Another Saturday Double Feature
Cidu Bill on Jul 12th 2008
What these have in common is that the main, in-panel gag makes perfect sense, but the caption underneath doesn’t make any sense to me.
Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, comic strips, comics, courtrooms, humor, lawsuits, trials | 22 responses so far
Winter Wallaby Jul 12th 2008 at 12:13 am 1
In the second one, the joke is that you think he’s saying “Oh Geez! Sorry!” because of his offensive language. But then you read the caption, and realize that he’s apologizing for using a word (”jury”) that she’s not familiar with. (As in “Then we’ll fix the flinge-fliquer on your car. Oh, sorry, a flinge-fliquer is. . .”)
I’m not sure, but I think the first one is similar, in that rather than the woman being on trial for attempted murder, she’s on trial for something entirely different, and partway through the trial injected the jury foreman.
Suzii Jul 12th 2008 at 05:37 am 2
I agree with Winter on the first one — the woman might not even be the defendant, but an expert witness who went a tad overboard with the interactive displays of evidence, but she clearly just gave the foreman a shot of ammonia.
On the second one, though, I only half agree.
The woman has hired a guy to represent her in a sexism suit. The wrong guy. A guy who has no idea what sexism is. And he thinks that women are all extremely stupid.
Which is where Winter’s explanation comes into it — he is, in fact, apologizing for saying “jury,” not for saying “stupid bitches,” but it’s only in his pointy little head that he thinks she’s not familiar with it.
Elliott Jul 12th 2008 at 07:11 am 3
Sorry, I think you both missed it, and I didn’t like the second one the first time I saw it. The caption on the second one is obviously the voice of the plaintiff, who didn’t actually know what a jury is because she is, ah hmm, oh, uninformed.
Powers Jul 12th 2008 at 08:02 am 4
How is that different from what Winter Wallaby said?
chuckers Jul 12th 2008 at 08:29 am 5
I thought the caption for the first one was in the judge’s voice and he
had to apologise to the foreman for wasting the jury’s time on something
as trivial as the obvious defense.
Rick Jul 12th 2008 at 08:43 am 6
I believe that the point of the second one is that she’s supposed to be tried by a jury of her peers. Therefore….
Kit Jul 12th 2008 at 10:18 am 7
Is it possible that the second one is intentionally ambiguous?
Highjinx Jul 12th 2008 at 04:18 pm 8
Yup, the second one’s punchline is that a jury of HER peers is comprised of stupid bitches. Funnier without the caption.
For the first one, I’m leaning toward the woman being an expert witness, who injected the jury foreman. Much much funnier without the caption.
Kamino Neko Jul 12th 2008 at 04:57 pm 9
The second one seems pretty straightforward to me, but my interpretation is different than most here. The joke isn’t that she doesn’t know what a jury is, it’s that he THINKS she doesn’t. It’s a sexism suit, and her lawyer’s a sexist pig. The same joke as if the caption hadn’t been there, but much funnier, because with the caption, there’s the secondary joke of ‘he realizes his language is inappropriate and apologises…wait, no he doesn’t, he’s just condescending to her’, and, if the main joke ends on an apology, it’s just not as funny, because he doesn’t come across as half as sexist.
Seth Finkelstein Jul 12th 2008 at 05:00 pm 10
I vote:
First one: Judge’s voice. He apologized to the jury foreman for wasting their time with a case where the defendant (on the stand) is obviously insane.
Second one: Woman’s voice. It’s continuing the joke that the lawyer is a sexist pig (explaining to her what a jury is).
Adam Jul 12th 2008 at 05:45 pm 11
I’m with Winter Wallaby on the first one. In my head, she’s the defendant on the stand. When you read the in-panel gag, you assume she’s on trial for attempted murder. When you read the caption, you realise that she’s on trial for something else, and happened to kill the foreman.
pepperjackcandy Jul 13th 2008 at 12:41 am 12
What these have in common is that the main, in-panel gag makes perfect sense, but the caption underneath doesn’t make any sense to me.
