it will become clear?
Warning: This is probably the first time that an Oglaf comic has ever been posted to CIDU, and it may also be the last. Even though the strip presented below does not contain anything explicit or offensive, please be forewarned that the vast majority of Oglaf strips are (to quote one reviewer) “extremely, extraordinarily NSFW“. Please do not go searching for the Oglaf website unless you are prepared for (and approve of) its signature type of “pornographic sex comedy”.
This strip was published Sunday, 18-Aug-2024; there is one specific aspect that puzzles me:
…
The plot action is perfectly clear, in particular what the younger ruler is planning. What I simply do not understand is why the messenger appears to be supporting this plan, instead of informing the older ruler (who is supposed to be his boss) what the ostrich trap is intended to accomplish.
