IIRC, at an important point in the church’s development, there was a big debate about whether Jesus was more God or more human. The concept of the trinity was intentionally illogical, and was in direct response to this debate — basically, “Fine, you can’t agree, well he’s BOTH! And the Holy Ghost, too! It’s a MYSTERY. …Now let’s move on.”
(By which I mean, the fact that a child can’t understand it is *intentional*. It’s meant to be mysterious, and not understandable, so that the adults could stop arguing over it.)
No insult on Christianity meant at all – I respect this argument and its solution. In my culture, arguing a lot throughout history makes a religion much MORE valid, not less.
In my culture, resolving an argument by declaring that nonsense is correct just means that your religion has deliberately decided to be nonsense. And nonsense religions are bullshit.
I don’t particularly mind insulting christianity, and it’s a good thing too, since my education in logical and rational thinking forces me to recognize that being illogical makes something false.
The Holy Ghost is the part of Gawd that inhabits each and every one of the Saved.
Yep, didn’t make much sense to me as a child either, which was a tiny part of why I’m a Pagan (Eclectic Bicyclic Wiccan tradition) now. That and the whole “We have to destroy the Earth and all it’s natural resources or else Geezis won’t come back,” thing, which was the straw of nonsense that broke the logical but non-existent camel’s back.
in this situation, I like to quote the archbishop of cantabury when asked why the church of england didn’t reject darwin and his theory of evolution “Good god, don’t take this book so literally”
HA! I officially give onto this comment not one but TWO WHOLE INTERNETS!, use them wisely
In all honesty a religion is based on a simple factor of faith, who can actually say what really happend verses what was simbolic and not the actual physical actions.
For instance, miracles i do believe in, but Jesus Christ of Nazareth had ALOT of miracles, even for the son of God i mean really this dude did way to many so i like to think some of it was simbolic rather then literal and at the end of it all who cares if it was or wasn’t the message is still clear be kind to others and don’t be an ass more then 15% of the time
sounds about right, religious people don’t like it when people actually think. They just want you to blindly accept what they say and obey them like good little sheep as they rally you against whatever group they’ve decided to hate that day (pretty sure they have a giant spinning wheel that they spin once a week to decide)
Yeah, he’s definitely Chaotic Neutral. He doesn’t seek balance in any way, and he’s a dick to everyone because it amuses him, not because he believes there’s a moral imperative to be a dick to everyone equally. Probably. It’s hard to know for sure why he does anything he does.
A lot of Mike’s teasing in this universe seems more to be to make people better. “Cruel to be kind”, he gives people their flaws in a way that forces them to confront them. One prime example I remember is him guilting Ethan for eating Chick-Fil-A because of the owner’s anti-gay status. But he does it in a way that makes Ethan decide to KEEP eating there, deciding to not let the issue control that part of his life. He strikes me more as chaotic good.
I haven’t been able to figure out why everyone thinks Mike’s a force for good, other than the whole Draco in leather pants thing. Even if we presume that Mike carefully orchestrated/mind-controlled Ethan into the decision he made, that decision led directly to the horrible self-destructive denial spiral that Ethan has plunged himself into with Joyce.
I’ve also seen it argued that Mike intended for Ethan to accept his gayness, and his whole noshing further into the sandwich (and dating Joyce) was a *bad* thing that Ethan did that flew in the face of Mike’s intent. When the one constant in people’s arguments is that Mike is in leather pants, you start to suspect people of choosing the conclusion they like and inventing arguments to support it.
Except he DID try to get Ethan to accept his gayness, in a roundabout way. When Ethan decided to date Joyce, Mike’s response was a resounding, annoyed, and disappointed “WOW”. A response obvious enough that Ethan got all the subtext in it, and responded with trying to get Mike to let him try.
I don’t really view Mike in leather pants. I know that Mike in the Shortpacked! comic is a jerk to the HIGHEST degree, and I like that about him there, and if he were one here, I would like him all the same. However, his actions HAVE had good consequences, and at least some of the positive character development could be attributed to Mike.
