This is why it's a bad idea to talk to complete strangers in bars. The probability of them being a crazy person is just too high, statistically speaking!
Barry "DolphinHe's Hanners' long-lost brother.JerkJack" lost his wispy goatee in the final panel, and kind of looks like a deranged Hanners..
And on the equally rare but somehow less-twisted corners of the Internet devoted to ocean swimming and surfing, there are occasional threads about "How to NOT have sex with dolphins," which is something of a greater challenge.It's the wet-suits (http://www.wigglestatic.com/product-media/5360112964/Orca-S6-Women-s-Wetsuit-2016-Wetsuits-Black-2016-FVNL01.jpg)... I mean, how would you react to an alien species entering your world wearing fetish gear. :P
You know... if you were an aquarium employee tasked with acquiring semen for artificial insemination of dolphins, this could be the best and worst icebreaker story ever. :-D
And on the equally rare but somehow less-twisted corners of the Internet devoted to ocean swimming and surfing, there are occasional threads about "How to NOT have sex with dolphins," which is something of a greater challenge.It's the wet-suits (http://www.wigglestatic.com/product-media/5360112964/Orca-S6-Women-s-Wetsuit-2016-Wetsuits-Black-2016-FVNL01.jpg)... I mean, how would you react to an alien species entering your world wearing fetish gear. :P
Sub-Commander T'Pol: I've run a check through the Starfleet database. You might be pleased to know that this is the first recorded incident of a Human male becoming pregnant.
Commander Charles 'Trip' Tucker III: Just how I always wanted to get into the history books.
And on the equally rare but somehow less-twisted corners of the Internet devoted to ocean swimming and surfing, there are occasional threads about "How to NOT have sex with dolphins," which is something of a greater challenge.It's the wet-suits (http://www.wigglestatic.com/product-media/5360112964/Orca-S6-Women-s-Wetsuit-2016-Wetsuits-Black-2016-FVNL01.jpg)... I mean, how would you react to an alien species entering your world wearing fetish gear. :P
angry young white men ARE quite dangerous
Might be the most effective bouncer I've ever seen. Maybe even better than Elliot.Possibly, but it's not convincing me based on intimidating a nebbish like Clinton. Especially if she has to pull out a firearm to do it.
angry young men ARE quite dangerousFixed.
A decent lawyer could get the place's liquor license pulled based on staff threatening unarmed patrons with a shotgun.
This strip has some very amusing racism.
She keeps the harpoon handy for when her customers start wailing.*rimshot*
Okay, just to make something absolutely clear here: Jeph's footer notes on the strips (the text next to his copyright notice) are very rarely, if ever, serious. It's an author's extra punchline, that's all. So, he's not making a racially profiling comment about white men. He's not justifying Bar Lady's actions. He's making a humorous remark on the strip, that's all!
Unless I'm misremembering, the original version not only had her with a shotgun, it also had her hovering over him with it telling him not to "waste his beer," forcing him to drink it.Yes, it did. And after Clinton had indicated his desire to leave the premises too, so she was constraining that too. Not cool at all. Perhaps the bartender is a latter-day Ahab, obsessed with the pursuit of vengeance over the Great White Male, though Clinton seems a bit small for the porpoise.
I wouldn't be surprised if people just nodded along with that at face value.You mean apart from the people who remarked here on her inappropriate behaviour?
Faye versus Bar Lady--who wins?
That's a lot of words to justify bigotry.
Even were I to accept the premise of your statement, which I don't since it is deeply fallacious: (Elliott Rodgers was not white and whitewashing him like that is gross. The quantity of shooters that make the news is not a statistic of value and is outweighed by relevant statistics like actual quantities of mass shooters. Fighting bigotry with bigotry doesn't seem to be working. And your entire statement is contradictory since it assumes this "thinking" bigotry has no effect as compared to "unthinking" bigotry. Why can't you just say "Hey that's kind of a dick thing to say" to your atheist friends? Or do you go tirades about their need to make up for Stalinist Russia)
Even were I to accept those premises, I don't understand the vigorous need to complain about shitting on the rug while you piss on the carpet.
