is them being there an issue? other than becky coming to their table and eavesdropping but she more or less wouldn’t care. or even like “you should get back with walky yourself so you’d be too busy to spend time with joyce” lol
probably not. The walls, glasses/cups, and lights are all different. unrelated, the lamp moves a little in panel 4 today, but is back in it’s original position in panel 5. I bet they’re being eavesdropped on. or its haunted.
For a moment I thought you were talking about giving her some of that psychic explosive that goes off if you think at it the right way, but that’s spelt PyrE.
If Suet didn’t mean selfish, I mean it. Dorothy has never had a problem doing the thing that served her purposes, she has always had a problem with recognizing that’s what she was doing. She thinks she’s doing things for other people.
She wants someone to think she can solve their problems for them. Whether or not Walky and Lucy get back together isn’t for her to decide or orchestrate. If it’s something that Walky and Lucy decide to try, then it’s up to them to do it. Dorothy’s not the “team mom”.
Jeremiah
I do think Dorothy genuinely want to be helpful and make things better for others, the issue being that she made that part of her entire sense of self, so she doesn’t really know what to do with herself when she is struggling so much mentally that isn’t trying to help, wherever or not she knows how to effectively do that at the moment.
StClair
Agreed.
IMO, Dorothy defines herself entirely by her present or future utility to others, and very much needs to figure out who she is if/when she isn’t either solving someone’s problems, or working to put herself in a position to solve more people’s problems. I have a terrible suspicion that if you were somehow able to compel an answer from her, ala magic lasso or similar, it would be “no one/nothing.”
Chubsius
I like that analysis. I agree, Dorothy doesn’t think she’s good/worthwhile unless she’s useful.
HueSatLight
Her kind of being helpful to others is to decide to make their decisions for them. It’s how she likes to see herself, as knowing what’s best for other people, even better than they know themselves, every time.
She often doesn’t ask if someone needs help, or what she can do to help. She makes someone her project to manage. It’s not the worst character flaw, but its not great, especially for people who overestimate her competence. And it’s lead to a dynamic between her and Joyce, and her and Walky, that they’re having trouble breaking.
Mark
Or perhaps she cares about Walky and wants him to be happy, and if she can’t be The One so be it. Only, when she tries to think in this space, she has terrible ideas.
Also, maybe it’s just me, but it seems like Lucy and Walky might grow more from this by *not* getting back together. Specifically in ways that are better for them.
Dotty no. Hilariously, this is the first time in this arc I’ve felt the need to say that, but like girl, really…. Learn something, don’t just repeat the same mistakes, you know?
Makes sense, at least in Dorothy’s case; Attempting to repair hopelessly broken structures that really ought to be put out of their misery outright is pretty much Democratic Politics 101.
At least she seems to be de-stressed enough to be more self-aware about her intentions. Honestly, I hope Walky tells her he needs to work it out himself because he really does. He seems thoughtful enough at the moment to see how having Dotty involved in more “shenanigans” might be bad in this case.
Want to bet that Dorothy’s 7 part plan to end World Poverty has no proviso for one of the two political parties wanting to block her because it would feed poor people?
One wants to block it, the other doesn’t want to *do* it. There’s kind of a paucity of actually people and public good parties in the US. And Canada isn’t too far behind.
Not an American, but i can’t help wondering sometimes if it’s all intentional: the Democrats can draft bills to do good things the government don’t actually want to pay for, and the Republicans helpfully block it so they don’t have to go through with it, and the Republicans blame the Democrats for the problems they themselves are ensuring continue (and are sometimes adding to), confident that their voters will never doublecheck (other than, of course, those who prefer the poor unhelped)…
…and, due to the people believing the Republican claims, along with the flawed US electoral system, the Democrats don’t need to actually be good; they merely need to appear less evil than their opponents. And so both parties remain in a stable system of their own design.
But maybe I’m being too cynical? Then again, I’m not sure it makes a difference whether the results are intentional or if it just worked out that way.
deliverything
On second thought: David Willis, please feel free to delete the above comment (and this one) if you think it might lead to arguments or whatever. I’m not in a good headspace to judge right now.
Still, at least the Malaya avatar seems fitting for my current negativity.
eh, whatever
To be intentional, it’d need to be a conspiracy with way too many members. No, it’s an outcome of the Founders being in total denial about parties.
deliverything
Well, Washington apparently was opposed to political parties, and is quoted as saying “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I really only came back to say, though, that conspiracy theory or not, it wasn’t meant as one of those “both sides” things. Even if the Democrats aren’t good, per se, they at least seem less bad in practice. Maybe America can work toward a better way somehow, but that can be done while simultaneously voting blue as long as there are no better options.
thejeff
The Founding Fathers were all generally opposed to political parties, but they then created a system that inevitably led to their rise. Most of them split off into factions within the first few election cycles – because it works.
