Possible obscure theatre reference: One of my favorite spit take jokes is from the musical The Drowsy Chaperone, which is set up as if the audience is listening to the musical along with the narrator who’s playing it on his record player. At the time of the spit take the “record” starts to skip so that the spit take happens again and again and again.
I was on tech crew for the musical in high school, and I had a crush on the girl doing the spitting, which may have added to my overall high ranking of the scene.
I was a community ringer in the pit for one of the local high school’s production of the Drowsy Chaperone. That scene, ha! I also played alto clarinet on all the alto sax parts and it was great.
My little brother was in a production of that recently. The girl doing the spit-takes would always break during that scene and have to frantically work to keep spitting between laughs, and the boy getting spat on was somehow able to keep still as a statue throughout. Killed every night.
Step 1) Grab a drink. Step 2) Watch a South Park marathon. Step 3) Get ready to do some shopping. Whether you’ve reacted with disgust or laughter, eventually you’ll find an episode that ruins your keyboard.
1) Some people were being right jackasses in the thread for yesterday’s strip, and Willis locked this one to play it safe until civility reigned again.
2) Danny describes his beverage as “pop”. The “soda” crowd were ready to descend upon this comments section like locusts to battle their ancient enemies, the “pop” people, and the Blood War would begin anew.
Did your theory involve people being jackasses or was that something that actually happened? Because yesterday’s strip didn’t exactly seem the type to get people all angry to me, but if they did I’m… kinda curious.
Although I feel like I shouldn’t be?
Doctor_Who
I didn’t see anyone causing trouble, but if it had happened, the comments could have been deleted.
hof1991
Schroedinger’s jackasses? Some kind of time traveler killing their grandfather event? Frye going back in time and boinking his grandmother? Non-recoverable history that may not have happened?
The “soda” crowd were ready to descend upon this comments section like locusts to battle their ancient enemies, the “pop” people, and the Blood War would begin anew
Man, the Planescape setting completely glossed over that backstory.
How can anyone get worked up over the sod vs pop debate when both terms come from, well, soda pop.
..oh right, humans are dumb
HeySo
Well, soda was the original term (so soda didn’t actually come from soda pop, but rather, the opposite), with it referring to early examples of carbonated water. Later, as carbonation became a facet of manufacturing and the term became used for beverages, flavored carbonated beverages became known as soda pop, with the pop taking on the meaning of referring to the flavored elements within the soda.
Ergo, “soda pop”, being the only term to have distinct meaning to flavored carbonated beverages, would be the only correct term, as you indicate.
Soda, on the other hand, wins on historical primacy, but loses on the grounds of already having a distinct, slightly different utilization.
Pop never really had any meaning outside of beverage flavoring, and noone refers to the flavored ingredients themselves, ergo it becoming claimed for use as a shorthand for flavored beverage is completely meritous, and helps keep soda distinct in its own meaning. Likewise, since soda specifically refers to carbonated water (and the usage thereof), pop allows us to include non-carbonated flavored beverages under the label as well, without confusing our ability to reference carbonation at all.
Thus, under modern terminology, we’d have Soda->Carbonated Water, Pop->Flavored Beverage, and Soda Pop->Carbonated Flavored Beverage.
In short, pop is the “correct” term to use. Well, that or “soft drink”, which definitely wins out on how prevalent its use is by companies.
..I’ll still be using ‘soda’ myself, though. Alas for woes of habituation. :X
Long story short as I understand it, Patreon is massively hiking the individual fees for Patreon supporters (and pocketing the extra for themselves), which is forcing many to give up their pledges to many of their creators as a result of no longer being able to afford them.
random832
IIRC the latest info is that they’re not necessarily pocketing it for themselves (though, they’re probably pocketing a lot of it for themselves), they’re switching to billing individually for each pledge (which means a lot more fees than before that go to the credit card companies) rather than once a month – which for some people is even more annoying than the extra money itself.
