Maybe we need a “Yeah, right!” tag.
Other nominees: big hats, bustles and anything else from the Gone With The Wind era.
Mitch4 sends this in: “Finally! An answer to centuries of studying the question of theodicy!”
I’m probably not the only one who had to look this term up:
As I write this, the Jets are 0-6.
Mitch4 is driven to send in this OY:
Took me a while to get this, but a definite OY.
The first two panel are a joke; an old joke, but still a joke. I don’t get that third panel.
I’m not that familiar with this actor’s work. What’s this referring to?
But wait! There’s more! Not a synchronicity because I saw these a couple of days apart, but nearly the same joke, and I definitely don’t get this one, either.
JMcAndrew sends this in: “Wouldn’t he be able to see a picture of the person he’s been matched with and probably other identifying information like their age? Also with the prevalence of actual child predators on the internet I’m surprised that the syndicate was okay with this storyline. I know he’s an idiot but this is like when Cartman on South Park tries to meet older men and joins NAMBLA.”
He’s gonna need a bigger raft.
JMcAndrew sends this in: “Firstly writing a memo asking for a tooth check is still pretty insane. Wouldn’t this be called an oral or dental exam and be performed by an actual dentist?
Also this isn’t what I expected a toot check to be. This could have been a much more interesting comic if they had the platoon taking turns farting in his face. [probably wouldn’t have made it past the comics editors then -ed.]
Maybe this is why the US army has a mandatory retirement age of 64 for senior officers?”
Ah, but those of us who worked in any bureaucrazy are well aware of something apparently nonsensical coming down from above. Is that really what they meant? Should we just do it as requested, or kick it back up for clarification? How many times can you question the bureaucrazy without getting labelled as a troublemaker?
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?
Okay, so exposing and satirizing clickbait and spam is not entirely an original idea. But what excellent execution there is in the deflating domain names!
Possibly inspired by the number of people who refer to a pickleball racquet, rather than paddle. Oar maybe not.
Typically when we’ve dealt with a long-form Cat and Girl, the cartoon has seemed to need some explaining, and we shoehorn it into a CIDU option of some kind. So what a pleasure it is to see them straightforwardly taking on some “complaint observational humor” (well, with exaggeration, but that’s to be expected).
Such practical good advice!
Chemgal sends in this unusually funny fourth-wall break.
Understanding hotel etiquette.
From Boise Ed, who gets the intended joke but remains dubious about there being something actually funny going on.
And a LOL from Usual John:
Keep doing variations on a theme, and sooner or later you’ll hit on one the fans don’t remember!
Have you seen the meme about the Welsh translation service?
Is the shell the choice spot for petting a tortoise?
Quite the wily allusion.
But only on condition they walk in together.
Geezer Alert!
This is the LOL-Weird entry for the week. Bizarro in more than name alone!
Thanks to Grawlix and Chemgal for suggesting this artist:
Here’s the LOL-Aww promised in the tags.
Comics I Don't Understand 