To offer another perspective:
I thought it was a commentary on how a lot of shooters that have made the news--Elliott Rodgers, James Holmes, et al.--have been angry white young men. There certainly have been a number of think pieces on the topic.
I'm white. I don't find it offensive at all. And isn't Jephe white?
I'm white. I don't find it offensive at all. And isn't Jephe white?
Without wanting to commit myself either way, I feel the need to point out that neither of those facts prove the statement not to be racist.
I would have gone with "angry young men are quite dangerous" myself, but that's just me.
To offer another perspective:
I thought it was a commentary on how a lot of shooters that have made the news--Elliott Rodgers, James Holmes, et al.--have been angry white young men. There certainly have been a number of think pieces on the topic.
This. I can't believe people are even mentioning "racism." I'm white. I don't find it offensive at all. And isn't Jephe white?
That is a very EFFECTIVE barkeep. I like her already. :-D
Also, is "Old Rat" really a top-shelf item? I mostly drink beer, so I wouldn't know... :angel:
That's a lot of words to justify bigotry.
Even were I to accept the premise of your statement, which I don't since it is deeply fallacious: (Elliott Rodgers was not white and whitewashing him like that is gross. The quantity of shooters that make the news is not a statistic of value and is outweighed by relevant statistics like actual quantities of mass shooters. Fighting bigotry with bigotry doesn't seem to be working. And your entire statement is contradictory since it assumes this "thinking" bigotry has no effect as compared to "unthinking" bigotry. Why can't you just say "Hey that's kind of a dick thing to say" to your atheist friends? Or do you go tirades about their need to make up for Stalinist Russia)
Even were I to accept those premises, I don't understand the vigorous need to complain about shitting on the rug while you piss on the carpet.
I went and looked up Elliott Rodgers, and you're absolutely correct on that front--my bad.
But if you want statistics on mass shootings, I looked those up too--the Washington Post says that out of 128 mass shooting perpetrators, all but three of them were male and the vast majority were between the ages of 20 to 49 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/). Over here it says that between 1982 and 2015, 44 out of 75 mass shootings were perpetrated by white people (http://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/). Am I saying that every single white young man should be profiled on this basis? No, absolutely not. But I don't think it's groundbreaking to say that there's a culture we've created--call it toxic masculinity or whatever you want--where people like these angry white young men, the kind of people you'd find in the darkest corners of 4chan or Reddit, are feeling increasingly disenfranchised by diversity ("I can't talk to girls anymore", "I got passed over for this job because they wanted to be politically correct", "I can't make jokes without someone getting offended") and that plays into their complex, and some of them are dangerous. That's something we need to address.
Okay, just to make something absolutely clear here: Jeph's footer notes on the strips (the text next to his copyright notice) are very rarely, if ever, serious. It's an author's extra punchline, that's all. So, he's not making a racially profiling comment about white men. He's not justifying Bar Lady's actions. He's making a humorous remark on the strip, that's all!
I can see some DBZ Abridged-style humor happening with this strip: "This a shotgun. Now it's a harpoon. Now it's a stapler. Now it's a dildo. Now it's Pintsize."It would work well with a script like on that one xkcd comic that shows a different thing to each person depending on their web browser/location, etc.
Instead, you'd rather make assumptions and cast people into bigoted stereotyped roles to fulfill some kind of weird masturbatory fan-fiction.
...
I'm a she.
Instead, you'd rather make assumptions and cast people into bigoted stereotyped roles to fulfill some kind of weird masturbatory fan-fiction.
I have to say, that's some mighty fine transition element (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron) you got there, friend ...
He actually didn't claim any of the things you try to read into his post - what he did do was trying to build a bridge for you out of that "Oh Wey! I am a persecuted ethnicity/gender and nobody realizes it!"-mindset.
Instead, you'd rather make assumptions and cast people into bigoted stereotyped roles to fulfill some kind of weird masturbatory fan-fiction.
