Topic: WCDT Strips 3211 to 3215 (2nd to 6th May 2016) (Read 55644 times)

cesium133 · « **Reply #100 on:** 03 May 2016, 11:02 »

Quote from: BenRG on 03 May 2016, 00:13

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!

pwhodges · « **Reply #101 on:** 03 May 2016, 12:00 »

Quote from: jaquio on 03 May 2016, 10:32

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.

pwhodges · « **Reply #102 on:** 03 May 2016, 12:14 »

Administrator Comment Please keep discussion in this thread to the comic itself and matters arising. Extended discussion of serious stuff such as whether a specific phrase is racist should go to the appropriate place in the Discuss forum. In neither place should you let things become personal.

Dust · « **Reply #103 on:** 03 May 2016, 12:27 »

Quote from: jaquio on 03 May 2016, 10:32

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..

APersonAmI · « **Reply #104 on:** 03 May 2016, 12:46 »

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.

sitnspin · « **Reply #105 on:** 03 May 2016, 13:34 »

Quote from: APersonAmI on 03 May 2016, 12:46

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.

TheEvilDog · « **Reply #106 on:** 03 May 2016, 13:54 »

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.

APersonAmI · « **Reply #107 on:** 03 May 2016, 14:39 »

Quote from: sitnspin on 03 May 2016, 13:34

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.

Yup. I was uncomfortable with it then, too. My objection, however, is the retcon, not the original joke. I do see how my post could be interpreted that way, however, I should have been clearer about what precisely bothered me.

Quote from: TheEvilDog on 03 May 2016, 13:54

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.

The joke made me merely uncomfortable. The retcon made me angry. I should have been clearer about that. In addition, the act of retconning something is not something I disagree with on general terms - if something doesn't work, fixing it can be a good thing to do. It was this particular retcon, and what it implied, that I am not comfortable with.

I do not agree that the violence backfires on the instigator every time. I feel that it is almost always treated much too lightly, and often draws no drawback at all. However, this is different, because here, it can’t backfire on the instigator, because it was made not to happen. She cannot be made to suffer for pulling a gun on Clinton, cannot be held guilty for implying that he was not allowed to leave after she had taken her gun out, because the author made it not happen.

Now, if she had indeed gone too far, the author could have made it backfire on her. This is a situation where no one involved has any reason not to report this to the police, or her bosses. She could have gotten fired, lost her right to own a gun, gotten a fine, or any other punishment. It could have been presented in any tone of the author’s choice, funny or serious, played for comedy or drama. Instead, the author made it not have happened, so none of these things could happen to her. Mr. Jacques choose to instead make it impossible to punish the violent person.

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.

It was this act, this statement, which made me angry. Not at all the joke itself.

Penquin47 · « **Reply #108 on:** 03 May 2016, 15:05 »

Quote from: Dust on 03 May 2016, 12:27

Quote from: jaquio on 03 May 2016, 10:32
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..

Also this.

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #109 on:** 03 May 2016, 15:58 »

A contrary take on the changing of the comic situation. I hesitate to call it a retcon because this is something that was drawn yesterday, then quickly changed. As opposed to something that happened some time ago. Jeph drew a scene with a specific intent in mind. The bartender is hostile and aggressive towards Clinton. Jeph has an idea where this story wants to go. However, sometimes the things we put out there seem quite a bit different than when we imagined them in our heads. So Jeph wrote, drew and posted the comic. Only after that did he realize that the tone was a good bit darker than what he was envisioning it. So instead of a serious threat with a shotgun, the comic was remade to a more ridiculous threat with the harpoon. Now Clinton's response is less 'Holy shit she pulled a gun on me for no reason!' to 'Who keeps a harpoon as a bar weapon?'. The bartender is no less hostile or in the wrong in her actions... But the threat seems more absurd than deadly serious.

Kugai · « **Reply #110 on:** 03 May 2016, 16:10 »

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?

ankhtahr · « **Reply #111 on:** 03 May 2016, 16:35 »

Quote from: APersonAmI on 03 May 2016, 14:39

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.

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.

Tova · « **Reply #112 on:** 03 May 2016, 16:46 »

The original crossed a line in my mind, I think that the humour in the reworked comic fell flat because my perspective had been coloured by the earlier comic. Maybe the final comic would have provoked an amused reaction on its own, but it's too late for that now.

I say this as someone who normally stoutly defends the slapstick violence in the comic.

ankhtahr · « **Reply #113 on:** 03 May 2016, 16:53 »

Jeph has already admitted to making a mistake in creating the earlier version, even before accidentally uploading it, and he noticed that second mistake only two minutes after publishing. The caching he uses to steer clear of DDoS attacks makes changing such a thing quickly really difficult though. The update has to propagate through the various caches before it reaches the readers. Usually these caches react much slower to changes on a site compared to their reaction to the creation of a new one.

APersonAmI: I'd like to add that, I could completely understand your position, if this were a retcon of a comic which was actually supposed to be published. If the previous version had actually been canon for a while. This wasn't the case. Jeph uploaded the wrong comic, and noticed it a few minutes later. Two minutes later, according to his Twitter. And he had already drawn the alternate version because he knew that letting that person get away with that would have been bad.
I still feel that way about one particular retcon early in the comic. It's still visible that the text has been crudely changed. It was a retcon of a rape joke. A topic which certainly should never be joked about in any way. The offending version was online for a long time, only to be exchanged for a milder one after a few years. Of course it would have been difficult to deal with that after such a long period, but I still think it should have happened.

Tova · « **Reply #114 on:** 03 May 2016, 16:58 »

I'd like to emphasise, in light of your response, that my post was not intended to criticise Jeph's original comic, which I understand was unintentionally uploaded, but instead was intended to explain my lukewarm reaction to the reworked version.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #115 on:** 03 May 2016, 18:35 »

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.

Plus everyone's going to have some hearing damage after the first shot.

jwhouk · « **Reply #116 on:** 03 May 2016, 18:42 »

Tuesday's strip was incorrectly numbered 3211. It is actually 3212.

Perfectly Reasonable · « **Reply #117 on:** 03 May 2016, 18:48 »

Beerista: "Do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you? Don't make me get out the flensing tools."

TheEvilDog · « **Reply #118 on:** 03 May 2016, 18:51 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 May 2016, 18:35

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.

Tova · « **Reply #119 on:** 03 May 2016, 18:53 »

It's casual conversations like this one that make me want to live anywhere but the USA.

Zebetite · « **Reply #120 on:** 03 May 2016, 19:15 »

Shotgun or harpoon, if I were presented with a bartender this hostile I'd just turn around and leave. What a piece of work.

War Sparrow · « **Reply #121 on:** 03 May 2016, 19:19 »

I wonder if her job description said something about "pretend you're a cranky old bartender/former sailor from the late 1800s" to fit into the theme of the bar and she is doing the best she can. Or she is a psych major doing a social norm experiment.

jheartney · « **Reply #122 on:** 03 May 2016, 19:21 »

The shotgun was highly inappropriate; this is not a spaghetti western, or some brainless Hollywood action flick. The harpoon is a much better choice all around; it converts the story from a criminal assault on Clinton into a comic about silly chest-beating.

I don't get why switching out a bad storytelling choice for a much better one is a Bad Thing™. This would be true even if the shotgun version had been uploaded intentionally.

WRT the idea that intra-comic violence was normalized in the early days of Faye threatening to punch Marten, I don't think it's comparable. Faye's violence never used firearms, and the tone was that it had much more bark than bite. Faye never actually injured anyone, I don't believe. By contrast, the shotgun could have brought maiming and death. Further, Faye was a character known, for the most part, to her victims, and they would have understood that her punches were not about inflicting injury. The bartender here is not someone known to Clinton, and he could well have been in fear of his life from what amounts to a stranger.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #123 on:** 03 May 2016, 19:23 »

I recall Faye once knocking a drunk Marten to the floor.