Isn’t that the situation with pretty much all SMBC’s, though?
Highjinx Jul 13th 2008 at 11:24 am 13
pepperjackcandy: Yes.
LostInTarnation Jul 13th 2008 at 11:35 pm 14
I only just got the second one, and Rick is right. The lawyer stacked the jury with “stupid bitches” because he thinks only such a person would file a lawsuit, therefore to have the jury stacked with “stupid bitches” would make them more likely to rule in her favor. The caption is the voice of the plaintiff.
furrykef Jul 14th 2008 at 03:19 am 15
The only way the “Oh geez! Sorry!” part of the joke makes sense to me is with Suzii’s explanation.
Gg83 Jul 14th 2008 at 11:16 pm 16
I’m with Suzii and Kamino Neko on the second comic. You’re meant to think at first that he’s apologizing for saying “stupid bitches,” but in fact he’s a sexist pig and is apologizing for using a simple word that he thinks she doesn’t know, because she is, in his mind, a stupid bitch.
To me, it’s definitely funnier with the caption. I think that’s true of a lot of the SMBCs, actually; it’s just that when you read SMBC only at CIDU, you see a lot of instances where the caption seems illogical or inexplicable. SMBC is very much a hit-or-miss kind of comic, but for me, it hits more often than it misses, and the hits are hilarious. I prefer that kind of comic over a comic that is a consistent level of “very mildly amusing.”
Jeff S. Jul 16th 2008 at 10:18 am 17
In the first one, I think it would have made more sense if the word “HE’D” were bolded, then it plays out like this… she’s the victim in an attempted murder trial, but no one really knows what she went through, so she showed the jury foreman what she experienced.
In the second one, if the woman in the panel really IS a stupid b!tch, I would expect the caption to have a little more b!tch!ness in it. The stupid part is expressed.
Only Intelligent Person Alive Aug 20th 2008 at 05:04 am 18
The first one- Woman is on trial for murder and did not know that injecting windex (toxic if ingested/injected) into someone would kill them, she apologizes to the foreman- for killing him.
Second- The man and woman are BOTH defending someone, that someone is charged w/ probably sexual harassment or other sex-related crime in the workplace. The man, clearly sexist after saying “stupid bitches” are what make up the jury, thinks they’ll win. Since it’s a sexism suit, probably a crime committed by a man, the male in the comic is apologizing for filling the jury with females- all of which are likely to show no mercy on the person being charged. The caption (it does make it hard to understand) is being said by said defendee of the pair. So he now knows that he is screwed, since the jury, people deciding whether or not he goes to prison, is full of “stupid bitches” and are the reason he is charged with sexual harassment/discrimination in the first place.
Robert Aug 20th 2008 at 08:47 am 19
1.) She is on trial for something else completely, then tried to murder the Foreman with a syringe full of windex.
2.) The lawyer isn’t sorry for using the term “stupid bitches” in front of a woman, he’s sorry that he did not explain the term “jury.”
Zach Aug 20th 2008 at 09:56 am 20
wow, it took a month and a half for someone to figure out what these comics mean? Just wow…
datdamonfoo Aug 25th 2008 at 04:38 pm 21
People here are quite daft at times, Zach.
junkdraws Aug 30th 2008 at 06:04 pm 22
I’m amazed at the lack of ability here to grasp:
1. what individual smbc comics mean.
2. why they are funny.
If you’re not intelligent enough to understand, don’t whine about it and blame the comic; stick to the comics in the paper that are designed for you. If you really want more to complain about, check out xkcd.com, dinosaurcomics.com, pbfcomics.com, toothpastefordinner.com, marriedtothesea.com, supermegacomics.com
Zach often makes a joke in the comic, then adds a caption that turns the joke into something else entirely. He creates more layers in a one-panel comic than anyone else I’ve come across.