Oops! Got the underlying myth premise precisely backwards!
And here they got the underlying business terms precisely backward. As an excuse for something like a missed payment, someone may plead that their assets are not liquid.
Okay, one joke is that there would be a rap version of a mantra. Or that she has been rapping it, or improvising it, or humming it or something, enough to disturb her friend.
But the bothersome aspect of this is how it seems to buy into some magical thinking. The dark-haired friend is linking her (later) ability to get the good parking space to performing a successful meditation now, undisturbed by intrusive mantra rapping. (Or could it be Nichiren Shōshū chanting?)
This is a perfectly fine little pun! Oh, except that there is no basis shown or hinted for why the new top provides more relief from the heat.
(This is under the “not really a pun but word play in general” tag.)
Thanks to Andréa for this Bizarro:
I’m sure I’ve seen this joke used before, but not whether that means this is a repeat or just that the joke has occurred to others. A cursory search does find other examples, and tempting as it is to make a whole post out of three or four of them, let’s leave it at that.
Okay, many a few people still say they use “tin foil” or may even think they use “tin foil”. (And probably a larger number say “tin cans”.) But is this — stating flatly that they use “tin foil” — an acceptable way of putting it? I wouldn’t think so.
To make matters worse, apparently you can still get actual tin foil, as an expensive alternative or as a novelty. (I’m looking at an E-Bay listing of a roll or sheet of 150mm x 300mm for $18.) No, no no no, that does not justify the caption!
Okay, that seems to be a bad answer. Is there a reason he suggests it, apart from being dimwitted? And can we say what a good answer might have been?
The sender of this Rhymes With Orange points out “a minor, but annoying mistake,” that the central pips on the two of hearts should not be both facing the same way. Ooops! And we might add that Ace here doesn’t look much like a playing-card ace, either — they’ve become more just a business card. Heck, they don’t even have a suit!
Okay, I do get the joke. But can’t stop making a face at the degree to which cartoon physics had to stretch to set this up. Unless someone sees an explanation for the saucer’s crash other than it getting hit by a golf ball.
This looks more like our world than Oz. But if that was an Oz-witch then I guess the susceptibility to dissolving by water came here with her. And if amniotic fluid counts as water (as in saying “her water broke”) then it would be dangerous to her. But … but … but … then how have witches ever survived giving birth?
Hmmm, this may be flipping the sense of the Oopsies category …. I don’t see it as even near funny, but really want to give the cartoonist points for mathematical accuracy. That’s a good rendering of a regular dodecahedron, one of the five Platonic solids. (Though some may have preferred to see the -hedra plural.)
Ah, so young to be falling into the essence of Meta!
And thanks to Shamie F who sent it in and says: “I think it has something to do with a flying cup looking for a flying saucer. If that’s the whole point then OY! I’m thinking I must be missing something though.” We think the default tag here would be LOL moreso than OY (a flying saucer is called that just because of resemblance to an ordinary saucer), but how does the gang weigh in on the “is that all there is?” factor?
Here’s one from BillR:
Very smart to use Peter’s name – the others are more easily identifiable.
But on the griping side of things, the wolf I think did not emerge a winner from any of their encounters. Maybe it depends on versions of the stories.
Thanks to Michelle for this LOL bit of pained irony: