Comments on: Delightful

By: mickeyten

mickeyten — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:50:28 +0000

Or Funky Winkerbean style.

INCEST cancer!

By: mickeyten

mickeyten — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:49:54 +0000

DAMN YOU, WILLIS!

By: Wack'd

Wack'd — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:18:40 +0000

Roomies! (Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Beer) page 82. “Ruth was created with a single purpose in mind: angst.”

In case you’re wondering I own it more for the post-1999 content and the commentary than for the actual 1997-1998 comics it contains.

By: McConcubine

McConcubine — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:23:34 +0000

Oh No, Faz’s dad died!
…I can’t tell if that’s sad or not,

By: Romanticide

Romanticide — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:57:33 +0000

Me! Me!

By: Historyman68

Historyman68 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:42:00 +0000

Yes, I absolutely agree. Amber’s dad abusing her and her mom was someone using power to hurt someone who already had far less power in the relationship. Amber hitting Mike was her having a way to get back at someone who’s essentially a force of nature. It is more complicated since Amber was blackmailing him at some point, but the point still stands- the hitting was a method of defense in her case, it was a method of oppression in her father’s case.

(and I’m not trying to say that abuse against men is justified, not at all- only that the power dynamics of the relationship are not insignificant either.)

By: Fred Davis

Fred Davis — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:07:47 +0000

About time Mike sorted out that problem.

On the other hand, Jesus, resurrecter of the dead, has been introduced to the strip…

How many drama tags need to be pulled before Jesus-mediated-zombie-child-abuse is likely?

By: DragoonChris

DragoonChris — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:25:05 +0000

Stacy: “You had Premarital Hanky Panky.”

By: gangler

gangler — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:46:11 +0000

I didn’t say that at all. In fact I explicitly stated that conditional support is still support. What I said was that conditional unsupport still isn’t support.

Your alcoholics argument is flawed. Obviously you’re supporting them by helping them kick their addiction. Helping someone who does not have the power to help themselves is fundamentally different from choosing not to support a grown human’s informed and uninfluenced decision.

Obviously she wants what’s best for her daughter. That doesn’t make what she did here an act of support.

I don’t give a fuck about “Diarrhea of the mouth”. The phrase “I do not approve” stated on the subject of the circumstances of the birth of Amber’s child isn’t some Freudian slip I can just laugh off. “Oh ha ha. I’m sure she didn’t mean it that way.”

The fact is she doesn’t approve of the circumstances surrounding Amber’s child. She chose to vocalize this. That’s terribly fucking unsupportive. There’s absolutely no way to skew this into an act of support. No matter how many hypothetical situations there are in which she would be a supportive parent, this is not one of them.

By: Alex Stritar

Alex Stritar — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:37:43 +0000

Tell me about it. Amber’s hampster died the same week mine did.