One question that needs to be asked of Senate Republicans: “Would you have let Obama get away with this?” They were salivating over getting the previous administration on anything; if they could’ve impeached over the mustard thing, they would have.
Listening to the likes of Kenn Starr come out of the woodwork was laughable, just add him to the list of people who pulled a 180 since the Clinton impeachment. (For those of you too young to remember, TL;DR: the whole investigation was about an alleged real estate scheme, but when that proved fruitless they kept poking until they caught wind of his adultery. His testimony denying the affair was the “gotcha” moment they were dreaming of. For bonus points, read comments by Senators McConnel and Graham, or any of the others who have been in office since then.)
Unfortunately, this has now become a part of our electoral process. The instant any President takes office, the other side immediately will start up the impeachment engine. The other side is literally evil, and must be stopped at all costs, no matter what the damage to our nation’s integrity.
Well, my outsider perspective is that the Republicans actually do it all the time. the Democrats wait until the president did some things that are actually good reasons to impeach him.
If comitting adultery was a reason for impeachment, Trump would have to be impeached several times over. And probably every other President the US ever had, too.
The Bothsides disease, in which our media betters tell us the Rs and the Ds do the same bad things with the same baseless motivation, covers up a lot of right-wing crap.
Clinton wasn’t impeached for adultery, he was impeached for a perjury trap constructed around the opportunity of his adultery. And enough Republican Senators broke ranks that it was understood that nothing of the sort would ever lead to impeachment again by the Republicans.
You have based an “all the time” generalization off of a single occurrence.
Trying to decide if we have reached the Gracchi Brothers/Marius v Sulla period of the collapse of the Roman Republic yet. Once armed factions start battling it out we will have hit the First Triumverate period…
This is from the summary of Mike Duncan’s The Storm Before The Storm:
“…rising economic inequality disrupted traditional ways of life, endemic social and ethnic prejudice led to clashes over citizenship and voting rights, and rampant corruption and ruthless ambition sparked violent political clashes that cracked the once indestructible foundations of the Republic.”
That is talking about Rome in the generation or two before Julius Caesar…
sounds familiar though doesn’t it.
Yeah. They taught us about the fall of Rome from the Gracchi to Nero in high school. It was meant to be a warning, but it seems that some people took it as a playbook.
They taught us about the decline of the Roman Republic from the Gracchi to Nero in Ancient History in high school. I always thought it was supposed to be a warning, but it seems that some other people took it for a play book.
The thing about Caesar being immune from prosecution until he left office was a zinger.
The Democrats waited a long time to impeach Trump, overlooking one offense after another until there was one that was actually going to impact the election. They never ended up impeaching George W. Bush at all.
I wish both sides were willing to hold the other accountable for misdeeds, but that is not what you see here.
I experience a sort of entertainment, imagining what it’ll be like when a Democrat is elected President again… but it’s tied up with imagining applying a wiffle bat to their heads for the inevitable Republican hypocricy.
Dershowitz, who made the argument in question, is,and always has been,a Democrat. He campaigned for Hillary in 2016, and if the impeachment ends in time to allow it without professional conflict, will campaign fod whoever the Democratic nominee is this election. I happen to think his legal argument is incorrect, but he believes it for nonpartisan reasons.
Aw, Becks, it’s never gonna be easy to be proud of moments where you had to compromise on principles, but regardless, I’m sure Leslie will be proud you’re surviving.
Leslie: I’ll be very proud of you as long as Robin isn’t elected and makes an amendment that I have to be her slave. Because there’s a non-zero % possibility of that.
Huh.
I wasn’t familiar with either term.
When I googled “gig economy” a very concise definition popped up. I was like “oh, a thing that describes my career. Neat?”
However, since Willis said “see also” I tried googling “Roadside Economy”
Nothing came up. Or, rather, stuff about roads and roadside eateries which did not seem to track.
That or a Roadside Economy somehow involves Roadblock from GI Joe?
I think it’s a reference to the newspaper comic strip “For Better or For Worse.”