I have to say, that's some mighty fine transition element (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron) you got there, friend ...
He actually didn't claim any of the things you try to read into his post - what he did do was trying to build a bridge for you out of that "Oh Wey! I am a marginalized ethnicity/gender and nobody realizes it!"-mindset.
That could be why I said "people" and not "literally everyone", yes.I wouldn't be surprised if people just nodded along with that at face value.You mean apart from the people who remarked here on her inappropriate behaviour?
Yeah, for some reason, the 'Dolphin Jack' strip has been replaced with a duplicate of Bar Lady doing her tribute to Captain Ahab! I know that this current strip was meant for Monday but there was no need to delete a perfectly good (if somewhat surreal) filler!We've been Dolphin Jack-jacked! :clairedoge:
Was the (now non-canon) appearance of the shotgun the first
actual appearance of a gun in QC?
Question:
Was the (now non-canon) appearance of the shotgun the first actual appearance of a gun in QC?
No. No no no.
This woman threatened a customer with a gun for frowning at his drink. What should have happened is that she got reported to the police, got a fair trial, and was sent to prison, because that is not remotely okay or legal.
What should NOT have happened was that she was allowed to do so without consequence, and possibly still appear in this comic as if she wasn't a horrible villain, which is what will happen now.
NO! She should not be allowed to get away with that! This person should be in prison, not serving drinks!
Yeah, I hate this retcon, it does not remotely sit right with me. What she did is something people should not get away with. Not something that should be played off as a joke.
As opposed to Dora threatening someone with a sword for asking her bf out when that person didn't know he was her bf?
Violence and the threat of violence has been a mainstay of the humor in this comic from the beginning.
Indeed, part of the early humour of the comic basically boiled down to one of the following topics:
- Obscure music reference.
- Obscene joke/prank from Pintsize
- Faye threatening or inflicting violence on someone, usually Marten.
We can't cherry pick what's right or wrong with any joke because we don't like the situation. If we do that, then we need to judge every other joke in the comic. Every time violence has come up in the comic, its backfires on the instigator, sometimes in quick horrific ways.
Question:
Was the (now non-canon) appearance of the shotgun the first actual appearance of a gun in QC?
I'm pretty sure the Steve Spy Shenanigans showed one... yep. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1350).
Making it impossible to punish violent people is the opposite of making it backfire in their face. It is to say that violence should be done, rather than say that one should be punished for doing it. Rather the opposite of how these actions should be treated, really. And also in a way very similar to how one defends the horrors of violence in reality - make it seem like the act was a different one, or in a different context, than it was. To make the act seem less serious, less unambiguous.
I didn't think the shotgun was overkill. I thought the fact that it was a pump-action was overkill. The smaller size of a break-action seems more useful in the confined settings of a bar.
Might I suggest we all take a deep breath, calm down and wait to see where Jeph takes this Storyline before we all start reaching for the Tar and Feathers?
This doesn't even come close to redemption for me. The fact that she's been featured in so many strips makes me fear we're going to be stuck with this completely unappealing character for a while.
"Sorry I threatened you with a bladed weapon, purely for the crime of having a bad day. Have another thing that you don't even want."
That's some special kind of shitty apology.
Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.
I didn't think the shotgun was overkill. I thought the fact that it was a pump-action was overkill. The smaller size of a break-action seems more useful in the confined settings of a bar.
While I think its best to move on, this is going to be the last thing I say about the comic, I imagine that the distinct sound of a shotgun being pumped would be more of an effective threat to end any quarrel in the bar rather than firing it. Its a sound that makes people take notice, you hear it and you are going to stop what you're doing.
Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.First a shotgun, then a harpoon, now there's a cannon? :?
I recall Faye once knocking a drunk Marten to the floor.
Clinton didn't really do anything to set her off. Whenever the cast would threaten someone in the past, it was almost always because they were being a huge asshole, creepy, or otherwise instilling great annoyance and frustration to those around them.
Apropos of absolutely nothing...Might I suggest we all take a deep breath, calm down and wait to see where Jeph takes this Storyline before we all start reaching for the Tar and Feathers?
