>>126846544Very convenient for you to pretend that I ever said I don't get these jokes. Again, what I don't get is where exactly are you seeing jokes to begin with.
And you know what? It could be okay to chuckle at the situations of Cathy, if the art was any good.
>>126846627>You have the 'tism mateSure. Maybe.
In fact, probably. Does it mean I must be wrong?
>I can get that you don't see this as highbrow humorNo, man. I don't see it as humor, and neither do you. If you did, you could have pointed out where the joke even is. Is the situation itself also the premise and the set up and the punch line? Because if so, my Cunty comic is just as good. But the thing is, mine isn't good, it's garbage, and yet I drew it so fast I forgot how to spell "the", and yet, can you claim my comic is in any way worse than Cathy?
I rest my case.
You know what's also not highbrow humor? Jucika. Jucika is a silly comic about simple situations, but fuck, if you ask me where the jokes are, I can tell you. Look, this is charming, cute, has style and it's nice to look at, and it's chuckle-worthy. The premise, the set up and the punch line are different things, it has comedic structure.
>it's kind of sad you're getting your panties in a bunch over what is in essence the most simple and innocuous of things being seen as humorousBecause it's not harmless.
>you could make your Cunty there a funny and cute character if you sprinkled in a little more effortI'm not an artist, though. That's the point.
>try and do something you like, instead of getting mad here about something harmless.Cathy is not harmless. You know how many true artists would have loved to have Cathy's spot on the papers? Even on a few dozen papers, out of the thousands Cathy contaminated? Cathy certainly robbed us. Without that comic being grotesquely published in so many papers, we would have comics drawn by talented and funny artists. And how many of those artists that never found a space for publishing just gave up?