Once a teenager in the strip described another teenager as “She’s a gig. She’s roadside,” meaning she’d had more than one sexual partner. A lot of people on the Comics Curmudgeon blog made fun of this supposed teen slang, saying that the author, a Boomer-aged woman, had probably made it up.
It’s… complicated. The gig economy describes how a fairly bulky percentage of the population makes their money these days. When the term was first coined, it was hailed as a new era of people taking control of their destinies by hustling. And now the backlash has begun as gigs tend to be organized by “disruptive” tech companies that are allegedly (I don’t know enough to take sides here) exploiting workers by using the gig economy as a cover for not providing benefits or following other workplace regulations.
You can find a few dozen thinkpieces from plenty of perspectives if you poke around enough, and I suspect it matters a lot whether your gigs are stuff like writing articles versus making deliveries. Couldn’t explain why; I have a salary and no relevant insight.
… yes. I said that googling “gig economy” immediately returned a definition that I instantly recognized as a description of “being a college professor these days”. Aka – contract work, no benefits, no job security beyond a few months.
It was “roadside economy” that I could find nothing on.
Apparently because it was a joke about the comic “For Better or For Worse”?
I think that “gig economy” actually implies no job security beyond a few hours – that’s the “gig” part of it, that it’s all going from one job to another to another with no assurance whatsoever that there’s going to be another after that, but with a decent probability of it because there are so many people that might be looking for what you’re peddling. It’s more comparable to booking your bar band out to do performances – each gig is separate and there are no promises about getting another, though of course “wanting a ride” or “needing a hotel” are far more common needs than “wanting live background music”, so you’re more likely to be okay as long of the supply of drivers/airb’n’bers is below saturation.
And, of course, being totally unregulated (often via borderline or outright breaking of the law) is also a characteristic of the gig economy, because the gig economy probably wouldn’t be profitable enough to be a “thing” otherwise.
Aren’t all political consultants in the gig economy? Campaigns are long-term gigs, but they’re only good for several months, tops. Then you go looking for the next one.
The “gig economy” isn’t inherently bad. In fact, a lot of it’s been pretty high end for most of the modern past. Freelance writing, consulting, etc.
The recent shift has been shifting it back down to low end jobs and using that to avoid treating workers as legal employees – especially when you’re treating them as such in every other way.
I know that the buffer is queued until Doomsday, and therefore that Willis cannot be psyched.
Willis has a divine plan, in which our suffering is a necessary part of the glorious whole. Nothing can be changed from its fore-destined path, even if we really, really want to win a football game. Or a bet.
It’s okay to be gay and make mistakes, Becky. What is not okay is to steal government money and help right wingers.
I don’t care what Dina thinks. If she wants a dinosaur, she could have stolen it from a store. Being a thief is more dignified than helping Republicans.
Not huge fan of panel 1 Becky here. I’m not saying she should have turned Robin’s offer, no, that would have been colossally stupid.
But she didn’t have to GHOST LESLIE and literally walk out her life with no explanation! That’s so rude and insensitive!! Becky was STALKED by a family member who had threatened her with violence, of course Leslie was going to worry if Becky suddenly disappeared!
“I had to do it” yes to the taking the offer for a job and tuition
“I had to do it” no! you didn’t have to be freaking rude to the one person that offered you stability with no strings attached!!!
Rude and insensitive are not exactly unknown qualities in Becky.
Neither is appologizing for it and trying to make it right in her own very Becky way… which may or may not seem like a good way, depending on where you stand.
I assume Becky was just literally terrified. She grew up with Toedad, and just him, and it’s only been a couple months that she’s been out from under that influence. Remember, it’s literally only midterms in the comic, of term one.
I suspect that Becky learned really well how to hide things that made parental units not-proud. Bad report cards, sexual desires, the urge to show her bared shoulders in public… This seemed like something that would make Les not-proud, and she hid because making parents not-proud was a bad thing.
I don’t think Becky is proud of herself right now either.
She’s also 18, and probably not so good at the “understanding other people’s emotions” thing yet.