What if Mike is just bored neutral, looking for whatever is going to shake things up? Technically that makes him opposed to lawful alignment, but if his opposition to stagnation is based on personal affiliation rather than collective alignment then he should be equally opposed to the iconoclast as the apostle. And so fare in DoA he’s followed this pattern as a bored neutral.
I would submit that he’s a bit too deliberate and meticulous in his assholery to be chaotic. That shit takes careful planning and attention to detail to pull off.
Chaotic in alignment terms says nothing about ability to be organised. It just means the character will act as they see fit irrespective of the law or other moral codes.
A chaotic Character can plan and be deliberate, it’s more about your views on hierarchy and organised society. As a loner outsider, Mike is definitely Chaotic, and his delight in others suffering puts him dangerously close to being evil too.
I think Mike is from a naturally Chaotic Evil race, but he makes a conscious attempt to channel his sadistic impulses towards the general good. I’m not sure if that makes him Chaotic Good with a side of delicious collateral damage, or just Chaotic Neutral. He’s basically DOA’s Drizzt.
oh, most certainly chaotic. He won’t spare anyone, and does it for his own twisted amusement…and also ‘helps’ those he deems fit. And…yet, he always seems so angry. So not True Neutral.
I’m not much into D&D, but I get a lawful good vibe. Except that her ideas of both “law” and “good” are both so horribly warped that she’s like a knight templar fighting the good fight to oppress everyone.
Joyce took a picture of the clothes and exactly what position they were laying. By picking them up Sarah has sabatoged herself because she can’t possibly put them back laying in the exact same position, SO she might as well try them on because Joyce now at least knows that Sarah considered it.
I think the joke is that Joyce has committed to Project Sarah with such a passion that she is now creating photo records of the outfits she chooses in order to make sure that Sarah is actually wearing them.
No, Yotomoe has the right idea. Just like the old trick of putting a small piece of paper by the door hinge so you can tell if someone has been in your room, or placing a single hair across the cover of your diary so you can tell if someone has been snooping.
I kept thinking that Joyce was saying “It’s okay for you to put them on; you can still look at them being on the chair while wearing them”. And that made, like, anti-sense.
Now that Sarah’s picked up the shirt, there’s no way to hide the fact that she was interested in the clothes Joyce picked out for her, since she can’t drape it down on the chair in the exact same way, so there’s no further embarrassment in just wearing them.
If Sarah tries to put the clothes back down, Joyce will know that she even considered wearing it. So she should just save herself the stress and wear them.
Well,
She could tidy the room, leaving nothing as it was. By straightening up, she can say she didn’t look at the clothes, she put them where they belonged.
For extra fun, she can leave the note on it as if she never noticed it was there, but I find that hard to believe unless the top was still nicely folded, and stiff enough to mask the stiffness of the paper.
Of course, that requires that it be a good time to clean the room.
Wow, I had to look up that reference, I’ve never seen “Patton” or heard this quote until today. How is it that so many commenters are familiar with it??
Oh please, he’s a billionaire playboy in his alter ego, if he WASN’T a wine connoisseur, people would suspect, that’s like part of the whole superficial rich guy schtick. Of COURSE he’s a master wine snob!
I’ve used to take pictures of my clothes line stand with a digital camera. See, in the light of the energy-saving gas discharge lamp, a number of black socks were indistinguishable even thought they were different shades of black in sunlight due to having been washed a different number of times and/or with different detergents and containing different amounts of fluorescent whitening agents.
A digital photograph taken with a flash would easily make it possible to sort the socks into pairs of minimal hue difference.
my mom would buy identical white socks and write A, B, C… on the souls of the socks so she could match pairs back together and so that she’d know exactly which sock was missing. she thought she was a genius, I thought she was crazy. to each their own, I’m just happy if I manage to pull on two socks that are the same color.
I’ve found that differential wear can quickly invalidate such a system.
I have a LOT of socks. Mostly because when I end up with a score of them that No Longer Match Any Other Sock…I open another package of socks.
I mean, won’t that get old? If you are never not doing a thing you are basically doing the same thing over and over forever. That would seem to really limit your career options.