When I read this I first saw it as "Tai and Feathers" and took a few moments to picture that before rereading what you posted.
Though my vote is now officially that we need a Tai and Feathers storyline.
Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.
Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.
Our opinions seem to differ a lot about this. I think the retcon was exactly the right thing to do. The intentions of Jeph weren't to display the indubitably severe consequences of pulling a gun on an innocent person. His intention was to make a simple joke based on hyperbole. Consider that nobody was supposed to see the original version of the comic. Jeph had already corrected this mistake before uploading the comic, he merely uploaded the wrong file. He doesn't want to show the consequences because the character isn't that bad. He just made the wrong choice in showing this, and wanted to correct that mistake before uploading, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten Dolphin Jack yesterday.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Jeph doesn't not show the consequences because that person should get away with that, but rather because in his (usually rather utopic, see e.g. Smif accepting trans* students in contrary to the real Smith University, at least until 2015) universe the character doesn't actually do it in the first place. If, in the canon version, the character actually did something that bad, he would show the consequences, I'm sure of it.
Was the (now non-canon) appearance of the shotgun the first
actual appearance of a gun in QC?
It can barely be made out, but it's important (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=504).
Comic!
I'm absurdly pleased that Barry is now officially canon.
I'd also like to be the first to note that the perspective in panel 3 is pretty awesome.
I find myself wondering (again) what various pieces of literature/cinema/television would have been like had their creation been attended at every little increment with the backseat driving, carping, prijection of personal issues and other opinionation of the audience/readership -- or indeed, whether they would have been made at all or given up as a bad job.I don't think that particularly applies here. Jeph did the shotgun version, looked at it, thought it wasn't riight, and revised. No reader feedback involved. We only saw the earlier version by accident.
depending on to what extent much the change was a reaction to feedback
Except (certain) people are criticizing the intended page in pretty much the same way.
Notice the tatoo on his arm... :laugh: :roll:Could it be a Yelling Bird tattoo? I'm not sure I want to know.
I wonder if she is just a throwaway character as well, but like most other characters in this strip, I imagine people will view her more sympathetically if they get to know her more.
Where does one even get a harpoon?
Asking for a friend.
(And myself.)
((We're gonna have some harpoon fights!))
FWIW, I'm sticking with my prediction that Bar Lady has some sort of social disorder.
hey guys, which female character am i
Ultimately I think this is a case of where QC's pacing suffers from, well, being a daily comic. If we were reading all these pages at once, none of this "controversy" would have happened.
For the record, while you can't solve EVERY problem with a harpoon, you can solve a lot of problems with a harpoon.
Enough.
BTW, doesn't today's harpoon seem longer than the one on Tuesday? How many harpoons has she got??
Enough.
BTW, doesn't today's harpoon seem longer than the one on Tuesday? How many harpoons has she got??
For the record, while you can't solve EVERY problem with a harpoon, you can solve a lot of problems with a harpoon.
Really? I don't think I've ever had a problem that could be solved with a harpoon. What sorts of problems do you have?
If it can't be solved with a harpoon, it can be solved with a sufficient amount of explosives.
Apropos of absolutely nothing...Might I suggest we all take a deep breath, calm down and wait to see where Jeph takes this Storyline before we all start reaching for the Tar and Feathers?
When I read this I first saw it as "Tai and Feathers" and took a few moments to picture that before rereading what you posted.
Though my vote is now officially that we need a Tai and Feathers storyline.
I find myself wondering (again) what various pieces of literature/cinema/television would have been like had their creation been attended at every little increment with the backseat driving, carping, prijection of personal issues and other opinionation of the audience/readership -- or indeed, whether they would have been made at all or given up as a bad job.
I got a good laugh out of the barkeep saying "and you're angry because you lost". She has all the social grace of a run over badger corpse that's been left in the sun for three days.
If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Harpoons were not the solution to landing on a comet.There was, however, quite a lot of explosives involved.