I think “what I had to do” probably only refers to the devil’s bargain she made with Robin, and not ghosting Leslie. The rest of the conversation is clearly about that
Probably also worth noting that while Becky didn’t have to ghost Leslie, she’s not just some kid who didn’t bother to call home. Becky’s had to fear and distrust virtually all the adults in her life until very recently. What with the family member who had threatened her with violence and growing up in a community that would have 100% condoned it.
She was probably deathly afraid that she’d screwed up her relationship with practically the only adult besides/since her mom she’s been able to trust
I understand this but it’s still frustrating (to the readers): to avoid upsetting Leslie for getting a job with a bad person, Becky upsets Leslie by not telling her anything. Very similar to Walky’s avoidance
I’m kinda worried Becky will actually succeed in getting Robin re-elected. Though I suppose if Robin switches parties immediately afterwards it might be ok-ish.
As I’ve said before, I’ve got no idea how Becky would succeed. Other than through Robin-style wacky hijinks or possibly a sympathy vote after an Evil Dad attack, but those can’t be blamed on Becky.
That last one hit home more personally than I’d care to admit. While I know my parents love me unconditionally (they’ve proven this to me on so, so many occasions), I still know that (especially my Dad) they still disapprove of some of the choices I’ve made and the direction I chose to go in life. So yes, they love me, but they’ll never be proud of me the way they’re proud of my much more conventionally successful brother. 😛
I don’t get the principles thing. The political messages Becky is sending are not against her (or Leslie’s) principles. With this type of campaign Robin will not get re-elected, and if she were she seems self-interested enough to revise her ideology for the sake of getting votes. I mean, if Becky’s activism is so strong in her district to elect her, she’d gain by being a champion for it (with the added benefit of being able to spend any number of days with Leslie without political cost). If not, at least Becky is putting some issues out for political conversation, as Dorothy already noted to Roz.
Because they both know Robin would absolutely switch back to being harmful to them as soon as it was beneficial to her Robin’s only supporting her now because it’s the only group willing to back her right now.
Does Becky know? Leslie was willing to give Robin one opportunity and she got burned, why is unprincipled for Becky to give her another one (even if it seems a bad idea)? I mean, this looks to be more about Leslie’s feelings than about “principles”.
Becky initially made ‘don’t go back on your promises’ one of her conditions of working for Robin, so she knew then. She then retracted that one, since Robin wouldn’t give her everything she asked, and pivoted to attempting to half-ass it so she can’t get elected, since she knows Robin will still be Robin.
Though Leslie doesn’t know it, Becky gave out on he principles because she accepted the two out of three deal from Robin. where she close schooling and a place to live over political consistency.
But Leslie knows how Robin works, so she can be sure there something like that involved anyway.
And Becky: She still likes you and is proud of you, just look at her face.
Right. I forgot about the two out of three thing. So this is a re-run of Ethan’s Chik-fil-A dilemma with higher stakes. Anyway, I still believe Leslie is more about her own feelings than the principles thing (although I agree that Leslie sure knows something like that is happening), and FWIW my own take is that Becky made the right decision because of what thejeff said above.
Someone on the last comment thread mentioned they did, also mentioning they read everyone’s favorite redhead in Amethyst’s voice. Personally, while I definitely feel for Pearl, Leslie always came across as someone different to me.
Mixed feelings, Becky; we adults has them. But pride is definitely one. You have navigated terrible storms with almost no information and here you are.
Becky, Becky… Who is Leslie to you? Because, if you want a surrogate mother, I don’t think that she can be that for you. Heck, I’m not even sure that you’re close enough to her for her to be a mentor right now!
Leslie (though a very nice person) shouldn’t be anyones mom or mentor at the moment. Look at her interactions with Robin, how she runs her classes, her romantic escapades. Look at how many things went wrong and how many things could have gone even worse if not for luck.
She needs to sort herself before she can help anyone else out
Oh good, Becky is just projecting her need for a mother onto Leslie, who has seemed to not really mind that either. Glad my original line of thinking was wrong.
I don’t think it’s stretching. I, too, legit think Leslie would love to suddenly have a daughter. She has a very mothering feel no matter the universe.