Clif
Very much this.
A lot of the bad effects could be mitigated with instant runoff preferential voting so that you wouldn’t be “wasting your vote” by voting first for what you actually prefer, but it would weaken the existing dominant political parties and so it will never actually happen.
thejeff
Some of the bad effects. I honestly doubt it would have much effect really.
It would mitigate the spoiler effects, which would be good, but it wouldn’t lead to an overthrow of the basic two party system.
Major parties might have to shift positions a little more to accommodate more voters?
Mark
Thing is: the model that you offer here is, from the outside, indistinguishable from both sides being sincere. So the only thing to do is “try stuff until something works, and then you’ll know which was true.”
Thanks for the Washington quote, BTW. I’ve been aware of his position in a general way for years, but it’s good to have the full thought before me.
thejeff
This model also has the disadvantage of assuming the group that is really just blatantly obviously evil is really no worse than the other side, so if the model isn’t correct, things get really bad.
Clif
Mark, it’s possible to be completely sincere and still be very much evil.
spriteless aunty
I don’t think it’s on purpose, but it is stable.
thejeff
If we’d stop reacting to Democrats not fixing everything in the first 2 years after a disastrous Republican term by re-electing Republicans, maybe we could actually make some progress.
She’d capitulate on everything and send them the exact bill they’ve spent years screaming for, only for said bill to die because passing it would make her look good. (And if it passes, they lose one of their scapegoats. If it doesn’t pass, they can blame her for not doing anything about the problem the bill supposedly addresses.)
That’s absurd. Surely, even if a party was manipulative enough to try something like that, their voters would recognize the ploy and reject them for it?
C.T. Phipps
I mean, that’s crazier than all the power hungry jerks rallying behind one single incompetent sociopath.
Mark
Happening in the US Congress right now, and they even talk about it out loud.
thejeff
Such fools. Surely their voters will see what they’re doing and reject them?
feels worse than wacky hijinks. 1. Dorothy’s full of shit sometimes. like now. 2. Lucy’s going to start to get the right idea. https://www.dumbingofage.com/preface-2/
actually, I change my mind. Lucy’s obnoxious, but she’s better than this situation and needs to see it. And Dorothy still hasn’t figured out she doesn’t know what’s best for everyone to do. I hope Lucy is frank with her.
And that’s going to be a big problem, how is Lucy going to do it the way she tells him?
The truth is that if he dares to confront her abruptly, it would be the most shameless thing Lucy could do.
Yeah, that’s a pretty big thing, Lucy’s already seen Walky didn’t seek her out of his own will, and now his ex is saying “No, you have to take him back and here’s why (1. So I don’t jump him myself because I’m starved for something that makes me feel I have control of my life)”?
Lucy would be completely justified in telling them both to buzz off
243 thoughts on “7-part plan”
NGPZ
Why am I not surprised Dotty 😮
True Survivor
I would love to get a look at Dorothy’s google drive folders.
Also, this is embarrassing, but I only just now realized your avatar is Pikachu wearing Ash’s hat and not, in fact, a fez.
NGPZ
Interesante. What made you thought that?
Fez’s are more a Doctor Who thing than Pikachu thing, honestly.
Jeremiah
If you don’t look too closely and only catch the red part, it does look one.
Proxiehunter
Picachu wears Ash’s hat now. Ash’s hat is cool.
Adept
nicely done Proxiehunter
Kazuma Taichi
you jinxed it
anon
lol i’d watch that rom com movie lol
NGPZ
Seems Dumbing of Age is becoming like an Ecchi manga faster than I thought 😮
Decidedly Orthogonal
I love coming together with a plan.
Needfuldoer
Calm down, Hannibal.
brionl
“To whom it may concern, in re ‘Dat Ass!”
RassilonTDavros
I really needed a laugh right now.
Thank you.
RassilonTDavros
R.I.P. Akira Toriyama
1955 — 2024
Lars
Now he can golf with the Northern Kaio.
CC
… Oh please tell me they’re not at Galasso’s.
CC
“hey it’s been a while since I’ve posted, I wonder if I’ll get a new ava- GOD. DAMNIT.”
