Deadpan the Reaper
Cheyenne Wright’s brilliant work. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Wright! I am honored and unworthy and grateful, Cheyenne.
Cheyenne Wright’s brilliant work. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Wright! I am honored and unworthy and grateful, Cheyenne.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:33 am
The Pans! They’re all Dead!
Nice work, Cheyenne!
May 15th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I’m jealous.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:00 am
very cool. I would love to see dead pan comic in that style. best of tid-bit and what not.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:08 am
OHHHH! I know see the link. I will have to read his comic. very cool.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Number 5 is alive.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Do we know anybody who wants a snake?
Since that we found the last missing one yesterday, we now have three of the silly things, which is too many.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Very, very nice!
May 15th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Maybe Cheyenne can create a version with a banner with that image and a trail of deadpans in front of you. Or even a bunch of live pans rebelling against their overlord.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Just heard the unshow. 450 hmmmm. We need more ABC’s!
May 15th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Just donated, Jack.
Here’s the link if anybody is interested.
http://casizemoregift.chipin.com/ca-sizemore
May 15th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Cool stuff! Who does Tee Morris have to blow for me to get my own characterature? LOL
May 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Ok, in an effort to up the comments (and avoid work), I’m going to try to do the ABC’s of animal puns.
A - Ant
An anthill developed a foul smell so they brought in a deodor-ant.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:20 am
B - Bat
Batman’s crime fighting-partner could not swim, but he could float. He was known as Robin the Buoy Wonder.
(ok, so not really, but I thought it was funny when it was told to me)
May 15th, 2008 at 8:22 am
B - Bug
I once knew someone who put bug spray on his watch to get rid of the ticks.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:23 am
C - Cat
If cats could read, would they paws after each claws?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am
D - Dog
I once owned a black and white spotted dog I named Stains. I could never understand why the neighbours all looked at me strange whenever I called him, “come, Stains!”
May 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am
E - Elephant
An elephant’s opinion carries a lot of weight.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Ok, that was dumb, try this
E - Eel
The snakelike fish was well read on a wide variety of subjects. He was an eclectic eel.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
F - Fish
When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate.
Or
Even though food was plentiful, the whale was depressed and wanted to end it all. He said, “Goodbye, krill world.” Okay, okay, I admit that I am prawn to bad puns.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
G - Goat
My pet Billy Goat is very tame. I named him Parkay because he is not a butter. Just kidding. Don’t get gruff with me.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:31 am
H - Hamster
I once had an ailing hamster but he revived after receiving mouse to mouse resuscitation.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I have to think about I.
Will be back in a bit
May 15th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Have a few things to do. will come back after lunch and finish ABC’s
May 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Meanwhile, I couldn’t think of I, so here’s someone else’s take on Impala
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/i/impala.asp
May 15th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Gay marriage now legal in CA:
http://tiny.cc/YthzI
May 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
TEB the ABCs should be on the unshow 14 comments page.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Doesn’t matter to me, I ca
May 15th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Yeah should was too presumptuous, apologies TEB.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
That’s too bad about CA. I don’t want gay men in committed monogamous marriages. I want them out there with as many partners as possible! That way there’ll be less competition for straight women! Well, I’m in a monogamous relationship myself, but think about my son’s future!
May 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Rhettro, don’t you want your son to settle down with a nice boy and have the wedding you always longed for?
May 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hell no! You know how much a California wedding would cost?!! And with the bride’s father typically footing the cost of the wedding, I thought I would dodge that bullet with my son, but with two grooms I’m sure I’d have to go halves at least.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
hmmmm
Okay - here’s an idea.
I think that there are two separate ideas working here that have become mingled (mangled?) over the years.
There is a government acknowledged union which is a mater of bookkeeping. The government needs to know how to classify a household for tax and benefit purposes (and now for regulated insurance purposes). The Chromosomes should be irrelevant for this discussion. If 2 people are signing a public contract to take care of one another … that eases the burden on society and is a good thing.
Then there is a social, religious backed “marriage”. This is a public statement made by two individuals in the eyes of their church (whatever denomination or sect that may be) that they are committed to take care of one another for the rest of their lives in accordance to their religious beliefs.
The government should have absolutely no say in what any religious group decides is a “marriage” in their belief although the religious belief.
To go along with this though, the government should not have to recognize ANY religious based contract as having any legal standing. So if your religion says you can marry a tree, well fine … but you can’t declare the tree on your taxes. Also if your religion says you can marry a 4 year old … well fine. If you get caught having sex with the child though you will be prosecuted for breaking a law.
So, I believe you have a personal, religious based “marriage” and then you have a government, licensed based “partnership” or contract.
While the two ideas may have some intersecting goals they really have separate masters and therefor, the two should keep their hands off one another.
Thoughts?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Seems like we talked about this a few years ago. My take: there is supposed to be separation of church and state and marriage has both legal and religious aspects. In my mind, the government shouldn’t issue anything with the word “marriage” on it for anyone, straight or gay. As far as the state is concerned they should issue “articles of partnership” etc. that lay-out the tax, child rearing etc. ramifications. If you want a marriage license, you then go to the religious institution of your choice and receive one, but that license would have no legal status what-so-ever. Then we could get around ticked off religious people saying the state was redefining their faith and people wanting to have a marraige wouldn’t be provented from having one based on the law.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’m pretty sure “provented” isn’t a real word, let’s use “prevented.” LOL
May 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
maybe “provented” SHOULD be a word.
My thinking is that besides the benifits that Rhet just stated … perhaps it would provide economic insentives for the young to take care of the elderly.
What if a 20 something, just out of college (good income single) wanted to have her elderly aunt come and live with her. WOuldn’t it be in societies best interest to foster this sort of relationship? Talk about your “traditional family value”!
So why not allow the two to have the same financial benifits that are given to a “married” couple? In the idea that has been mentioned by myself and Rhet … the yuppie and her aunt could be given “partnership status” which would be to everyone’s benifit … as long as the Aunt was really cool and didn’t smell like “old people”.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
A fate that waits us all if we are lucky.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Dude! You married your Aunt? LOL
Actually I agree completely, there are a lot of non traditional families that could bennefit by a legally protected status of some sort.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Great pic Cheyenne!!!
Re Marriage, I agree with you j0e. “Marriage” is a religious based institution and it should be separate from the government acknowledged and sanctioned union. Separation of church and state is an idea we need to revisit as a whole in this country.
I also think a religion can decide its rules if only man and woman means marriage, then fine, its your religion, keep it in your religion. The government on the other hand should not be tainted by religion (separation of church and state) and should allow all unions. Religion is a choice, the religion chooses its rules, and you choose to live under those rules, but the government is supposed to provide for ALL its citizens (and in the case of illegal immigrants it provides for people who are not citizens too) Gay people are citizens of the united states. end of argument, they should be able to have a government sanctioned union.
Hugh and I were never marred in a church, we don’t recognize our union as a religious sacrament. I would be more than happy to call us a united couple or a joined couple instead of a married couple. I have no desire to deman I be considered married. Marruage is a religious sacrament and religion had nothing to do with our union.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
it would be amazing if I could spelt and writ goodly engerlish
May 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
it would be awesome if we could dance
May 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“religion had nothing to do with our union.”
Then why is it all I hear from the next room is “Oh God! Oh God! YES!” ?
May 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
As my friend Cyn says that is the “Dear God of Fuck”
May 15th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I like that: Dear God of Fuck
No, actually Hugh likes to think its him who is this “God” I am calling to.