Morituri · « **Reply #124 on:** 03 May 2016, 19:32 »

Guns are a weird topic in the USA.

As the population gets more urban, reasons to own them (by which I mean, sane reasons) are applicable to fewer and fewer people. But there are places out under the sky where they really are necessary and appropriate tools.

A good medium-size rifle is how you keep coyotes from taking your sheep and calves. A shotgun puts pheasant and quail on the table when you couldn't afford to buy them in a store. A small rifle lets you keep gophers and prairie dogs down so horses don't break their damn legs. And a magnum pistol can scare off a bear, even one that's in the act of charging - usually. (You don't actually aim at the bear, at least not with the first shot - usually you don't need to. If it doesn't scare off however, you'll need the rest of the clip, quickly, to have a good chance of stopping it.)A high-powered rifle is the necessary and appropriate tool for taking wild pigs, which are an invasive species savaging the California ecology - and also good eating.

For the first half of my life, when there were at least a dozen firearms in the house, and from the age of 12 I used one at least once a week, I never even CONSIDERED pointing one at a human being - it would be unnecessary, and besides insane. We took a gun safety course in school, and there was even a marksmanship team in high school that won a few trophies.

But cities are different. In cities I don't have any of those problems or needs and I have no need here for firearms, But there are people around here who think ONLY of shooting humans when they think about guns. "Self defense" for most of them, or just thinking that owning one is a cool power trip for others. And other people who think that shooting people is the only reason why guns exist and want to ban them all. Either way, down to the core of my soul I can't help thinking that's completely crazy. Humans, and legitimate targets that you have an actual reason to shoot, are entirely different categories.

And then you get deranged weirdos who go out and shoot people they don't even know, for no reason that's even comprehensible to a sane person. I don't understand that AT ALL. Where I grew up, everybody knew everybody - there were no strangers ANYWHERE. You can dislike someone you know, but I have no idea how people can hate complete strangers they know nothing about, enough to kill them.

Anyway, legislation that's probably going to get passed in response to all these insane weirdos in cities is going to make things really tough on ranchers and people who live out in boondock. Lots of horses with broken legs, missing sheep and calves every dry season, rats shitting in the feed bins, etc. Just another case of a minority getting screwed over because of crazy city people.

DashaBlade · « **Reply #125 on:** 03 May 2016, 19:52 »

Apropos of absolutely nothing...

Quote from: Kugai on 03 May 2016, 16:10

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.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #126 on:** 03 May 2016, 20:14 »

There's threads in Discuss that are more appropriate for firearms legality discussion...

Tova · « **Reply #127 on:** 03 May 2016, 20:39 »

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.

Kudos to the bartender for recognising how she behaved, and a slap on the back for Clinton being assertive.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #128 on:** 03 May 2016, 20:42 »

Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.

TheEvilDog · « **Reply #129 on:** 03 May 2016, 20:56 »

Well at least Jeph can poke fun at himself.

neurocase · « **Reply #130 on:** 03 May 2016, 21:05 »

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.

danuis · « **Reply #131 on:** 03 May 2016, 21:15 »

Quote from: neurocase on 03 May 2016, 21:05

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.

Agreed. I don't see where Jeph is going with this. The next comic, logically, should be Clinton out waiting for the bus, and this was just some character development for Clinton*.

But my gut says that the next comic will be Her and Clinton, overhead shot, Clinton looking down a glass of water with a lemon wedge as she has her arms resting against the table, asking why he's trying to get a bus, and leading down for a conversation.

jheartney · « **Reply #132 on:** 03 May 2016, 21:17 »

I love the "You imagined that" remark. I'm a sucker for meta jokes.

I think I'll be disappointed if Clinton ends up involved with the bartender, though. Too much meet cute to that. Maybe he'll use this experience to be less of a doormat for women he's interested in.

Tova · « **Reply #133 on:** 03 May 2016, 21:19 »

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.