Honestly I don’t believe either of the two mentioned characters can ever fit into the stupid category.
Naive is someone who has never been exposed to something. Stupid is someone who has been repeatedly been told something and never learns.
Joyce in many situations fits the naive check because she has been sheltered prior to going to college. Danny can fit into the naive check sometimes because he assumes people are generally nice and when someone tells him something he assumes it is the truth.
Now stupid would be if someone plainly told Joyce what a strapon was and why a gay male would maybe like her better if she wore it and she still did not understand the strapon jokes regarding Ethan. Or stupid would be if Danny saw Amber’s face when the mask was falling off and he had said something “Oh my God Amber I told you I liked Amazi-Girl stop trying to pretend to be her just to get my attention!”
She can’t pretend they weren’t touched now, but can easily pretend not to be interested. Throw them in the corner or on Joyce’s bed and sit in the chair.
The reason we never saw her parents is because she was born on the distant world of Krypton, the last of an extinct race of super beings powered by yellow sunlight.
We’ve already had a look at the clothes in question. Don’t worry, Sarah, you’ll look fa-bu-lous. Joyce actually has a good fashion sense, and she’s finally applying it to herself. Sweater vests are cute, but are to be used in a moderate manner, lest they consume your soul with their beautiful patterns.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on social cues, but what is it about Joyce’s note that compels Sarah to put on the clothes, exactly? Does she intend to post pics?
I might be wrong, ’cause I kinda didn’t get it either. But I think the joke is that Sarah had to pick up the shirt to read the note, and since she picked up the shirt, she may as well wear it because Joyce has proof that she picked it up via the photo
I just realized that Dummiverse Dina actually fits with the backstory of Walkiverse Dina. Since traveling dimensions is possible in Walkiverse and Dina has a habit of accidentally joining travelers, could Dina actually be the only Dina? (Ō_ō)
Loading ...
“No, I’m pretty sure my parents are married!”
“… but not to each other!”
but no bastard is more magnificent than god, amirite
wouldn’t Jesus be the bastard
Jesus is God. Sorta.
Jesus had 2 dads and a mom. He’s an anti-bastard.
If your Catholic, the belief is that Jesus is God. So is God, and the Holy Spirit. They are all equally God.
About 1700 years ago, the church actually excommunicated a bunch of priests and such who would not preach that Jesus IS God.
And yet, I still got punished by the nuns when I was a child for asking if that meant that Jesus was his own daddy.
*you’re
i’m thinking “your Catholic”is like “my Lesbian” in Shortpacked.
That’s really funny. I mean, if even a child can see through the logic, then it’s clearly bullshit.
IIRC, at an important point in the church’s development, there was a big debate about whether Jesus was more God or more human. The concept of the trinity was intentionally illogical, and was in direct response to this debate — basically, “Fine, you can’t agree, well he’s BOTH! And the Holy Ghost, too! It’s a MYSTERY. …Now let’s move on.”
(By which I mean, the fact that a child can’t understand it is *intentional*. It’s meant to be mysterious, and not understandable, so that the adults could stop arguing over it.)
No insult on Christianity meant at all – I respect this argument and its solution. In my culture, arguing a lot throughout history makes a religion much MORE valid, not less.
In my culture, resolving an argument by declaring that nonsense is correct just means that your religion has deliberately decided to be nonsense. And nonsense religions are bullshit.
I don’t particularly mind insulting christianity, and it’s a good thing too, since my education in logical and rational thinking forces me to recognize that being illogical makes something false.
I used to think like that, then I realized:
A God you can understand is not worthy of worship.
Ya know, I *still* don’t get what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be, other than making an all-important-to-superstitions triplet.
Oh,oh, oh! Mr, Kotter!!!
The Holy Ghost is the part of Gawd that inhabits each and every one of the Saved.
Yep, didn’t make much sense to me as a child either, which was a tiny part of why I’m a Pagan (Eclectic Bicyclic Wiccan tradition) now. That and the whole “We have to destroy the Earth and all it’s natural resources or else Geezis won’t come back,” thing, which was the straw of nonsense that broke the logical but non-existent camel’s back.