It just occurred to me… the very last strip of DoA will be a geriatric Walky from the original timeline slipping away after a prolonged illness, with the whole DoAverse being his final dream.
Then it will pull out again an Tommy Westphall is looking at his snowglobe from the last episode of St Elsewhere…
Loading ...
“well, I mean if you’re talking federal grift, hard to beat the toddler in chief”
Haven’t you heard? Anything that a politician does with the aim of getting elected is inherently in the public interest.
The one entertaining thing about the impeachment farce is watching the Banana Republicans twisting their reasoning into pretzels.
One question that needs to be asked of Senate Republicans: “Would you have let Obama get away with this?” They were salivating over getting the previous administration on anything; if they could’ve impeached over the mustard thing, they would have.
Listening to the likes of Kenn Starr come out of the woodwork was laughable, just add him to the list of people who pulled a 180 since the Clinton impeachment. (For those of you too young to remember, TL;DR: the whole investigation was about an alleged real estate scheme, but when that proved fruitless they kept poking until they caught wind of his adultery. His testimony denying the affair was the “gotcha” moment they were dreaming of. For bonus points, read comments by Senators McConnel and Graham, or any of the others who have been in office since then.)
Schiff actually brought that up, after Dershowitz made his case that reelection justifies anything. I was proud to hear it.
Unfortunately, this has now become a part of our electoral process. The instant any President takes office, the other side immediately will start up the impeachment engine. The other side is literally evil, and must be stopped at all costs, no matter what the damage to our nation’s integrity.
We have met the enemy, and they is us.
Well, my outsider perspective is that the Republicans actually do it all the time. the Democrats wait until the president did some things that are actually good reasons to impeach him.
If comitting adultery was a reason for impeachment, Trump would have to be impeached several times over. And probably every other President the US ever had, too.
“Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line”, as the old saw goes.
the “every side does it the same” argument seems to be something USA republicans love to say to justify stuff.
Sadly, it seems to be something the US media does to avoid being considered “too liberal”. Or nowadays “fake news”.
Of course, it doesn’t work.
Your outside perspective is correct.
The Bothsides disease, in which our media betters tell us the Rs and the Ds do the same bad things with the same baseless motivation, covers up a lot of right-wing crap.
Clinton wasn’t impeached for adultery, he was impeached for a perjury trap constructed around the opportunity of his adultery. And enough Republican Senators broke ranks that it was understood that nothing of the sort would ever lead to impeachment again by the Republicans.
You have based an “all the time” generalization off of a single occurrence.
Trying to decide if we have reached the Gracchi Brothers/Marius v Sulla period of the collapse of the Roman Republic yet. Once armed factions start battling it out we will have hit the First Triumverate period…
This is from the summary of Mike Duncan’s The Storm Before The Storm:
“…rising economic inequality disrupted traditional ways of life, endemic social and ethnic prejudice led to clashes over citizenship and voting rights, and rampant corruption and ruthless ambition sparked violent political clashes that cracked the once indestructible foundations of the Republic.”
That is talking about Rome in the generation or two before Julius Caesar…
sounds familiar though doesn’t it.
https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic/dp/1610397215
+1 upvote.
Yeah. They taught us about the fall of Rome from the Gracchi to Nero in high school. It was meant to be a warning, but it seems that some people took it as a playbook.
They taught us about the decline of the Roman Republic from the Gracchi to Nero in Ancient History in high school. I always thought it was supposed to be a warning, but it seems that some other people took it for a play book.
The thing about Caesar being immune from prosecution until he left office was a zinger.
The Democrats waited a long time to impeach Trump, overlooking one offense after another until there was one that was actually going to impact the election. They never ended up impeaching George W. Bush at all.
I wish both sides were willing to hold the other accountable for misdeeds, but that is not what you see here.
I experience a sort of entertainment, imagining what it’ll be like when a Democrat is elected President again… but it’s tied up with imagining applying a wiffle bat to their heads for the inevitable Republican hypocricy.
at this rate, “if”.