Which essentially means that even if (and it’s clearly a big if – the fees they’re charging for $1 patrons are *huge* – by comparison, a vending machine I sometimes use only charges a 10 cent credit card fee for similar sized transactions) they’re not pocketing any of it for themselves, they’re completely destroying the economy of scale that gives them any competitive advantage over just using Paypal/Stripe/etc directly.
Roborat
I am a patreon supporter of several webcomics. Patreon got an earful from me about this blatant cash grab of theirs.
Doctor_Who
Patreon changed their policies so now the various processing fees are on the patrons, not the creators. 2.9% + $0.35 a pledge. So now a dollar pledge actually costs $1.38. They claimed this was a good thing because it used to be that the creators had to cover this stuff (on top of the 5% Patreon itself takes), so now they will get more money.
But they are ignoring the fact that A) this puts an unfair burden on patrons who support multiple patrons, as they get charged these fees for every creator they support, and B) This won’t affect bigger patrons as much, but many creators get the bulk of their contributions from many people who only give a dollar or so, who are likely strapped for cash, and thus are very adversely affected by the price going up by 38%.
The reaction has been universally negative. Got a ton of emails from creators today, and not one of them is happy.
Drip (Kickstarter’s version of Patreon) is in an invite-only beta now…should be opening up in the next month or two, the venture capital types who own Patreon right now are likely just trying to squeeze as much as they can out of it before everyone jumps ship.
Jason
That’s utterly stupid though. Patreon is well established and trusted- or was. All they had to do to ensure they had an edge over the competition was NOT FUCK UP. Maybe there’s something I don’t know that would make a decent amount of people jump ship? But this has turned it from having to keep up with competition to actively giving competition an advantage. It’s a ludicrous business decision that I can only assume was made by someone completely out of touch.
…But again I admit I don’t have all the information.
smparadox
That sounds like standard Capitalism, as it is usually practiced in the US of A. Unbelievably stupid and nigh-infinitely short-sighted. Just like with Climate Change, just like the current Lead Capitalist’s impulsive decision to declare Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital, despite the reasons this was never done before…
Inahc
yeah… *all* my pledges are $1, and I was planning to have over a dozen of them. now… well… it’d probably be about the same amount of fees if I sent each webcomic a $1.38 credit card payment.
CJ
As if my bank didn’t already charge me per pledge because they are separate transactions. I’d be much happier if I could pledge a lump sum once or twice a year, that would save transaction costs on both sides (also, I rather like deciding about money I already have than pledging future income I might not have).
Kryss LaBryn
What I thought would be really cool is if you could say, “Okay, I want to pay $XX into Patreon each month, and have it split equally between everyone I support.” And it would have a list of everyone that was, and how much that would come to each (Like, “You support 13 creators! They get $xx each!” and the list of who those thirteen were, sort of thing), and Patreon would take out the one payment and divvy it up for me. Ideally it would round the amount down to the nearest penny that could be divided that many ways, and the change would be carried over to next month’s total; but that’s a programming detail and irrelevant.
I’d love to support several different creators; but I also know my own limitations, and while I am perfectly capable of tracking “so much to Patreon each month,” if it was to each creator separately, even if it was being billed to me as one chunk, I know perfectly well that I would just be going, “Oh! I love this! Sure, let’s give you some money, too!” and end up nickel-and-dime-ing myself into (further) insolvency. :/ It’s the only reason I haven’t subscribed to it yet.
And now they’ve managed to completely remove any lingering incentive I might have felt to do so, and I’m so sorry to everyone whose work I get to enjoy for free without financially supporting it. 🙁
Tarmaniel
I’m still not sure I get it. If the issue is that Patreon doesn’t want to eat the cost of $0.35 transaction fees on $1 pledges, surely this solution is better than the alternative of just paying the creators $0.65 for each of the pledges instead. I’ve read some stuff about lumping transactions together, is Patreon not actually charged $0.35 per transaction by credit card companies and are just lying and claiming they are as a cash grab?