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 May 2016, 20:42

Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.

Yeah, but was he drinking a cocktail with a little umbrella in your head canon?

Penquin47 · « **Reply #134 on:** 03 May 2016, 21:26 »

Quote from: TheEvilDog on 03 May 2016, 18:51

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 May 2016, 18:35
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.

My dad says there's three sounds that bypass any logical reasoning centers and go straight to the hindbrain: a shotgun shell being racked, a Doberman/Rottweiler/similar growling, and a soft rattle in the wilderness. I've seen two of the three in action. Never heard a shotgun.

SubaruStephen · « **Reply #135 on:** 03 May 2016, 22:22 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 May 2016, 20:42

Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.

First a shotgun, then a harpoon, now there's a cannon?

Martin · « **Reply #136 on:** 03 May 2016, 23:02 »

Clinton gets all the cool anime-poses

Timemaster · « **Reply #137 on:** 03 May 2016, 23:30 »

Yeah, Barry!

The hand-drawn "Dolphin-Jack" strip is back up again, too. So welcome to the fold, my twisted-eyed-friend. I wonder if he knows Jimbo.

But what strikes me most, is that Clinton actually shows some backbone here. I assumed he´ll stay in the bar, intimidated by the bartender consuming a lot of alcohol he doesn´t want to drink. But here he is actually standing up for himself. I like that.
The excuse of the bartender doesn´t convince me at all and it shouldn´t convince Clinton to stay either. But then this whole set of strips would be completely wasted, so I assume he´ll stay and we´ll have some more talking between the two (and Barry). I wonder where Jeph will take this after this bumpy (and controversal) beginning.

TM

BenRG · « **Reply #138 on:** 03 May 2016, 23:30 »

I think I'm getting a handle on where Jeph is taking Bar Lady. She's sort of a redo of Faye - Confrontational, misanthropic and prone to over-reaction. However, in the end, she's fair and doesn't want to drive off a potential new customer.

I'm thinking that she's so used to dealing with assholes in the bar that she's started automatically assuming the worst about customers on first sight. That doesn't mean that she doesn't really have all the bad qualities I mentioned above. It's just that the whole "we only sell alcohol" and harpoon things did have something approaching a rational explanation.

However, she's still an asshole herself... and Clinton is the first person to stand up to her in a very, very long time. She's intrigued... and Clinton will soon be wishing that he'd not vacillated over asking Emily on a second date for long.

IMO, the possible new relationship is still on the table.

mikmaxs · « **Reply #139 on:** 03 May 2016, 23:55 »

I'm a little late to the punch here, but I'm still gonna say it:
This whole situation is *not* the same as the various times that Faye, Dora, or anyone else threatened people in the past.
First off, a harpoon is somewhat more serious of a weapon than most of the comical stuff that they've brought out. Not always, and it's certainly not as bad as a shotgun, but it's generally considered to be an actual weapon. The malaysian fighting spatula really isn't.
Second, the way she brings out the weapon and the way she acts implies that she actually wants to hurt someone. For the most part, (Again, there were exceptions, but as a general rule,) the violence threatened was either so comical or otherwise implausible that it was obvious nobody would ever actually get hurt. Here, the bartender lady said he looked angry, told him not to try anything, and then drew a weapon before he could respond. That's not comical. (Which is I think another part of the problem people have been having, it isn't really that funny to see someone be threatened for no reason.)
Third, and this is the big one: 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. Clinton was... Unspecifically glowering, I guess.

Kugai · « **Reply #140 on:** 04 May 2016, 00:12 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 May 2016, 19:23

I recall Faye once knocking a drunk Marten to the floor.

To be fair, it was after the Dorapocalypse Breakup, he was six sheets to the wind, he got 'Overly Friendly' to Faye and she did warn him.

Nice to see Jack is now Canon and I like the fact that Clinton stood up to her over her overreaction.

neurocase · « **Reply #141 on:** 04 May 2016, 00:17 »

Quote from: mikmaxs on 03 May 2016, 23:55

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.