I'm reminded of something I read a while back:There are few situations in life that cannot be honorably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night - Ernest Bramah
"Violence doesn't solve anything... yes it does. Violence solves everything. If you have a problem that violence doesn't solve, you're not using enough of it."
You can absolutely solve every problem with a harpoon, as long as you are willing to accept the post-problem consequences.
The only thing I can think about when I see the name Barry:
(http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m517/KYLE-D1/American%20Dad/Barry.jpg)
I'd almost think you lot are doing this on porpoise.
Now, if that were true it would certainly make me blubber.
But heh, you're taking a stab at having a laugh.
I'd almost think you lot are doing this on porpoise.
Now, if that were true it would certainly make me blubber.
But heh, you're taking a stab at having a laugh.
Good job! Treat yourself to a Starbuck('s)
Windex Martini: it cleans out your insides.
The fact that Claire was expecting Emily to provide a response in the affirmative does not justify her actions.
The fact that Claire was expecting Emily to provide a response in the affirmative does not justify her actions.
Is it me, or does his hair look surprised as well?
Panel 1: angry/irritated hair
Panel 5: epiphany hair.
The fact that Claire was expecting Emily to provide a response in the affirmative does not justify her actions.
It entirely justifies her actions. The only person who feels wronged here is Clinton. If Emily had said yes, Clinton would not feel wronged, and thus no wrong would have taken place.
This page perfectly sums up my feelings on this arc. Clinton was never (entirely) mad about being manipulated by Claire. He thought he was mad about that, and plenty of readers were mad about it on his behalf, but he was actually primarily mad about Emily rejecting him, and blamed Claire for pushing him into that situation. If the manipulation had resulted in a second date, he never would have had issue.
Hopefully, Claire learns to not push her brother's boundaries and Clinton learns to push his own damn boundaries so his sister doesn't have to do it for him.
Let's add a bit of nuance, shall we?I'm sorry, when was anyone ever painting Claire as a cartoonish villain? Even her biggest detractors here have been like 'Yeah, she screwed up and did something bad, but she's not a bad person'.
Setting up someone so they can ask for a date isn't inherently wrong, unless the person involved doesn't want that kind of meddling.
Today's comic suggests that he was actually fine with the meddling, and was only upset that it went wrong. But let's go with your theory in the face of today's comic that he's upset at the meddling regardless. Until Clinton told Claire he didn't want it, she wasn't to know. And yes, she ought to have asked. BUT:
What I'm trying to say is that maybe take a step back and stop simplistic painting of one party as the bad guy, eh?
I do not care for this comic. Just because Clinton is stupid doesn't make Claire's actions okay. I'm going to bold this next point:
The reason it is wrong to manipulate someone else for their benefit is because it could potentially go wrong.
This is hardly an 'Unspecified' epiphany. Considering the context, it's hardly likely that he just had an idea for his next tattoo. And what I dislike about the comic is not that it does or doesn't exonerate Claire, but rather that it implies that Clinton shouldn't have been mad about the manipulation. Due to the way the comic is framed and set up, it makes Clinton out to be a hypocrite.I do not care for this comic. Just because Clinton is stupid doesn't make Claire's actions okay. I'm going to bold this next point:
The reason it is wrong to manipulate someone else for their benefit is because it could potentially go wrong.
Okay, fine, if you want to be like that. I'll just ask you to go ahead and point out to me where in the comic that you don't care for anyone states that what Claire did was perfectly fine.
Once you've done that, contemplate what kind of epiphany Clinton may have had and tell me what you think.
Forgive me, but when Clinton has had an unspecified epiphany, and the reactions to that are simply "NO NO CLAIRE WAS WRONG," then yes, I regard that as painting her as a cartoonish villian.
This is hardly an 'Unspecified' epiphany. Considering the context, it's hardly likely that he just had an idea for his next tattoo. And what I dislike about the comic is not that it does or doesn't exonerate Claire, but rather that it implies that Clinton shouldn't have been mad about the manipulation. Due to the way the comic is framed and set up, it makes Clinton out to be a hypocrite.I do not care for this comic. Just because Clinton is stupid doesn't make Claire's actions okay. I'm going to bold this next point:
The reason it is wrong to manipulate someone else for their benefit is because it could potentially go wrong.