RacingTurtle
The pledges come out as a single charge in the current method. In other words, $1 each to 5 creators would be a single $5 credit card charge to the customer. It looks like maybe Patreon wants to disaggregate the pledges, though, and make it 5 payments of $1.38 each. They have their reasons, but it’s a mess. There’s some pretty good explanation/discussion going on on Jeph Jacques’ Twitter feed (twitter.com/jephjacques)
Tarmaniel
Yeah that makes more sense. I was thinking that the current status quo was either that creators were getting $0.65 for $1 pledges, and thus would have to lose 33% of their $1 tier patrons to actually lose money, or that Patreon just charged a flat % to everyone despite having a $0.35 fee per transaction, and thus was actually losing money on $1 pledges. If they can just run pledges to 10 different creators at once for one fee of $0.35, but then go and charge $0.35 ten times, that’s an enormous cash grab.
Inahc
I just read something that seemed to suggest they’re going to start doing separate charges for every pledge, which (if true) defeats most of the point of Patreon existing at all.
It’s supposed to be a platform where you can pay one monthly fee and gave the money split over several artists. Without that it’s just a way to get small bonuses for your contribution.
Also, it just occurred to me that they’re doing this to the creators right before *Christmas*. What a lovely gift – everyone needs more stress for the holidays right? :p
he gives patreon way too much credit imho, but if there’s regulatory issues discouraging the payment bundling, well, fuck. depending on how those regulations actually work, that could make it more expensive or just impossible to get payment bundling elsewhere. and payment bundling was the whole reason I signed up.
Inahc
oh, and since it’s easy to lose things on twitter, here’s the open letter that I think was mentioned here at some point: https://kav2k.github.io/patreon_letter/
Warren
If that’s *really* their motive, then why not just say it? If they’re being legally forced to change their payment structure, why would they willingly make themselves the scapegoats? All the BS they’re spouting makes it look like they’ve got something to hide.
Inahc
there’s a certain culture that strongly discourages such honesty. :/
BBCC
Also, most of the creators were fine with paying those fees because it’s what they signed up for. Patrons did not sign up to pay those fees. A lot of creators are losing their patrons.
Under the old structure, the creators got $.85 on each $1 pledge. Under the new one, they get $.95…which looks better when phrased like that. BUT.
Under the old structure, that $1 pledge was actually $1. Under the new structure, it’s $1.38. Meaning that:
a) The creator goes from getting 85% of the actual money pledged, to ~65%. (According to the chart Jeph posted, I have not done the math myself.) It’s not until $10 that the two versions start to even out.
b) A lot of patrons can no longer afford to support after this, and others are refusing to because they don’t want to pay more, without good reason. So, there are fewer dollars coming their way, so, for example, instead of getting, 85% of $100, they’re getting 95% of $80.
So, this is bad for both creators and patrons (and ultimately for Patreon).
Inahc
if I wasn’t sick I would be all over trying to hack together some kind of alternative. … although probably I’d discover mountains of red tape to drown in because moving money’s not nearly as simple as updating a database, but, it’d be fun to try. my brain already hurts just from trying to understand someone’s open letter about the issue 🙂
hopefully creators will find such an alternative (it probably already exists right?) and then loads of people can jump ship.. after christmas.
but since JJ says he’s lost several hundred patrons already, I’m a bit concerned that this is going to do a lot of damage regardless. :/
BBCC
Willis has already lost over a hundred bucks as well. It went from $5008 to $4898 in a couple of days.
David M Willis
it started at about $5050
but other folks have been hit harder so i don’t feel like i have room to tummyache
I’ve heard Joey Chestnut referred to as “Jaws”, which is pretty supervillainy – I mean a mean henchman in two Bond movies, and a killer shark movie series? I think pretty supervillainous a nickname.
Leorale
Isn’t that the guy who invented the electric potato, and the catgirl who plays video games
Wait I didn’t intend to be a buzzkill! I think your joke is quite funny. Except, you know, they kinda did that.
Anyway Joe asking Danny for tips on nerdspeak is in-character, because even though he plays video games like a total nerd, he does not, of course, consider himself to have any nerdy aspects. He might see video gaming to be more of a ‘bro’ thing. Which it is, sometimes, depending on the game. Mario games are nerdy though.