Quoted and bolded because this is where the huge rub is for me. The way the violence was handled back then was comical. Even when Dora drew the sword on Cosette, it was done humorously. The psycho facial expression, the build-up, and Faye's assertion that it was Penelope's turn to clean up the blood. It was played for laughs, and had a catalyst. Bar Lady just drew a harpoon (formerly a shotgun) on a patron who wasn't being disruptive, inconveniencing her, or even saying anything. Clinton had a bad day (not hard to infer from his demeanor) and was simply staring moodily into a glass of drink he didn't want. In no universe does that warrant pulling a dangerous weapon on a person, and in the context of the comic, with absolutely no humor.

Case · « **Reply #142 on:** 04 May 2016, 00:33 »

Quote from: DashaBlade on 03 May 2016, 19:52

Apropos of absolutely nothing...
Quote from: Kugai on 03 May 2016, 16:10
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.

Seconded!

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 May 2016, 20:42

Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.

I put forward the motion that Pintsize having said that line is henceforth considered canon.

BenRG · « **Reply #143 on:** 04 May 2016, 01:14 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 May 2016, 20:42

Dolphin Jack has always been canon to me.

Strip 3211 was canon for me from the start but maybe that's just me.

Prediction:
The next two strips are just going to be standard issue Marten-and-Faye quips and barbs only between Clinton and Bar Lady. They'll exchange names when Clinton leaves on Friday and, for a month or so, that will be it. It won't be until he comes back to Northampton to see his mother or try to rebuild bridges with Claire will he run into her again and the complications will start to ensue.

APersonAmI · « **Reply #144 on:** 04 May 2016, 03:07 »

Quote from: ankhtahr on 03 May 2016, 16:35

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.

Eh. I have gotten some sleep now. I am no longer angry about the retcon, and I agree that the retcon made sense. However, it is my opinion that the change was indeed made so she wouldn't go to prison, if possibly for the reason of letting Jeph keep his original plans for the character, rather than to say that her violence was okay.

New comic: Eh. Still don't like her very much. Proud of Clinton, though. Glad he stood up for himself.

Akima · « **Reply #145 on:** 04 May 2016, 03:23 »

Go Clinton! And he insisted on his glass of water! Kudos!

BenRG · « **Reply #146 on:** 04 May 2016, 04:49 »

A little thought picked up from the Subreddit: Has anyone else noted Bar Lady's strange speech patterns? Short, clipped and direct sentences. She's also not shown much in the way of changes in facial expression either.

Is it possible that she suffers from some kind of communications or social disorder? It might explain her coming off as abrupt and rude if she has difficulty expressing herself. It might also explain a lot if she's having difficulty reading Clinton's facial expressions and body language (if she is able to do so at all) and this is causing her to misinterpret the slightest cues as potentially-violent anger or deliberate disrespect of her and the establishment.

She may turn out to be a far more nuanced a character than we've been thinking to date!

Radium_Coyote · « **Reply #147 on:** 04 May 2016, 06:22 »

Turns out the Beerista isn't violently insane, merely used to dealing with people like Barry.

Carl-E · « **Reply #148 on:** 04 May 2016, 06:52 »

Quote from: pwhodges on 03 May 2016, 12:00

Quote from: jaquio on 03 May 2016, 10:32
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.

Damn you, Paul. I clicked without reading the link info.

I've never reread the 500 arc for the way I reacted the first time. It's been half an hour since I clicked that link, and I'm still wiping tears away.

So much for today.

Random832 · « **Reply #149 on:** 04 May 2016, 06:54 »

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. He might have been stuck with the shotgun version (depending on to what extent much the change was a reaction to feedback), but it might not have even been received as badly even then.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

Where is Clinton Going from the Bar?

Author Topic: WCDT Strips 3211 to 3215 (2nd to 6th May 2016) (Read 55644 times)

TheEvilDog

TheEvilDog

TheEvilDog