The comment I was trying to make is that it feels like the comic is trying to make a point of something but I can’t tell if it’s pro-<thing> or anti-<thing>. As in, the depiction of the vidyagam obsessed guy is derogatory and the depiction of the chad-looking guy makes it seem like wanting time for relaxation is a self-failing and that you should aspire to be like the trad family man. All of the things the comic brings up though like the wage-slaving manager, excessive commute, etc are things that are real societal problems and the comic doesn’t make fun of those complaints like you’d expect based on the depictions of the characters.
But I didn’t want to write all of that out because it’s a comic.
Another thing I noticed is that the character is named Dilberg. That’s awfully close to Dilbert, and combined with the office setting it feels like it has to be a reference.
I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be satire (because the Dilbert guy is a twat), an homage (because the author is a twat who likes another twat), or just a coincidence.
It’s another point where the comic seems more confusing than communicative.
Another thing I noticed is that the character is named Dilberg. That’s awfully close to Dilbert, and combined with the office setting it feels like it has to be a reference.
Yeah Scott Adams was a dumb bastard that tried to treat his prostate cancer (I think) with Ivermectin. Then tried to get actual help when it was too late.
Yes, thank you I did notice that.
The comment I was trying to make is that it feels like the comic is trying to make a point of something but I can’t tell if it’s pro-<thing> or anti-<thing>. As in, the depiction of the vidyagam obsessed guy is derogatory and the depiction of the chad-looking guy makes it seem like wanting time for relaxation is a self-failing and that you should aspire to be like the trad family man. All of the things the comic brings up though like the wage-slaving manager, excessive commute, etc are things that are real societal problems and the comic doesn’t make fun of those complaints like you’d expect based on the depictions of the characters.
But I didn’t want to write all of that out because it’s a comic.
Another thing I noticed is that the character is named Dilberg. That’s awfully close to Dilbert, and combined with the office setting it feels like it has to be a reference.
I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be satire (because the Dilbert guy is a twat), an homage (because the author is a twat who likes another twat), or just a coincidence.
It’s another point where the comic seems more confusing than communicative.
What’s confusing?
There’s a guy living in wage slavery making poor life choices that he justifies to himself as he finds no joy elsewhere in life.
We sympathise with and laugh at the fool.
The tie is pure Dilbert.
Was a twat. He died back in January!
Yeah Scott Adams was a dumb bastard that tried to treat his prostate cancer (I think) with Ivermectin. Then tried to get actual help when it was too late.
making fun of dilbert? dint he started glazing corporations at some point,