Wright
Nonono. Mario is mainstream. Almost won Game of the Year not too long ago.
Shin Megami Tensei and Persona are nerdy. EarthBound and the Mother series are nerdy. Phoenix Wright and Ghost Trick and Xenoblade and Undertale and Ogre Battle and Cave Story and Stardew Valley are nerdy. And awesome.
176 thoughts on “Heavy”
Yumi
Possible obscure theatre reference: One of my favorite spit take jokes is from the musical The Drowsy Chaperone, which is set up as if the audience is listening to the musical along with the narrator who’s playing it on his record player. At the time of the spit take the “record” starts to skip so that the spit take happens again and again and again.
I was on tech crew for the musical in high school, and I had a crush on the girl doing the spitting, which may have added to my overall high ranking of the scene.
Bickendan
I was a community ringer in the pit for one of the local high school’s production of the Drowsy Chaperone. That scene, ha! I also played alto clarinet on all the alto sax parts and it was great.
Sdrainbow
Dang, that takes some chops. Mad props.
WubbGmbaa
Sick drops?
Paradoxius
My little brother was in a production of that recently. The girl doing the spit-takes would always break during that scene and have to frantically work to keep spitting between laughs, and the boy getting spat on was somehow able to keep still as a statue throughout. Killed every night.
King Daniel
Your gravatar combined with your comment is making me read it in Iroh’s voice, and now I’m imagining Ozai in the situation you described.
Achallenger
Joke enhanced!
Keulen
Man I don’t even know how to do spittakes normally.
JessWitt
One doesn’t learn to spittake. It just happens naturally.
Trolldrool
Step 1) Grab a drink. Step 2) Watch a South Park marathon. Step 3) Get ready to do some shopping. Whether you’ve reacted with disgust or laughter, eventually you’ll find an episode that ruins your keyboard.
Mr. Random
Oh cool, I can make my vomit-take joke now.
HA that was more like a VOMIT-take…
No.
No, the moment passed.
King Daniel
Just like that pop passed out of his stomach, eh?
Arawn
Yeah, I bet that for all the work it’d done on that soda, his bladder would be pissed at losing it.
The Chosen One
It was a great visual gag while it lasted.
Oberon
The moment hasn’t passed. When you “spit-take” something you drank two hours ago, that is a vomit-take.
nothri
Oh okay. Thought comments were closed for unknown reasons. Neat.
Doctor_Who
I had two theories.
1) Some people were being right jackasses in the thread for yesterday’s strip, and Willis locked this one to play it safe until civility reigned again.
2) Danny describes his beverage as “pop”. The “soda” crowd were ready to descend upon this comments section like locusts to battle their ancient enemies, the “pop” people, and the Blood War would begin anew.
Jason
Did your theory involve people being jackasses or was that something that actually happened? Because yesterday’s strip didn’t exactly seem the type to get people all angry to me, but if they did I’m… kinda curious.
Although I feel like I shouldn’t be?
Doctor_Who
I didn’t see anyone causing trouble, but if it had happened, the comments could have been deleted.
hof1991
Schroedinger’s jackasses? Some kind of time traveler killing their grandfather event? Frye going back in time and boinking his grandmother? Non-recoverable history that may not have happened?
HeySo
Man, the Planescape setting completely glossed over that backstory.
Sunny
How about the two crowds spit the difference and we start calling the stuff “sop”?
Deathjavu
How can anyone get worked up over the sod vs pop debate when both terms come from, well, soda pop.
..oh right, humans are dumb
HeySo
Well, soda was the original term (so soda didn’t actually come from soda pop, but rather, the opposite), with it referring to early examples of carbonated water. Later, as carbonation became a facet of manufacturing and the term became used for beverages, flavored carbonated beverages became known as soda pop, with the pop taking on the meaning of referring to the flavored elements within the soda.