Ugh, I can’t allow myself to believe that, I have enough despair about the future as it is.
Dershowitz, who made the argument in question, is,and always has been,a Democrat. He campaigned for Hillary in 2016, and if the impeachment ends in time to allow it without professional conflict, will campaign fod whoever the Democratic nominee is this election. I happen to think his legal argument is incorrect, but he believes it for nonpartisan reasons.
Leslie: Hmm, depends. How much space in the apartment?
Becky: Thousand square feet, I’d say.
Leslie: Central heating? Good Wifi?
Becky: Yup.
Leslie: What streaming services did Robin provide?
Becky: Netflix and Amazon. No Disney+.
Leslie: You bring shame upon this house.
Robin loves Attack of the Clones, so she probably does have Disney+.
She has it, she just doesn’t know how to stream it:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2019/comic/book-10/02-to-remind-you-of-my-love/clingyweirdos/
She’d pay every month, $70 a year, just to have access to one eighteen year old movie?
What is she, a politician?
yes
What do you mean eighteen year old movie? Attack of The Clones was released… Oh, I feel old(er) now.
Aw, Becks, it’s never gonna be easy to be proud of moments where you had to compromise on principles, but regardless, I’m sure Leslie will be proud you’re surviving.
Leslie: I’ll be very proud of you as long as Robin isn’t elected and makes an amendment that I have to be her slave. Because there’s a non-zero % possibility of that.
Robin is currently drafting the Slave Leia Bikini Act.
And suddenly, I’m conflicted….
*Leslie strangles Robin on her sail barge*
That “you’re kind of crushing it” panel looks pretty proud to me.
Hugz in 3.. 2.. 1..
I dunno…
Panel 5 looks pretty “I’m proud’a ya, kid” to me!
Yep
That’s what I was going to say!
It definitely does to me as well.
Yeah, it was the cue for Becky to slip back into the bit.
My firs thought. Leslie looks hella proud of Becky and also touched that Becky came back.
Well BANG BANG BANG!–and down you go
It’s Just A Job I do…
Nice Phil Collins reference there.
Nooooo….
“Genesis” reference!
(Yes there IS a difference, dammit!!!! 🙂 )
Very much so!
Hey, it confused me too, but that back-and-forth between Rutherford and Banks really makes the song.
Lol deep for better or for worse reference there
Aww, baby 🙁
Don’t be silly, Becky, gig economy companies aren’t federal level grifts.
They’re international
Huh.
I wasn’t familiar with either term.
When I googled “gig economy” a very concise definition popped up. I was like “oh, a thing that describes my career. Neat?”
However, since Willis said “see also” I tried googling “Roadside Economy”
Nothing came up. Or, rather, stuff about roads and roadside eateries which did not seem to track.
That or a Roadside Economy somehow involves Roadblock from GI Joe?
I’m guessing roadside economy is living on the streets.
I think it’s a reference to the newspaper comic strip “For Better or For Worse.”
Once a teenager in the strip described another teenager as “She’s a gig. She’s roadside,” meaning she’d had more than one sexual partner. A lot of people on the Comics Curmudgeon blog made fun of this supposed teen slang, saying that the author, a Boomer-aged woman, had probably made it up.
https://joshreads.com/2005/01/best-ifor-better-or-for-worsei-ever/ if anyone is curious. (Pretty sure it’s not Canadian slang either.)
If it is, I’ve never heard of it.
Albertan here, and I have never heard that slang either.
It’s… complicated. The gig economy describes how a fairly bulky percentage of the population makes their money these days. When the term was first coined, it was hailed as a new era of people taking control of their destinies by hustling. And now the backlash has begun as gigs tend to be organized by “disruptive” tech companies that are allegedly (I don’t know enough to take sides here) exploiting workers by using the gig economy as a cover for not providing benefits or following other workplace regulations.
You can find a few dozen thinkpieces from plenty of perspectives if you poke around enough, and I suspect it matters a lot whether your gigs are stuff like writing articles versus making deliveries. Couldn’t explain why; I have a salary and no relevant insight.