=s =/
It’s also funny because the main church’s answer to that question would be ”yes, yes he is. Now stop thinking about it too hard.”
in this situation, I like to quote the archbishop of cantabury when asked why the church of england didn’t reject darwin and his theory of evolution “Good god, don’t take this book so literally”
HA! I officially give onto this comment not one but TWO WHOLE INTERNETS!, use them wisely
In all honesty a religion is based on a simple factor of faith, who can actually say what really happend verses what was simbolic and not the actual physical actions.
For instance, miracles i do believe in, but Jesus Christ of Nazareth had ALOT of miracles, even for the son of God i mean really this dude did way to many so i like to think some of it was simbolic rather then literal and at the end of it all who cares if it was or wasn’t the message is still clear be kind to others and don’t be an ass more then 15% of the time
Faith in christianity: restored 😀
sounds about right, religious people don’t like it when people actually think. They just want you to blindly accept what they say and obey them like good little sheep as they rally you against whatever group they’ve decided to hate that day (pretty sure they have a giant spinning wheel that they spin once a week to decide)
Not entirely true, not all religious people act this way – I don’t
Nice religious people get drowned out by the a-holes. Sad fact of life.
EVERYONE gets drowned out by a-holes
Also, yes.
DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU JUST STARTED? Again!!!
Well, at least I can skip the comments today.
So apparently Joyce is the Anti-Mike.
The Lawful Good to his Chaotic Evil? (That may be up for debate)
No way man. Mike is true neutral. He likes being a pain in the ass to everyone.
I think Chaotic Neutral is more accurate. I’ve seen CN characters and trust me when I say they can be a nasty bunch
Yeah, he’s definitely Chaotic Neutral. He doesn’t seek balance in any way, and he’s a dick to everyone because it amuses him, not because he believes there’s a moral imperative to be a dick to everyone equally. Probably. It’s hard to know for sure why he does anything he does.
A lot of Mike’s teasing in this universe seems more to be to make people better. “Cruel to be kind”, he gives people their flaws in a way that forces them to confront them. One prime example I remember is him guilting Ethan for eating Chick-Fil-A because of the owner’s anti-gay status. But he does it in a way that makes Ethan decide to KEEP eating there, deciding to not let the issue control that part of his life. He strikes me more as chaotic good.
I haven’t been able to figure out why everyone thinks Mike’s a force for good, other than the whole Draco in leather pants thing. Even if we presume that Mike carefully orchestrated/mind-controlled Ethan into the decision he made, that decision led directly to the horrible self-destructive denial spiral that Ethan has plunged himself into with Joyce.
I’ve also seen it argued that Mike intended for Ethan to accept his gayness, and his whole noshing further into the sandwich (and dating Joyce) was a *bad* thing that Ethan did that flew in the face of Mike’s intent. When the one constant in people’s arguments is that Mike is in leather pants, you start to suspect people of choosing the conclusion they like and inventing arguments to support it.
Except he DID try to get Ethan to accept his gayness, in a roundabout way. When Ethan decided to date Joyce, Mike’s response was a resounding, annoyed, and disappointed “WOW”. A response obvious enough that Ethan got all the subtext in it, and responded with trying to get Mike to let him try.
I don’t really view Mike in leather pants. I know that Mike in the Shortpacked! comic is a jerk to the HIGHEST degree, and I like that about him there, and if he were one here, I would like him all the same. However, his actions HAVE had good consequences, and at least some of the positive character development could be attributed to Mike.
He’s Chaotic Mike, and that’s all there is to it.
Chaotic isn’t enough. He is Mike Mike.
What if Mike is just bored neutral, looking for whatever is going to shake things up? Technically that makes him opposed to lawful alignment, but if his opposition to stagnation is based on personal affiliation rather than collective alignment then he should be equally opposed to the iconoclast as the apostle. And so fare in DoA he’s followed this pattern as a bored neutral.
I would submit that he’s a bit too deliberate and meticulous in his assholery to be chaotic. That shit takes careful planning and attention to detail to pull off.