Okay, fine, if you want to be like that. I'll just ask you to go ahead and point out to me where in the comic that you don't care for anyone states that what Claire did was perfectly fine.
Once you've done that, contemplate what kind of epiphany Clinton may have had and tell me what you think.
Forgive me, but when Clinton has had an unspecified epiphany, and the reactions to that are simply "NO NO CLAIRE WAS WRONG," then yes, I regard that as painting her as a cartoonish villian.
BenRG's idea that the beerista has a communication/social disorder is interesting, but then how did she ever get hired?
No, bad Clinton! Don't let others play with you just because it might turn out alright!This. If Claire wants to do the same thing, but in a helpful way, she'll let Clinton know beforehand when she's setting him up for a shot at bat. Her current method is closer to throwing a baseball at his face and shouting "Thinkfast!"
Let's be honest, Claire did this as much to help him as to mess with him.
If she had only tried to help she would have told him beforehand. Sure, he would have freaked out, but that's his prerogative! You can't just manipulate someone because you think you know better.
If Clinton now goes "Oh, it was all my fault, so sorry, please continue Claire" I will be very disappointed.
This. If Claire wants to do the same thing, but in a helpful way, she'll let Clinton know beforehand when she's setting him up for a shot at bat. Her current method is closer to throwing a baseball at his face and shouting "Thinkfast!"
Guess what, though?This. If Claire wants to do the same thing, but in a helpful way, she'll let Clinton know beforehand when she's setting him up for a shot at bat. Her current method is closer to throwing a baseball at his face and shouting "Thinkfast!"
To go with the analogy, maybe the problem is that Clinton, if handed a bat, would drop the bat and run away before the ball was even thrown? The only way to force him to swing is to give him no choice.
Whether or not this is true, I suspect that this is how Claire sees the situation. To me, the biggest (and possibly only really problematic) thing that Claire got wrong was to drop Clinton onto the spot without first clearing it with Emily. That, IMO at least, was the real mistake that she made.
It doesn't matter if he would have said no, Claire still needs to give him the decision. He's not a child, he's an adult, and he should be free to choose how and whether he'll screw things up with Emily.
Well, YES. That's why I'm saying that 'Claire did something wrong', and not 'Claire is an evil person'. She screwed up. The point is that Clinton *didn't* really screw up, other than perhaps reacting a bit harshly. (But not a vast amount too harshly, because Claire really did need a telling off for doing something bad.) So, since it's looking like this story is going to end with a 'Mutual-apology-we-both-did-wrong' moment, and since this comic makes it look like Clinton was being a hypocrite, I'm not liking it.It doesn't matter if he would have said no, Claire still needs to give him the decision. He's not a child, he's an adult, and he should be free to choose how and whether he'll screw things up with Emily.
You're still missing the point. Look at this from Claire's perspective:Given these two factors, how can she help him find happiness? Now, as it turns out, she went about it the wrong way but, at least from her perspective, it was justified because, as an older sister with a problematic relationship with him, she believed he would act like a child and not like an adult.
- She knows her brother is wild about Emily (he won't stop talking about her);
- She knows that he won't ask her out on his own initiative and will actually actively avoid opportunities to do so;
- She knows that Clinton has a vacillating and indecisive personality when it comes to relationships.
So, since it's looking like this story is going to end with a 'Mutual-apology-we-both-did-wrong' moment, and since this comic makes it look like Clinton was being a hypocrite, I'm not liking it.But... yeah. Though enlightenment about ones own shortcomings is valuable.
If this is a sitcom plot where Clinton discovers that he actually wants his sister to manipulate him, I'll be very disappointed, but it seems to be heading that way.
I just want add two cents.
Clinton is one of those people who needs to have people meddle in his life.
If Claire didn't push him he would never ask her. And that leaves self doubt indecision and regret.