Decidedly Orthogonal
There’s an article about Grav Roulette on the Walkypedia.
https://walkypedia.fandom.com/wiki/Grav_Roulette
anon
is them being there an issue? other than becky coming to their table and eavesdropping but she more or less wouldn’t care. or even like “you should get back with walky yourself so you’d be too busy to spend time with joyce” lol
HueSatLight
probably not. The walls, glasses/cups, and lights are all different. unrelated, the lamp moves a little in panel 4 today, but is back in it’s original position in panel 5. I bet they’re being eavesdropped on. or its haunted.
Schpoonman
Someone put Dorothy on Pyre or something else low pressure she can successfully accomplish.
GLaDOS
For a moment I thought you were talking about giving her some of that psychic explosive that goes off if you think at it the right way, but that’s spelt PyrE.
NickG
Raidah I kill you deadly.
Ana Chronistic
Unpacking!
Suet
Classic Dorothy, ever the agent (of chaos)
Guess this is her brand of selfish true and true, and not acting on any hots for him
True Survivor
Did you mean “selfless through and through” or am I not getting something?
HueSatLight
If Suet didn’t mean selfish, I mean it. Dorothy has never had a problem doing the thing that served her purposes, she has always had a problem with recognizing that’s what she was doing. She thinks she’s doing things for other people.
She wants someone to think she can solve their problems for them. Whether or not Walky and Lucy get back together isn’t for her to decide or orchestrate. If it’s something that Walky and Lucy decide to try, then it’s up to them to do it. Dorothy’s not the “team mom”.
Jeremiah
I do think Dorothy genuinely want to be helpful and make things better for others, the issue being that she made that part of her entire sense of self, so she doesn’t really know what to do with herself when she is struggling so much mentally that isn’t trying to help, wherever or not she knows how to effectively do that at the moment.
StClair
Agreed.
IMO, Dorothy defines herself entirely by her present or future utility to others, and very much needs to figure out who she is if/when she isn’t either solving someone’s problems, or working to put herself in a position to solve more people’s problems. I have a terrible suspicion that if you were somehow able to compel an answer from her, ala magic lasso or similar, it would be “no one/nothing.”
Chubsius
I like that analysis. I agree, Dorothy doesn’t think she’s good/worthwhile unless she’s useful.
HueSatLight
Her kind of being helpful to others is to decide to make their decisions for them. It’s how she likes to see herself, as knowing what’s best for other people, even better than they know themselves, every time.
She often doesn’t ask if someone needs help, or what she can do to help. She makes someone her project to manage. It’s not the worst character flaw, but its not great, especially for people who overestimate her competence. And it’s lead to a dynamic between her and Joyce, and her and Walky, that they’re having trouble breaking.
Mark
Or perhaps she cares about Walky and wants him to be happy, and if she can’t be The One so be it. Only, when she tries to think in this space, she has terrible ideas.
Decidedly Orthogonal
Also, maybe it’s just me, but it seems like Lucy and Walky might grow more from this by *not* getting back together. Specifically in ways that are better for them.
Vanessa
Agree. They should both move on.
Steelbright
Dotty no. Hilariously, this is the first time in this arc I’ve felt the need to say that, but like girl, really…. Learn something, don’t just repeat the same mistakes, you know?
Nono
A hypnotic butt sounds like a very specific superpower.
Animedingo
Dorothy no
Bad dorothy
Vanessa
Down Dorothy
Charles Phipps
Lucy and Dorothy have a weird habit of trying to repair relationships that need to die.
RassilonTDavros
Makes sense, at least in Dorothy’s case; Attempting to repair hopelessly broken structures that really ought to be put out of their misery outright is pretty much Democratic Politics 101.
Anon A Mouse
At least she seems to be de-stressed enough to be more self-aware about her intentions. Honestly, I hope Walky tells her he needs to work it out himself because he really does. He seems thoughtful enough at the moment to see how having Dotty involved in more “shenanigans” might be bad in this case.
Vanessa
Maybe he and Dotty could pretend to date…. Haha I sure hope not.
Sirksome
He actually wants to get back with Lucy? Yikes.
cbwroses
Remember that he never wanted to end it with Lucy.
He’s also only MOSTLY sure it’s over.
Charles Phipps
Want to bet that Dorothy’s 7 part plan to end World Poverty has no proviso for one of the two political parties wanting to block her because it would feed poor people?
Dot: But…why would you stop good at no cost?
Senator Toedad Brother: BWhahahahahahaha!
