Comic Genesis Forums

Has Keenspace (sorry, Comic Genesis) or Keenspot ever considered creating a division for political cartoons? That is, single-panel editorial-type cartoons? I know I'd be interested in something like that, and I'm sure other artists would as well.

Anyone think this is a good idea? Or can someone provide some sort of pertinent information about this? Thanks.

P.S. I put up a poll for no good reason.

I imagine the answer is yes since the owner has a hand in Sorethumbs.

But that's a narrative, there are a few single panel comics around, but I can't name one that's purely political. It's also on the regular rotation, so i don't think there'd be much support for an entirely different division. The whole beauty of comics on the net, unlike the papers, is that if an artist wants he can bound between genres, be funny or serious, be political or irreverent - all in the same comic. Comics in the pages rot right infront of you beacuse of limitations like that.

It is, of course, a minefield, but I think that'd be what would make one fun, so i'd have to say go for it if you're looking for support. Just don't start writing identifying titles on people and objects in the comic, that's annoying as hell. If a cartoonist needs to resort to that, he's pretty much failed as an artist and should be sent back to the school paper.

I don't think a Political Cartoon Division is necessary, but there's no reason you shouldn't use Comic Genesis to host a political comic if that's what you want to do. (Unless it's so extreme that you end up getting sued.)

Yes, because of that well known law that lets you get sued for political speech.

Sorethumbs doesn't count as much of a political comic and it's definitely not one in the sense that the OP was talking about.

Political comics just aren't a popular choice for most people doing a webcomic, but there's nothing stopping you. I'm not sure what you mean by division, though; a category for it on the guide/wiki?

I'm not sure what you think by the "division" either. I think that there is a special category for political comics in guide, and if there isn't one in wiki, you can make it yourself.
On the other hand, if you're talking about some clique of people who'd join forces to make political comics together, that sounds pretty much unneccesary to me.

Politics doesn't seem to be a favourite subject. A few weeks ago when there was a thread about political comics, most of people seemed to express dislike to them, believing that most of such comics were too didactic.

...

And "Sore Thumbs" is a f***ing joke.

You mean like this?

It's the only political cartoon on the net i've enjoyed because he swings both ways. He's usually the #1 dude on WCN but lately he hasn't updated. I wonder what he's up to, but he was smart; he doesn't put any real contact info on his site.

mcDuffies wrote:And "Sore Thumbs" is a f***ing joke.

That would imply that it makes people laugh!

Sortelli wrote:Yes, because of that well known law that lets you get sued for political speech.

Look up Michael Diana before getting snippy.

I didn't mind sore thumbs until i noticed the art was actually getting progressively sloppier as opposed to better as it went on.

Haven't looked at it in a year or so.

TdotOdot2k wrote:I didn't mind sore thumbs until i noticed the art was actually getting progressively sloppier as opposed to better as it went on.

I noticed that too. From the rather slick tryle it progressed to a rather sloppy, as if the artist lost interest. Though I checked back the other day and it seemed to have been better.

I stopped reading sore thumbs as soon as I realized he was being facetious about the gaming part and serious about the political part.

You can make any kind of comic you want on Comicgen...

...although for whatever reason political cartoons don't seem very popular online, so I can't say how many readers you'd get.

Neil Lisst is read in 80 countries and when he's constantly updating he's WAYYYYYYYY ahead of everyone else in the hits category. Hell, when I was getting 10k more visitors thanks to a link at Dominic-Deegan, he was -just- behind me. And this was on a day he didn't update. :p

Sore Thumbs, despite me not seeing posts too often by people saying they like it, seems to be popular.

I know several more but can't think of the names. They have an audience. I find since they do political cartoons, though, a lot of them run similar gags and repeated gags...and all too often they're hardly memorable.

Neil Lisst and Sore Thumbs are memorable, though....although personally they're memorable for being at different ends of the "Good comic" spectrum. That's just me, though.

Political comics are probably not popular online because the audience they cater to already have enough soap-boxing blogs to satiate their desire for politics.

Shishio wrote:

Sortelli wrote:Yes, because of that well known law that lets you get sued for political speech.

Look up Michael Diana before getting snippy.

He wasn't sued, he was convicted under obscenity laws. I strongly disagree with that, but if he had actually included more political expression in his work he could have beaten the charge.

I will say that Filibuster cartoon linked above is actually pretty good. I don't always agree with it, but it's the only single panel political comic I can think of that doesn't feel pandering.

The Neko wrote:Political comics are probably not popular online because the audience they cater to already have enough soap-boxing blogs to satiate their desire for politics.

Which is why it's kind of odd they're not popular. People online can't seem to get enough of arguing over politics, and webcomics continue to get more and more popular...but for some reason the two don't combine.

I think it may be because I lot of people have the idea that political cartoons are all the kind of hackneyed stuff where America's a gorilla representing globalization and terrorism is the grim reaper and blah-blah-blah. You know the kind of stuff I mean.

There's this mentality among readers of webcomics that they're only going to support different or "edgy" stuff, that anything that too closely resembles traditional newspaper comics aren't worth reading...and I think for a lot of people the entire political cartoon genre is cliche in their minds.

Then again, maybe it's just because political cartoons require you to think and be up on world events and most people online would rather be jerking off to furry comics a giggling at a sprite comic where Sonic kisses Mario.

Sortelli wrote:He wasn't sued, he was convicted under obscenity laws. I strongly disagree with that, but if he had actually included more political expression in his work he could have beaten the charge.

I know, but I still think if you made something that most people would consider "extreme", action would be taken against you. Which could, include, among other things, a lawsuit.

For example, if you drew a political cartoon depicting George Bush giving fellatio to the Pope, you would have hell to pay, free speech laws or not.

A political cartoonist would be just as vulnerable to libel as any other cartoonist or political journalist, although I can't name examples (if there are any). But there's nothing in the american laws that would prohibit the victim to file a lawsuit.

Shishio wrote:

Sortelli wrote:He wasn't sued, he was convicted under obscenity laws. I strongly disagree with that, but if he had actually included more political expression in his work he could have beaten the charge.

I know, but I still think if you made something that most people would consider "extreme", action would be taken against you. Which could, include, among other things, a lawsuit.

For example, if you drew a political cartoon depicting George Bush giving fellatio to the Pope, you would have hell to pay, free speech laws or not.

I disagree. Most people wouldn't give two squirts if someone did that in their webcomic. And the fact it's Bush automatically makes it "politictal" speech.

Remember, the Diana case was a setup in BFE, Florida.