Chaotic in alignment terms says nothing about ability to be organised. It just means the character will act as they see fit irrespective of the law or other moral codes.
A chaotic Character can plan and be deliberate, it’s more about your views on hierarchy and organised society. As a loner outsider, Mike is definitely Chaotic, and his delight in others suffering puts him dangerously close to being evil too.
I think Mike is from a naturally Chaotic Evil race, but he makes a conscious attempt to channel his sadistic impulses towards the general good. I’m not sure if that makes him Chaotic Good with a side of delicious collateral damage, or just Chaotic Neutral. He’s basically DOA’s Drizzt.
oh, most certainly chaotic. He won’t spare anyone, and does it for his own twisted amusement…and also ‘helps’ those he deems fit. And…yet, he always seems so angry. So not True Neutral.
Wouldn’t that be Neutral Evil?
That’s my vote, yeah.
I think Joyce is more Lawful Evil. Or at the very least, Chaotic Neutral
I’m not much into D&D, but I get a lawful good vibe. Except that her ideas of both “law” and “good” are both so horribly warped that she’s like a knight templar fighting the good fight to oppress everyone.
So… evil?
I’d say more like reversed-mike. I would think Anti-Mike just wouldn’t make such genius plots.
I don’t understand teh joke.
Glad I’m not the only one missing the joke… halp? D:
I got nothing, I was hoping the comments would clarify.
Joyce knew Sarah would go back in for the clothes, so she took a picture so that Sarah couldn’t deny it.
Joyce took a picture of the clothes and exactly what position they were laying. By picking them up Sarah has sabatoged herself because she can’t possibly put them back laying in the exact same position, SO she might as well try them on because Joyce now at least knows that Sarah considered it.
Oh thank you, I had no idea what was going on.
Yep. Joyce is devious, but it’s the good type of devious.
Much obliged.
Ohhhhh!!!! That made much more sense! I thought it was a hip trend of today or something so I accepted it as something I don’t understand. Haha
I think the joke is that Joyce has committed to Project Sarah with such a passion that she is now creating photo records of the outfits she chooses in order to make sure that Sarah is actually wearing them.
No, Yotomoe has the right idea. Just like the old trick of putting a small piece of paper by the door hinge so you can tell if someone has been in your room, or placing a single hair across the cover of your diary so you can tell if someone has been snooping.
Joyce knows that Sarah will try the clothes that Joyce bought for her.
Sarah presumably didn’t memorize how the clothes laid on the chair, so regardless of what she does next Joyce will know she moved them.
But how does moving them mean she might as well wear them? They’re ona chair, that pretty much guarantees that they’ll be moved.
By moving the clothes, Sarah shows interest. Because of the photo, Sarah cannot deny so.
Her aloof persona has been shattered through cunning deception.
While that may be true, Sarah can just move them and say she needed to use her chair. A lie, maybe, but she could deny interest in the clothes.
I’m pretty sure everyone was explaining at the same time (i hate when this happens)
Thank you.
I kept thinking that Joyce was saying “It’s okay for you to put them on; you can still look at them being on the chair while wearing them”. And that made, like, anti-sense.
Now that Sarah’s picked up the shirt, there’s no way to hide the fact that she was interested in the clothes Joyce picked out for her, since she can’t drape it down on the chair in the exact same way, so there’s no further embarrassment in just wearing them.
If Sarah tries to put the clothes back down, Joyce will know that she even considered wearing it. So she should just save herself the stress and wear them.
Thanks all for explaining. This threw me, too.
Well,
She could tidy the room, leaving nothing as it was. By straightening up, she can say she didn’t look at the clothes, she put them where they belonged.
For extra fun, she can leave the note on it as if she never noticed it was there, but I find that hard to believe unless the top was still nicely folded, and stiff enough to mask the stiffness of the paper.
Of course, that requires that it be a good time to clean the room.
She read your book, Sarah.
Did you read her book?
Wow, great minds think alike.
I thought the same comment, but then I read the comments, and you and Kernanator have said all that needs said to make me laugh my butt off.
