This strip shows extremely alarming possibilities if extended into an arc (as it were). Who is the next person Philippe usually meets? Either Cornelius or Lyle. That's a 50% chance of meeting someone who almost certainly possesses generic Viagra. Philippe is so inquisitive that he will discover this fact, but Lyle will refuse to give him any, but then Lyle will pass out from excessive consumption of intoxicants and his pockets will be freed to the ever-young otter's probing paws for exploration and discovery. Well, there are only two ways this could end, and one of them is never going to appear in an Achewood comic, at least anywhere near where the great public could gaze on it.

Either:
1) Tuesday's strip is an abrupt change of direction or:
2) Ultra Peanut returns -- exit stage left with engorged otter.

Strip no visible, I waited a decent time yesterday evening (GMT+1) then gave up.

The assbar thing seems to be nonfunctional. Since that is where the strips are stored these days... NO ACHEWOOD

I sure hope Onstad isn't turning into a political cartoonist. Because this one, seen as a political strip, is just extremely poor. Sub-Mallard-Fillmore. Your favourite or unfavourite anthropomorphic animal characters combine to make the 'point' that personal gratification and excessive consumption are Great and personal responsibility is Boring and Annoying and should go fuck itself.

The only bright spot is Cornelius' dialogue. At that point the politics is hopelessly confused because there isn't any analogy between choosing to screw up your own health and choosing to screw up the environment, and Pat is just baldly wrong and annoying. But in the first panel Pat is politically in the same boat with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Funny how things turn out.

The fallacy of the Heap:

Does one bean make a heap? No.
Does adding one bean make any difference to the heapiness? No.
Therefore (by induction!) any number of beans do not constitute a heap, and there is no such thing as a heap of beans.

Since the conclusion was absurd, we deduce that at least one premise is incorrect. It must have been the second.
The application to Ray's riposte is left as an exercise for the reader.

Barely witty things that Ray could have said:

'Interesting. I'll mention it to my carbon manager when we're down at the redwood forest. Now fuck off.'

'Yeah, but last winter was a bit chilly. Now fuck off while I create the perfect climate.'

However, the SoCal location kind of negates that last line. Is it physically at all possible to improve the climate there?

As regards the comic, you have to remember that the vinegar, since it belongs to Téodor, is probably some ultra-expensive rare Italian brand that was carried down from a mountain-top monastery by a wizened old monk on a mule before being carefully transported to California for use in one of Téodor's gastronomic creations.


And now Lyle is dipping his rad chilies in it.

Better make sure he puts it back in the bottle afterwards, then!

Hmmmp. I was rather hoping for a strip or two about Ray's return to normal levels of sleekness and plumptitude. Perhaps an appearance by Doc Andretti. I guess the 'spider bite' had run its course, and it was time to return the trip's premium character to his former physical state as if by magic with nary a word uttered.

Hell, tap water is full of bacteria and phytoplankton (have I got that right?) and suchlike, which maybe you kill by boiling, but don't do a healthy person the least bit of harm.

I don't think calcium ions are so bad either. Some bottled waters make a point of them.

Returning to Ray, where is that spider bite? Logically it should either be on his hindermost side, or in the thong area, and since Philippe has seen it, I have to vote for the former.

I am intrigued by Philippe's "caramel" disillusion.

Did he believe that caramel was an elemental substance that could not be broken down into simpler constituents? ... that it fell from the sky like manna?

He's got a shock to come if he ever learns about sausages.

OK people, has anyone tried to identify the three picayune and varicoloured objects that appear drawn up in series with the condiment bottle?

In the first panel they look as if they have different colours, but this may be a curious effect of distance, like the bluing of the deep background in certain Old Master paintings.

They have, on the whole, the look of wine-gums.