@language: "its funny on 2 levels". There's a third level: that insight into Wally that shows he is quite capable of working and producing product, but only on his terms and to suit his ends. Which makes his efforts to avoid work even funnier; he clearly COULD do the work but it entertains him more to expend just as much effort in stalling, deflecting and avoiding as it would to do the actual work in the first place.
[3 paragraphs...I think you are missing the point...3 more paragraphs... i want deeper meaning than is socially acceptable....3 more paragraphs]
Cant argue with that sentence there about you wanting too much meaning. Its a comic strip not a novel. Its not supposed to be the sort of thing you can write a dissertation on, even if its only 9 paragraphs. Its supposed to reach a mass audience. That is a good thing. And Im telling Scott he missed the mark a bit with this one.
i liked it. wally's inconsistency is funny. he is prepping to rape someone and feels justified detering others advances.
the lack of awareness that he exhibits, as if he needs help discouraging romantic applicants, is also funny.
inconsistent (moral satire) AND ignorant (absurdly inferior outgroup). its funny on 2 levels, and its not bad design.
i think you are missing the point. scott isnt trying to create a fragrance that matches true needs with appropriate user, he is creating a fragrance that manifests wally's mental state. its a chance to understand wally's inconsistent wants vs. what he affords universe in relation to those wants. additionally it also shows a huge gap in wally's navigation to his goals due to lack of comprehension. its like an apex predator developing a defensive poisonous bite. its extra work that just aint needed.
it gives audience a chance to mock wally for his ego, as if he was coveted by beautiful women. f*ck that guy, im better than him. im not a moron like that.
/points finger and laughs
tbh i often have similar issues as whitlinew. Engaging others objectives when I have my own is difficult for me. Its like an adult who is working with a child, building a castle from blocks, and the kid is building so he can go godzilla and the adult is building to make a masterpiece. Every 20 minutes or so the kid is exuberantly destroying and the adult is pissed (and confused). The adult says to the kid 'you are doing it wrong'.
thats how i see whitlinews objection to this strip, and the general point of contention i experience with most ppl (masterpiece vs action scene). i want deeper meaning than is socially acceptable. Ppl wanna talk about Kim Kardashian's lip gloss, i want a permanent soulmate who adores ideals like liberty.
Nobody in polite conversation is looking for meaning at that level and most american women in general want throw-away relationships they can 'void' on a whim but he is trapped and has no appealing options.
one of the most basic concepts of relating is to find the others level and merge with it. That means recognizing others are building a castle solely to destroy it, and getting on board with that objective. yay! lets work 5 days a week so we can go to the casino and go on a bender.
build, build, build, destroy. yay! that was fun! LET'S DO IT AGAIN!