“Joyce, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!”
Shouldn’t that be “I read your note!”
Wow, I had to look up that reference, I’ve never seen “Patton” or heard this quote until today. How is it that so many commenters are familiar with it??
The guys at ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com use that clip fairly regularly, especially Linkara. It is awesome.
From watching the movie. Popped up on HBO and other TV a lot.
Kind of a meme.
It IS a trope.
My first thought as well, but I also thought to read the comments and see who else wrote it down before making the comment myself.
::slow clap::
I will never not question how someone can be that crazy prepared for anything.
Ask Batman.
He’s trained for years to be the best at everything. Yes, everything.
Wine connoisseur?
Oh please, he’s a billionaire playboy in his alter ego, if he WASN’T a wine connoisseur, people would suspect, that’s like part of the whole superficial rich guy schtick. Of COURSE he’s a master wine snob!
That was a set up to ask if he is a heroin snob, but obviously…
Baking? Is he the best at baking? He cant be the best at baking.
EVERYTHING. Including baking. The girls scouts are in bankruptcy ever since he started selling his Bat-cookies.
Is Batman the best at being a flying alien? Of course he is. Because he’s NOT one.
I seem to recall a bad incident with weaponized heroine. bruce will try anything I guess :3
A weaponized heroine? What, like Huntress?
No idea about cooking. But baking sure! Cooking is an art. Baking is a science and Batman knows chemistry.
Batman is terrible at cooking and cleaning. he’s completely dependant on Alfred.
If you had Alfred to cook, would you do it yourself even if you were any good?
http://www.shortpacked.com/2005/comic/book-1-brings-back-the-80s/06-mrs-greg-killmaster/batmanisgoodateverything/
Everything.
Likely no one actually does this in real life, but it’s the paranoid fear of anyone that wants to pick up a thing without another person knowing.
I’ve definitely had this fear, and I would be legitimately surprised if there wasn’t someone, somewhere, who does this.
I’ve used to take pictures of my clothes line stand with a digital camera. See, in the light of the energy-saving gas discharge lamp, a number of black socks were indistinguishable even thought they were different shades of black in sunlight due to having been washed a different number of times and/or with different detergents and containing different amounts of fluorescent whitening agents.
A digital photograph taken with a flash would easily make it possible to sort the socks into pairs of minimal hue difference.
Yes, I’ve heard of OCD. Why do you ask?
my mom would buy identical white socks and write A, B, C… on the souls of the socks so she could match pairs back together and so that she’d know exactly which sock was missing. she thought she was a genius, I thought she was crazy. to each their own, I’m just happy if I manage to pull on two socks that are the same color.
I’ve found that differential wear can quickly invalidate such a system.
I have a LOT of socks. Mostly because when I end up with a score of them that No Longer Match Any Other Sock…I open another package of socks.
Oh, and I consistently wear long pants over high-top boots, so, I could wear socks of two different colors and no one would know.
That just makes sense. What of this… OCD you speak?
That is *not* OCD. It’s merely being a total freaking geek.
It can be both.
There is substantial overlap on the spectrum and/or Venn diagram(s).
“I will never not question how someone can be that crazy prepared for anything.”
So…you intend to constantly question how someone can be that prepared?
I mean, won’t that get old? If you are never not doing a thing you are basically doing the same thing over and over forever. That would seem to really limit your career options.
Why yes, the double negative was intentional.
This is why Joyce so perfectly illustrates the difference between naive and stupid.
Danny still likes to walk that line.
Honestly I don’t believe either of the two mentioned characters can ever fit into the stupid category.
Naive is someone who has never been exposed to something. Stupid is someone who has been repeatedly been told something and never learns.
Joyce in many situations fits the naive check because she has been sheltered prior to going to college. Danny can fit into the naive check sometimes because he assumes people are generally nice and when someone tells him something he assumes it is the truth.
Now stupid would be if someone plainly told Joyce what a strapon was and why a gay male would maybe like her better if she wore it and she still did not understand the strapon jokes regarding Ethan. Or stupid would be if Danny saw Amber’s face when the mask was falling off and he had said something “Oh my God Amber I told you I liked Amazi-Girl stop trying to pretend to be her just to get my attention!”
