I give it about 20 posts max before it devolves into /pol/ discussion.
Then again, I'm reading along you guys, so maybe not.
Nice to see Zeb Colter got some work.
The comic gets shit done and the story is self-contained. It's also not afraid to portray rich business owners like Mr. Slate and Crod as just ordinary people with flaws like everyone else.
I don't really like this resolution because it didn't resolve the initial conflict
When you're at the top, it's easy to see the value of everyone getting only what they "deserve".
Slate only found that was wrong after he was no longer at the top.
But what if he really was at the top the entire time? Then he'd keep on being a bastard forever? Some people really are on top all the time, so does that excuse their actions?
Now I read those two with the voices of Reginald and Beartato
why must the good die young
well I can always hope for oneshots in the future.
>But what if he really was at the top the entire time? Then he'd keep on being a bastard forever?
Just like real life.
Do you not like realistic resolutions? Should have America Chavez time traveled to punch out Mr. Slate in a Communist takeover of the quarry, and then opened their borders to the sinister tree people?
I just didn't like how honest and true Slate's confession was
It was too on the nose.
It'd have been better if it subverted itself again at the end
Like, the lesson he learned wasn't that everyone has weakness relative to someone else, but rather "We gotta fuck the guys above us because they're inhuman monsters"
Then Slate tries to recruit Fred in toppling Clod
And the moral of the story is: always remember to unionize, so that your boss doesn't have to go through a self-humiliating journey of discovery involving an eagle and a dishonest dating partner.
She was indeed being dishonest, but dishonesty is celebrated in Vorpianism, provided that you've personally benefited from said dishonesty (bonus points if you've inconvenienced or harmed someone weaker than you in the process).
>I agree in part. But when we have garbage like Gwenpool continue, while Flintstones is ending, it's pissing me off.
It's better that Flintstones be short and sweet, and loved for as long as people continue to read comics, rather than wither and rot in its old age like The Simpsons.
Gwenpool isn't that bad but she's worse on every other book. Plus I'm pretty sure she'll be Marvel-cancelled like every other Marvel book and be relaunched every year and a half with a #1.
12 issues is actually probably about right for a comic like this. Get your jabs in, tell some good jokes, give some satire on plenty of issues while you can, but don't over stay your welcome. 6 issues is a little too short, see Russell's run on Prez which could have used a second Arc. But I don't know if I'd stick with it for 24 or 36 issues. The joke (and this is very much a one joke premise, all the little things like the Homo Habowlis sign are all the same joke) would get old.
>Slate fires workers
>New workers work at half the speed according to him but at half the price
>Even if this means that he can hire twice the workers at the old price they would still only be producing the same amount of product as the old workers
>Somehow this results in increased profits
If anything his profit margin should have remained the same unless the new workers really are better than Fred and Him said.
>see Russell's run on Prez which could have used a second Arc.
Oh for fucks sake why did you have to remind me of that. I loved that book, even if it was just a comic version of Idiocracy.
We're getting Jetsons in its place, though, and that could turn out great, too, so I'd say this is for the better. Flintstones have a satisfying ending and we get a spiritual successor.
Have you ever noticed how bizarre it is that the media generally always depicts the rich as hating the poor and doing everything in their power to hurt them when in reality the rich are the same people perpetuating this myth while also being the biggest supporters of charity literally cannot stop tripping over themselves to say positive things about the less fortunate.
After a while the trope just starts looking like self deprecation.
His position never really changed, though. He just found out there was someone even higher above him, and experienced essentially what he himself did to his workers. He realized that if he has the attitude that everyone can be replaced, that means everyone's replaceable, including him. Because there's always someone more rich and powerful than you.
>the media generally always depicts the rich as hating the poor and doing everything in their power to hurt them
Gez I wonder what could have given them that idea
I forgot it was the same guy until I was looking for the date the trade was coming out on Amazon, but it's really not that surprising. This and Prez have a lot in common as far as political satire and in panel background jokes.
Because it's what people want to hear, simple as that
It doesn't matter what the rich really believe.
You don't get rich by being honest.
If you tell people what they want to hear, you can do anything. Even be voted into the Oval Office
Charities are for tax deductions and everyone in the public eye wants to look like they care, do you think their charitable donations are even a fraction of their net gross? It seems more like they know they can't be stopped, and any negative depiction the public cooks up just makes them seem silly, shallow and opportunistically greedy. It's easier to rip someone off if they think you're foolish
The media are the rich though.
The whole idea of the evil rich person spitting on the poor is a story told by the rich to the poor to villainize the rich, shit makes no sense.