… yes. I said that googling “gig economy” immediately returned a definition that I instantly recognized as a description of “being a college professor these days”. Aka – contract work, no benefits, no job security beyond a few months.
It was “roadside economy” that I could find nothing on.
Apparently because it was a joke about the comic “For Better or For Worse”?
I think that “gig economy” actually implies no job security beyond a few hours – that’s the “gig” part of it, that it’s all going from one job to another to another with no assurance whatsoever that there’s going to be another after that, but with a decent probability of it because there are so many people that might be looking for what you’re peddling. It’s more comparable to booking your bar band out to do performances – each gig is separate and there are no promises about getting another, though of course “wanting a ride” or “needing a hotel” are far more common needs than “wanting live background music”, so you’re more likely to be okay as long of the supply of drivers/airb’n’bers is below saturation.
And, of course, being totally unregulated (often via borderline or outright breaking of the law) is also a characteristic of the gig economy, because the gig economy probably wouldn’t be profitable enough to be a “thing” otherwise.
Ah, yes. The Gig Economy – because “gigs” have kept so many musicians and actors financially stable all these years.
/eyeroll
Aren’t all political consultants in the gig economy? Campaigns are long-term gigs, but they’re only good for several months, tops. Then you go looking for the next one.
The “gig economy” isn’t inherently bad. In fact, a lot of it’s been pretty high end for most of the modern past. Freelance writing, consulting, etc.
The recent shift has been shifting it back down to low end jobs and using that to avoid treating workers as legal employees – especially when you’re treating them as such in every other way.
Les hasta be proud. Gotta stick together through the thick and thin.
Roadside economy, however, is a tossup and mostly involves trucks
It’s the 31st of January! [i]The Order of the Stick[/i] resumes updating this coming Monday!
If Mike can just keep his head down for three more days I win my bet!
Oh shit, are you trying to reverse psych Willis? Or maybe reverse-reverse psych them?
I know that the buffer is queued until Doomsday, and therefore that Willis cannot be psyched.
Willis has a divine plan, in which our suffering is a necessary part of the glorious whole. Nothing can be changed from its fore-destined path, even if we really, really want to win a football game. Or a bet.
Doomsday is April 21st of this year?
…. eh, it’s more accurate than what Harold Camping predicted.
Thank god.
Doomsday keeps getting postponed. Hadn’t you noticed?
… That was … oddly poetic. 😀
I hear that the EU is demanding a single standard connector for recharging devices. I’ll have to have a word to them about text mark-up.
Snerk.
It’s okay to be gay and make mistakes, Becky. What is not okay is to steal government money and help right wingers.
I don’t care what Dina thinks. If she wants a dinosaur, she could have stolen it from a store. Being a thief is more dignified than helping Republicans.
I certainly hope Robin isn’t using government money to finance her election campaign.
Robin Hood certainly lives up to that last statement.
And Jack Shepard, Arsene Lupin, Lupin III and Ren Amamiya.
Sheppard*
Wrex.
Grunt.
Mordin.
Tali.
**Being a thief is more dignified than helping Republicans.**
Being a thief is more dignified, has higher moral standing – but a lower pay grade than helping ** Politicians **
Attempted fix. Uncertain success.
I feel like she’s already proud of Becky, or will be.
classic Becky. an over-the-top stunt, followed by goof, followed by a real, honest appology. She has done the same with Joyce and Dina.
awwwwwwww, Leslie IS proud of you, you doofus. She is an awesome mom like that.
I’m sorry, what apology? bc “ Sorry, did what I had to” is not one
as I read it, Leslie seems to accept it as one.
Leslie is gay proud of Becky and that’s the best kind of Leslie proud!
Not huge fan of panel 1 Becky here. I’m not saying she should have turned Robin’s offer, no, that would have been colossally stupid.
But she didn’t have to GHOST LESLIE and literally walk out her life with no explanation! That’s so rude and insensitive!! Becky was STALKED by a family member who had threatened her with violence, of course Leslie was going to worry if Becky suddenly disappeared!