Ergo, “soda pop”, being the only term to have distinct meaning to flavored carbonated beverages, would be the only correct term, as you indicate.
Soda, on the other hand, wins on historical primacy, but loses on the grounds of already having a distinct, slightly different utilization.
Pop never really had any meaning outside of beverage flavoring, and noone refers to the flavored ingredients themselves, ergo it becoming claimed for use as a shorthand for flavored beverage is completely meritous, and helps keep soda distinct in its own meaning. Likewise, since soda specifically refers to carbonated water (and the usage thereof), pop allows us to include non-carbonated flavored beverages under the label as well, without confusing our ability to reference carbonation at all.
Thus, under modern terminology, we’d have Soda->Carbonated Water, Pop->Flavored Beverage, and Soda Pop->Carbonated Flavored Beverage.
In short, pop is the “correct” term to use. Well, that or “soft drink”, which definitely wins out on how prevalent its use is by companies.
..I’ll still be using ‘soda’ myself, though. Alas for woes of habituation. :X
Keulen
Had me kinda worried that some shit had happened for a while there with the comments closed.
Dean
I’d wondered whether Willis had gotten so enraged at the Patreon situation that he’d decided to take it all down with him, Viking funeral style.
Badgermole
What Patreon situation?
King Daniel
Long story short as I understand it, Patreon is massively hiking the individual fees for Patreon supporters (and pocketing the extra for themselves), which is forcing many to give up their pledges to many of their creators as a result of no longer being able to afford them.
random832
IIRC the latest info is that they’re not necessarily pocketing it for themselves (though, they’re probably pocketing a lot of it for themselves), they’re switching to billing individually for each pledge (which means a lot more fees than before that go to the credit card companies) rather than once a month – which for some people is even more annoying than the extra money itself.
Which essentially means that even if (and it’s clearly a big if – the fees they’re charging for $1 patrons are *huge* – by comparison, a vending machine I sometimes use only charges a 10 cent credit card fee for similar sized transactions) they’re not pocketing any of it for themselves, they’re completely destroying the economy of scale that gives them any competitive advantage over just using Paypal/Stripe/etc directly.
Roborat
I am a patreon supporter of several webcomics. Patreon got an earful from me about this blatant cash grab of theirs.
Doctor_Who
Patreon changed their policies so now the various processing fees are on the patrons, not the creators. 2.9% + $0.35 a pledge. So now a dollar pledge actually costs $1.38. They claimed this was a good thing because it used to be that the creators had to cover this stuff (on top of the 5% Patreon itself takes), so now they will get more money.
But they are ignoring the fact that A) this puts an unfair burden on patrons who support multiple patrons, as they get charged these fees for every creator they support, and B) This won’t affect bigger patrons as much, but many creators get the bulk of their contributions from many people who only give a dollar or so, who are likely strapped for cash, and thus are very adversely affected by the price going up by 38%.
The reaction has been universally negative. Got a ton of emails from creators today, and not one of them is happy.
Skoyatt
Maybe people should switch to Tipeee.
buckybone
Drip (Kickstarter’s version of Patreon) is in an invite-only beta now…should be opening up in the next month or two, the venture capital types who own Patreon right now are likely just trying to squeeze as much as they can out of it before everyone jumps ship.
Jason
That’s utterly stupid though. Patreon is well established and trusted- or was. All they had to do to ensure they had an edge over the competition was NOT FUCK UP. Maybe there’s something I don’t know that would make a decent amount of people jump ship? But this has turned it from having to keep up with competition to actively giving competition an advantage. It’s a ludicrous business decision that I can only assume was made by someone completely out of touch.
…But again I admit I don’t have all the information.
smparadox
That sounds like standard Capitalism, as it is usually practiced in the US of A. Unbelievably stupid and nigh-infinitely short-sighted. Just like with Climate Change, just like the current Lead Capitalist’s impulsive decision to declare Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital, despite the reasons this was never done before…
Inahc
yeah… *all* my pledges are $1, and I was planning to have over a dozen of them. now… well… it’d probably be about the same amount of fees if I sent each webcomic a $1.38 credit card payment.