And that is much worse than any anger and embarrassment he felt.
He will get over it. He might have never got over Emily if he did not ask.
If this is a sitcom plot where Clinton discovers that he actually wants his sister to manipulate him, I'll be very disappointed, but it seems to be heading that way.
The fact that Claire was expecting Emily to provide a response in the affirmative does not justify her actions.
It entirely justifies her actions. The only person who feels wronged here is Clinton. If Emily had said yes, Clinton would not feel wronged, and thus no wrong would have taken place.
We've had a Windex drink (see Jeph's sub-comic comment) at Bubbles's party back in Strip #3071 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3071 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3071)).
There is also an existing cocktail with that name and appearance; it's vodka, lime, Blue curacao and triple sec. Or apparently gin, in the case of #3071.
Speaking of Cocktails, poor D.J. Barry prob had one too many Blue Dolphin (v similar to Windex) ...
Okay, let's all take a step back here, because most of you seem to be missing the entire point of this strip.
It's not trying to say that Claire manipulating Clinton was right. It is simply Clinton realizing that that isn't what he's actually mad about. Period. End of story.
Yeah, Claire was still wrong to do so. But deep down, what really got under Clinton's skin is the rejection from Emily.
And that, friends, is all. Any additional meaning is supplied entirely by the mind of the reader.
Okay, let's all take a step back here, because most of you seem to be missing the entire point of this strip.
It's not trying to say that Claire manipulating Clinton was right. It is simply Clinton realizing that that isn't what he's actually mad about. Period. End of story.
Yeah, Claire was still wrong to do so. But deep down, what really got under Clinton's skin is the rejection from Emily.
And that, friends, is all. Any additional meaning is supplied entirely by the mind of the reader.
That's the part that disappoints me about this entire storyline. Claire manipulating Clinton is what he (or, really, anyone in that situation, IMO) should be mad about, what the story so far made it look like he actually was mad about... and now it turns out that if Emily had said yes, Claire would never have been told not to manipulate people in the first place. I suppose, for the sake of Claire's character development, at least she did get called out on it, but now it's going to get walked back, at least some, because Clinton now feels that the problem wasn't the manipulation, but the fact that it didn't work.
The epiphany that Clinton seems to have had was, "If it had worked out, I wouldn't have been mad at Claire. Therefore, I shouldn't be mad at her, because she was just trying to help!" The epiphany I was hoping he'd have was, "If it had worked out, I wouldn't have been mad at Claire. I should be mad at her because she manipulated me, not because it went badly!"
Even if she had said yes, doesn't make Claire any less of an asshole.
What I'm trying to say is that maybe take a step back and stop simplistic painting of one party as the bad guy, eh?
Bear in mind as well that Clinton is getting advice from a woman who had just forced him to buy a beer and threatened him with a harpoon.
This is probably just me, but I don't think the bartender is qualified to dispense deep and profound advice.
Bear in mind as well that Clinton is getting advice from a woman who had just forced him to buy a beer and threatened him with a harpoon.
This is probably just me, but I don't think the bartender is qualified to dispense deep and profound advice.
She didn't give him advice; she just asked him a question. He put it together on his own.
She's also proven that she isn't a very good listener.
We've had a Windex drink (see Jeph's sub-comic comment) at Bubbles's party back in Strip #3071 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3071 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3071)).
There is also an existing cocktail with that name and appearance; it's vodka, lime, Blue curacao and triple sec. Or apparently gin, in the case of #3071.
Speaking of Cocktails, poor D.J. Barry prob had one too many Blue Dolphin (v similar to Windex) ...
http://mixthatdrink.com/windex-cocktail/
Bear in mind as well that Clinton is getting advice from a woman who had just forced him to buy a beer and threatened him with a harpoon.
This is probably just me, but I don't think the bartender is qualified to dispense deep and profound advice.
She didn't give him advice; she just asked him a question. He put it together on his own.
She's also proven that she isn't a very good listener.
QuoteShe's also proven that she isn't a very good listener.
How so?