“I had to do it” yes to the taking the offer for a job and tuition
“I had to do it” no! you didn’t have to be freaking rude to the one person that offered you stability with no strings attached!!!
Rude and insensitive are not exactly unknown qualities in Becky.
Neither is appologizing for it and trying to make it right in her own very Becky way… which may or may not seem like a good way, depending on where you stand.
I assume Becky was just literally terrified. She grew up with Toedad, and just him, and it’s only been a couple months that she’s been out from under that influence. Remember, it’s literally only midterms in the comic, of term one.
I suspect that Becky learned really well how to hide things that made parental units not-proud. Bad report cards, sexual desires, the urge to show her bared shoulders in public… This seemed like something that would make Les not-proud, and she hid because making parents not-proud was a bad thing.
I don’t think Becky is proud of herself right now either.
She’s also 18, and probably not so good at the “understanding other people’s emotions” thing yet.
Hell, at 18, a lot of us aren’t even good at the “understanding our own emotions” thing yet!
I think “what I had to do” probably only refers to the devil’s bargain she made with Robin, and not ghosting Leslie. The rest of the conversation is clearly about that
Probably also worth noting that while Becky didn’t have to ghost Leslie, she’s not just some kid who didn’t bother to call home. Becky’s had to fear and distrust virtually all the adults in her life until very recently. What with the family member who had threatened her with violence and growing up in a community that would have 100% condoned it.
She was probably deathly afraid that she’d screwed up her relationship with practically the only adult besides/since her mom she’s been able to trust
Practically;… Leslie, and Joyce’s dad.
I understand this but it’s still frustrating (to the readers): to avoid upsetting Leslie for getting a job with a bad person, Becky upsets Leslie by not telling her anything. Very similar to Walky’s avoidance
What keeps surprising me about Becky is how worldly she is, considering her upbringing. “Gig economy” and so on… I’m not sure Joyce knows such terms?
She is knowledgable in the ways of the economic world. It’s simple Gayganomics. http://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-6/02-that-perfect-girl/trickledown/
I still hate Becky’s hair but
I L O V E H E R S O M U C H
P R E C I O U S E N T R E G A Y N E U R
Aw, Becky wants to impress cool Aunt Leslie.
On that note, I hope her job with Robin is a long con.
excuse me i did not come here to have my heart literally tactical nuked from orbit
this uh, is unrelated and was not meant to be a reply to anything
guess that’s showbiz, baby
I hope Becky is joking because I get the impression Leslie was proud of her way earlier than this.
Not so much “joking” as “fishing for confirmation of mom-proudness” as I read it.
I love how clearly Becky is talking to her original mom, here.
(And Leslie is gonna totally be proud)
Oooooh! That is a very good read.
Good thing Bonnie would be proud of the person Becky has become.
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-6/04-it-all-returns/deserves/
I mean she seems less ‘disappointed’ than ‘worried for your safety and stability’ Becky. She’s probably just proud of you for surviving.
So that’s how you make dot eyes look down.
“not until you make her pass pro-queer laws, no”
I’m kinda worried Becky will actually succeed in getting Robin re-elected. Though I suppose if Robin switches parties immediately afterwards it might be ok-ish.
As I’ve said before, I’ve got no idea how Becky would succeed. Other than through Robin-style wacky hijinks or possibly a sympathy vote after an Evil Dad attack, but those can’t be blamed on Becky.
“Roadside”? “Gig”? Holy Cheese, was that a For Better Or For Worse joke??? After all these years? I am impressed!
Yup, a reference to a comic from around 15 years ago, just goes to show you how deep the buffer is for this comic.
That last one hit home more personally than I’d care to admit. While I know my parents love me unconditionally (they’ve proven this to me on so, so many occasions), I still know that (especially my Dad) they still disapprove of some of the choices I’ve made and the direction I chose to go in life. So yes, they love me, but they’ll never be proud of me the way they’re proud of my much more conventionally successful brother. 😛
I don’t get the principles thing. The political messages Becky is sending are not against her (or Leslie’s) principles. With this type of campaign Robin will not get re-elected, and if she were she seems self-interested enough to revise her ideology for the sake of getting votes. I mean, if Becky’s activism is so strong in her district to elect her, she’d gain by being a champion for it (with the added benefit of being able to spend any number of days with Leslie without political cost). If not, at least Becky is putting some issues out for political conversation, as Dorothy already noted to Roz.