CJ
As if my bank didn’t already charge me per pledge because they are separate transactions. I’d be much happier if I could pledge a lump sum once or twice a year, that would save transaction costs on both sides (also, I rather like deciding about money I already have than pledging future income I might not have).
Kryss LaBryn
What I thought would be really cool is if you could say, “Okay, I want to pay $XX into Patreon each month, and have it split equally between everyone I support.” And it would have a list of everyone that was, and how much that would come to each (Like, “You support 13 creators! They get $xx each!” and the list of who those thirteen were, sort of thing), and Patreon would take out the one payment and divvy it up for me. Ideally it would round the amount down to the nearest penny that could be divided that many ways, and the change would be carried over to next month’s total; but that’s a programming detail and irrelevant.
I’d love to support several different creators; but I also know my own limitations, and while I am perfectly capable of tracking “so much to Patreon each month,” if it was to each creator separately, even if it was being billed to me as one chunk, I know perfectly well that I would just be going, “Oh! I love this! Sure, let’s give you some money, too!” and end up nickel-and-dime-ing myself into (further) insolvency. :/ It’s the only reason I haven’t subscribed to it yet.
And now they’ve managed to completely remove any lingering incentive I might have felt to do so, and I’m so sorry to everyone whose work I get to enjoy for free without financially supporting it. 🙁
Tarmaniel
I’m still not sure I get it. If the issue is that Patreon doesn’t want to eat the cost of $0.35 transaction fees on $1 pledges, surely this solution is better than the alternative of just paying the creators $0.65 for each of the pledges instead. I’ve read some stuff about lumping transactions together, is Patreon not actually charged $0.35 per transaction by credit card companies and are just lying and claiming they are as a cash grab?
RacingTurtle
The pledges come out as a single charge in the current method. In other words, $1 each to 5 creators would be a single $5 credit card charge to the customer. It looks like maybe Patreon wants to disaggregate the pledges, though, and make it 5 payments of $1.38 each. They have their reasons, but it’s a mess. There’s some pretty good explanation/discussion going on on Jeph Jacques’ Twitter feed (twitter.com/jephjacques)
Tarmaniel
Yeah that makes more sense. I was thinking that the current status quo was either that creators were getting $0.65 for $1 pledges, and thus would have to lose 33% of their $1 tier patrons to actually lose money, or that Patreon just charged a flat % to everyone despite having a $0.35 fee per transaction, and thus was actually losing money on $1 pledges. If they can just run pledges to 10 different creators at once for one fee of $0.35, but then go and charge $0.35 ten times, that’s an enormous cash grab.
Inahc
I just read something that seemed to suggest they’re going to start doing separate charges for every pledge, which (if true) defeats most of the point of Patreon existing at all.
It’s supposed to be a platform where you can pay one monthly fee and gave the money split over several artists. Without that it’s just a way to get small bonuses for your contribution.
Also, it just occurred to me that they’re doing this to the creators right before *Christmas*. What a lovely gift – everyone needs more stress for the holidays right? :p
Inahc
well shit. someone found a plausible explanation for this madness. https://subfictional.com/my-theory-patreon-doesnt-want-to-be-a-money-services-business/
he gives patreon way too much credit imho, but if there’s regulatory issues discouraging the payment bundling, well, fuck. depending on how those regulations actually work, that could make it more expensive or just impossible to get payment bundling elsewhere. and payment bundling was the whole reason I signed up.
Inahc
oh, and since it’s easy to lose things on twitter, here’s the open letter that I think was mentioned here at some point: https://kav2k.github.io/patreon_letter/
Warren
If that’s *really* their motive, then why not just say it? If they’re being legally forced to change their payment structure, why would they willingly make themselves the scapegoats? All the BS they’re spouting makes it look like they’ve got something to hide.
Inahc
there’s a certain culture that strongly discourages such honesty. :/
BBCC
Also, most of the creators were fine with paying those fees because it’s what they signed up for. Patrons did not sign up to pay those fees. A lot of creators are losing their patrons.