I would have never thought to use those words about DoA Joyce.
Magnificent or bastard?
Yes.
“Words” is plural, so both.
So why can’t she just throw them in the trash and say, “They were in my way.”? I don’t get it… -.-
Because she was genuinely interested, but didn’t want Joyce to know. The thing is she can’t deny that she was interested to Joyce now.
I don’t see why she can’t.
She can’t pretend they weren’t touched now, but can easily pretend not to be interested. Throw them in the corner or on Joyce’s bed and sit in the chair.
Unless it’s Joyce’s chair.
Sometimes Joyce just scares me.
Joyce has siblings.
She knows the art of photographic proof.
That makes a scary amount of sense.
+1
And now I have a mental image of Joyce Brown as an Inglourious Basterd.
“Why the hell are all these Nazi’s wearing hoodies? Meh, kill em anyway.”
Lt A Raine
Does that make Joyce the Fashion Rommel of this extended metaphor? All these Patton references without a Linkara feels wrong, somehow.
I can barely read that note on my phone.
How is she reading the note through the shirt???
The reason we never saw her parents is because she was born on the distant world of Krypton, the last of an extinct race of super beings powered by yellow sunlight.
Sarah’s obviousely an X-men.
You’re both wrong. This isn’t X-ray vision or she would have to be able to read mirror scripts (a different super power).
This is a portable black hole elbow bending the light into snake vision. Its most common use is to give the appearance of a slim waist.
Since when was reading mirror scripts a super power?
(I’m tempted to pull up the CSS to flip this, but the note below this box indicates it won’t work. Since there isn’t an edit button, oh well.)
Between panels, when no clothes exist.
Okay, this is awesome. I’m reading all comics this way now.
“Joyce, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!”
“You magnificent bastard, I read your NOTE!”
I can’t read the handwriting in the note so I don’t get the joke.
Sara,
I’ve taken a picture of how the clothes lay on the chair, so you may as well put them on now
– Joyce <3
Joyce is less than three? Three what?
-OldFart [heart]
Old people jokes.
Mostly, I was on my mobile, and couldn’t remember how to do ♥ on it.
Don’t worry, Sarah. Just look over at Panel 1 and you can recreate their exact placement.
This was my first thought before logic caught up with my brain.
Try them on already. It’s not a sweater vest at least.
Until Joyce calls out “Transform!”, that is.
There will be no Damning of Willis today.
This one was awesomeness DW.
There will, however, be a great deal of “Damn you, Brown” from Sarah.
O_O Wow. Joyce is brilliant.
Perspective in first panel seems off. I think the door-handle should be higher on the door. It’s lower than Sarah’s hips.
*slow clap*
We’ve already had a look at the clothes in question. Don’t worry, Sarah, you’ll look fa-bu-lous. Joyce actually has a good fashion sense, and she’s finally applying it to herself. Sweater vests are cute, but are to be used in a moderate manner, lest they consume your soul with their beautiful patterns.
Paging George Smith Patton.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on social cues, but what is it about Joyce’s note that compels Sarah to put on the clothes, exactly? Does she intend to post pics?
I might be wrong, ’cause I kinda didn’t get it either. But I think the joke is that Sarah had to pick up the shirt to read the note, and since she picked up the shirt, she may as well wear it because Joyce has proof that she picked it up via the photo
Oh.
Ah, I see now!
Man, Joyce can be evil when she wants to.
Not evil but diabolical.
There *IS* a difference.
Bwahahaha brilliant, Joyce!
I just realized that Dummiverse Dina actually fits with the backstory of Walkiverse Dina. Since traveling dimensions is possible in Walkiverse and Dina has a habit of accidentally joining travelers, could Dina actually be the only Dina? (Ō_ō)
Seeing as Walkiverse Dina was older than Dumbiverse Dina when we last saw her, as well a Dumbiverse Dina having an established family, seems unlikely.
Dumbiverse Dina travelled to Walkywerse.