Because they both know Robin would absolutely switch back to being harmful to them as soon as it was beneficial to her Robin’s only supporting her now because it’s the only group willing to back her right now.
Does Becky know? Leslie was willing to give Robin one opportunity and she got burned, why is unprincipled for Becky to give her another one (even if it seems a bad idea)? I mean, this looks to be more about Leslie’s feelings than about “principles”.
Becky initially made ‘don’t go back on your promises’ one of her conditions of working for Robin, so she knew then. She then retracted that one, since Robin wouldn’t give her everything she asked, and pivoted to attempting to half-ass it so she can’t get elected, since she knows Robin will still be Robin.
Which is the better approach anyway, since it gets her what she needs and gives up something that’s unenforceable and almost certainly irrelevant.
Since it all relies on Becky being the kind of political genius who can get a Republican elected in Indiana with a leftist platform.
Though Leslie doesn’t know it, Becky gave out on he principles because she accepted the two out of three deal from Robin. where she close schooling and a place to live over political consistency.
But Leslie knows how Robin works, so she can be sure there something like that involved anyway.
And Becky: She still likes you and is proud of you, just look at her face.
Right. I forgot about the two out of three thing. So this is a re-run of Ethan’s Chik-fil-A dilemma with higher stakes. Anyway, I still believe Leslie is more about her own feelings than the principles thing (although I agree that Leslie sure knows something like that is happening), and FWIW my own take is that Becky made the right decision because of what thejeff said above.
Not sure why this is the comic that made me realize this and prompted me to ask, but: does anybody else read Leslie’s lines in Pearl’s voice?
Someone on the last comment thread mentioned they did, also mentioning they read everyone’s favorite redhead in Amethyst’s voice. Personally, while I definitely feel for Pearl, Leslie always came across as someone different to me.
… It’s not too far off, actually.
Mixed feelings, Becky; we adults has them. But pride is definitely one. You have navigated terrible storms with almost no information and here you are.
Becky, Becky… Who is Leslie to you? Because, if you want a surrogate mother, I don’t think that she can be that for you. Heck, I’m not even sure that you’re close enough to her for her to be a mentor right now!
Some bonds are made instantly.
I’m pretty sure Leslie wouldn’t terribly MIND to be a surrogate mother to Becky…. if she can convince herself that she is up to the task, that is.
(See: Leslie worrying about Becky not eating enough fresh fruit)
Leslie (though a very nice person) shouldn’t be anyones mom or mentor at the moment. Look at her interactions with Robin, how she runs her classes, her romantic escapades. Look at how many things went wrong and how many things could have gone even worse if not for luck.
She needs to sort herself before she can help anyone else out
Yeah, and she doesn’t even buys herself fresh fruit.
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/04-the-do-list/apples/
Oh good, Becky is just projecting her need for a mother onto Leslie, who has seemed to not really mind that either. Glad my original line of thinking was wrong.
I’m probably stretching a bit, but Leslie might not mind terribly to suddenly have a daughter either
If she’s the same from Shortpacked! (which I imagine she is) she does actually want children, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
I don’t think it’s stretching. I, too, legit think Leslie would love to suddenly have a daughter. She has a very mothering feel no matter the universe.
I am embarrassed at how long it took me to realize this.
Awwww. Poor Becky.
It just occurred to me… the very last strip of DoA will be a geriatric Walky from the original timeline slipping away after a prolonged illness, with the whole DoAverse being his final dream.
Then it will pull out again an Tommy Westphall is looking at his snowglobe from the last episode of St Elsewhere…
Huh, I was thinking old Walky waking up next to old Joyce, having dreamed up the whole story.
Then the Soggies flow in.
Leslie doesn’t have to be proud of her but she doesn’t have give her crap for it either. At the end of the day it’s a mixed bag.