Kamino Neko
Under the old structure, the creators got $.85 on each $1 pledge. Under the new one, they get $.95…which looks better when phrased like that. BUT.
Under the old structure, that $1 pledge was actually $1. Under the new structure, it’s $1.38. Meaning that:
a) The creator goes from getting 85% of the actual money pledged, to ~65%. (According to the chart Jeph posted, I have not done the math myself.) It’s not until $10 that the two versions start to even out.
b) A lot of patrons can no longer afford to support after this, and others are refusing to because they don’t want to pay more, without good reason. So, there are fewer dollars coming their way, so, for example, instead of getting, 85% of $100, they’re getting 95% of $80.
So, this is bad for both creators and patrons (and ultimately for Patreon).
Inahc
if I wasn’t sick I would be all over trying to hack together some kind of alternative. … although probably I’d discover mountains of red tape to drown in because moving money’s not nearly as simple as updating a database, but, it’d be fun to try. my brain already hurts just from trying to understand someone’s open letter about the issue 🙂
hopefully creators will find such an alternative (it probably already exists right?) and then loads of people can jump ship.. after christmas.
but since JJ says he’s lost several hundred patrons already, I’m a bit concerned that this is going to do a lot of damage regardless. :/
BBCC
Willis has already lost over a hundred bucks as well. It went from $5008 to $4898 in a couple of days.
David M Willis
it started at about $5050
but other folks have been hit harder so i don’t feel like i have room to tummyache
motorfirebox
The rarely-seen time-reverse spittake!
Reltzik
It’s been unpopular ever since Bush Sr, but it seems to be coming up again in the polls.
tim gueguen
Danny discovers his superpower, and becomes Amazi-girl’s new sidekick, Regurgitator Boy.
Wright
You just can’t keep The Regurgitator down.
MatthewTheLucky
The World is his Nemesis!
Marsh Maryrose
Actually, Sonya “The Black Widow” Thomas is his nemesis. Or maybe Joey Chestnut or Takeru Kobayashi, but those two don’t have supervillain nicknames.
But anyway, the nemesis of a regurgitator just has to be a gurgitator. Duh.
MatthewTheLucky
I think you mean DEgurgitator.
MatthewTheLucky
Or maybe not, it’s a weird word.
Mephron
I’ve heard Joey Chestnut referred to as “Jaws”, which is pretty supervillainy – I mean a mean henchman in two Bond movies, and a killer shark movie series? I think pretty supervillainous a nickname.
Leorale
Isn’t that the guy who invented the electric potato, and the catgirl who plays video games
Wright
*ominous thunderclap*
ValdVin
Don’t you mean “ominous rumble”?
Marsh Maryrose
Justice always comes back up!
K^2
Zero calories, twice the justice!
Deanatay
This adds a whole new meaning to the term ‘comeuppance’.
Greylurker
I’d go with Lad. Regurgitator Lad rolls off the tongue better
Roborat
I like: The Spew!
Bagge
“So I need you to teach me how to speak to nerds.”
“Joe, you have to start playing Mario Cart.”
Pl0x
Well they were playing some Mario game (probably Mario Odyssey?) on the Switch the other day.
Pl0x
Wait I didn’t intend to be a buzzkill! I think your joke is quite funny. Except, you know, they kinda did that.
Anyway Joe asking Danny for tips on nerdspeak is in-character, because even though he plays video games like a total nerd, he does not, of course, consider himself to have any nerdy aspects. He might see video gaming to be more of a ‘bro’ thing. Which it is, sometimes, depending on the game. Mario games are nerdy though.
Wright
Nonono. Mario is mainstream. Almost won Game of the Year not too long ago.
Shin Megami Tensei and Persona are nerdy. EarthBound and the Mother series are nerdy. Phoenix Wright and Ghost Trick and Xenoblade and Undertale and Ogre Battle and Cave Story and Stardew Valley are nerdy. And awesome.
Mario just got his own friggin’ breakfast cereal.