Decidedly Orthogonal
One wants to block it, the other doesn’t want to *do* it. There’s kind of a paucity of actually people and public good parties in the US. And Canada isn’t too far behind.
deliverything
Not an American, but i can’t help wondering sometimes if it’s all intentional: the Democrats can draft bills to do good things the government don’t actually want to pay for, and the Republicans helpfully block it so they don’t have to go through with it, and the Republicans blame the Democrats for the problems they themselves are ensuring continue (and are sometimes adding to), confident that their voters will never doublecheck (other than, of course, those who prefer the poor unhelped)…
…and, due to the people believing the Republican claims, along with the flawed US electoral system, the Democrats don’t need to actually be good; they merely need to appear less evil than their opponents. And so both parties remain in a stable system of their own design.
But maybe I’m being too cynical? Then again, I’m not sure it makes a difference whether the results are intentional or if it just worked out that way.
deliverything
On second thought: David Willis, please feel free to delete the above comment (and this one) if you think it might lead to arguments or whatever. I’m not in a good headspace to judge right now.
Still, at least the Malaya avatar seems fitting for my current negativity.
eh, whatever
To be intentional, it’d need to be a conspiracy with way too many members. No, it’s an outcome of the Founders being in total denial about parties.
deliverything
Well, Washington apparently was opposed to political parties, and is quoted as saying “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I really only came back to say, though, that conspiracy theory or not, it wasn’t meant as one of those “both sides” things. Even if the Democrats aren’t good, per se, they at least seem less bad in practice. Maybe America can work toward a better way somehow, but that can be done while simultaneously voting blue as long as there are no better options.
thejeff
The Founding Fathers were all generally opposed to political parties, but they then created a system that inevitably led to their rise. Most of them split off into factions within the first few election cycles – because it works.
Clif
Very much this.
A lot of the bad effects could be mitigated with instant runoff preferential voting so that you wouldn’t be “wasting your vote” by voting first for what you actually prefer, but it would weaken the existing dominant political parties and so it will never actually happen.
thejeff
Some of the bad effects. I honestly doubt it would have much effect really.
It would mitigate the spoiler effects, which would be good, but it wouldn’t lead to an overthrow of the basic two party system.
Major parties might have to shift positions a little more to accommodate more voters?
Mark
Thing is: the model that you offer here is, from the outside, indistinguishable from both sides being sincere. So the only thing to do is “try stuff until something works, and then you’ll know which was true.”
Thanks for the Washington quote, BTW. I’ve been aware of his position in a general way for years, but it’s good to have the full thought before me.
thejeff
This model also has the disadvantage of assuming the group that is really just blatantly obviously evil is really no worse than the other side, so if the model isn’t correct, things get really bad.
Clif
Mark, it’s possible to be completely sincere and still be very much evil.
spriteless aunty
I don’t think it’s on purpose, but it is stable.
thejeff
If we’d stop reacting to Democrats not fixing everything in the first 2 years after a disastrous Republican term by re-electing Republicans, maybe we could actually make some progress.
Mark
+1
Needfuldoer
She’d capitulate on everything and send them the exact bill they’ve spent years screaming for, only for said bill to die because passing it would make her look good. (And if it passes, they lose one of their scapegoats. If it doesn’t pass, they can blame her for not doing anything about the problem the bill supposedly addresses.)
thejeff
That’s absurd. Surely, even if a party was manipulative enough to try something like that, their voters would recognize the ploy and reject them for it?
C.T. Phipps
I mean, that’s crazier than all the power hungry jerks rallying behind one single incompetent sociopath.
Mark
Happening in the US Congress right now, and they even talk about it out loud.
thejeff
Such fools. Surely their voters will see what they’re doing and reject them?
HueSatLight
feels worse than wacky hijinks. 1. Dorothy’s full of shit sometimes. like now. 2. Lucy’s going to start to get the right idea. https://www.dumbingofage.com/preface-2/
actually, I change my mind. Lucy’s obnoxious, but she’s better than this situation and needs to see it. And Dorothy still hasn’t figured out she doesn’t know what’s best for everyone to do. I hope Lucy is frank with her.
Coatl
And that’s going to be a big problem, how is Lucy going to do it the way she tells him?
The truth is that if he dares to confront her abruptly, it would be the most shameless thing Lucy could do.
Coatl
*if she dares.
Samniel
Yeah, that’s a pretty big thing, Lucy’s already seen Walky didn’t seek her out of his own will, and now his ex is saying “No, you have to take him back and here’s why (1. So I don’t jump him myself because I’m starved for something that makes me feel I have control of my life)”?
Lucy would be completely justified in telling them both to buzz off
Clif
But are you underestimating the persuasive power of Walky’s butt?
deliverything
It might certainly offer a convincing rebuttal.
spriteless aunty
Should she look asskance to see it.