That comic was probably drawn by somebody that was quite wealthy.
>do you think their charitable donations are even a fraction of their net gross?
Do they have to be?
Also didn't Bill Gates donate his entire income for a couple of years to charity?
Also if charity can only be a facaade why be upset if someone doesn't donate to it?
Wouldn't this make a rich person that doesn't donate to charity more honest by comparison?
I just don't see how this is a game where anyone doesn't end up the bad guy.
Honesty has nothing to do with murder.
If you want to know what lies Oprah has told, a quick google will give you hundreds of fucking news stories in hundreds of different publications over the past few decades.
Christ, just look up the details of that whole "YOU GET A CAR" thing. She fucking ruined those people with that stunt.
It's even detailed in her god damned biography!
Where is the /pol/?
I have seen no demands of "gas the kikes race war now" or "remove kebab" what do you have your panties in a twist over?
That people are discussing politics that were in the comic storytimed in other words you are upset that there is related discussion of a comic on a comics board?
>The whole idea of the evil rich person spitting on the poor is a story told by the rich to the poor to villainize the rich
Now you're understanding why communists call their footsoldiers "useful idiots."
Class consciousness is a high-class construct that the rich dangle in front of the poor in order to trick them in to doing their bidding.
(That's not to say that some leaders don't preach a "classless" society for the same reason....)
I've never cared for The Jetsons all that much.
I mean Flintstones was always meant to be a spoof on modern times so it was always full of material or characters.
But Jetsons was just future antics, so it was just "crazy technology" "pushing a button is hard work" kinda jokes that I felt got tired way faster.
>Bill Gates and Keanu Reeves
Because doesn't Elon Musk and Steve Jobs (when he was alive) and like a million other millionaire done the same thing?
Honestly I have a harder time thinking of a stereotypical miserly greedy poor hating wealthy person.
Gates gave away pretty much everything except for a relatively small starting seed for his kids, and Reeves just gives his paychecks away since he's pretty much set to live comfortably for the next couple centuries.
>If anything his profit margin should have remained the same unless the new workers really are better than Fred and Him said.
Stock value is based on how good the stock traders think your company is doing, not how your company is actually doing.
Slate cut back on expenses, which makes his company look more successful, thereby increasing stock value. The fact that he also cut profits in half will not matter until they report it (at the next fiscal year probably).
Steve Jobs donated 0 money to charity throughout his lifetime, and there are numerous anecdotes of him abusing his wealth, my favourites are when he denied parenthood claiming he was sterile and when he bought a new car every few months just so he can drive it around without a license plate (there was a law saying that new cars have x months to get a new license plate, so he bought a new car whenever the limit was up).
Maybe workers keep dying and there's no health plan. So he hires more workers without having to pay them because they're dead and replaceable.
Remember a couple issues so when the guy got trapped and Fred stopped work to save him?
There's a few very charitable types, but there have been several studies just dedicated to comparing the charity within different income brackets.
It typically follows the trend that richer people give more in raw monetary value. However, they give less money in proportion to what they actually make.
In other words, if you compare a guy who makes 60,000 dollars/year to a guy who makes 2,000,000 dollars/year, the former is more likely to give a larger percent of his income to various causes, even if he can't give as much as the latter. Unless the wealthier person has an extra incentive/chance of reimbursement.
The reason for this is largely psychological. If you have 100 dollars and you want to give 20% of it to someone, that's easy. You still have 80 bucks. No big deal.
Now let's say you have 1,000,000 dollars and you want to give 20% of THAT. You're no longer a millionaire. It seems like a massive chunk of change.
The more you have, the more inclined you are to hoard it. Even more so if you've never actually been without, before. Someone born into affluence has never had to struggle, so they're terrified of losing cash.
>The more you have, the more inclined you are to hoard it. Even more so if you've never actually been without, before. Someone born into affluence has never had to struggle, so they're terrified of losing cash.
It seems like the exact opposite would be true, A person that has known hardship isn't going to be so willing to part with money and will be frugal while a person that has never known anything but wealth will not understand the true worth of money and spend it flippantly.
I say this as a person that has been poor most of my life and even as I am starting to work my way out of poverty I can't bring myself to even consider wasting money I don't absolutely need to spend even if I was a millionaire I would be frugal.
>/pol/ doesn't discuss politics.
/pol/ has this weird ability to be both horribly off-target, easily manipulated, and knee-jerk insane with their biases... and also absolutely correct at the same time. I think it's because they always believe the worst of everyone.
Yes, but the other side of it posits that someone who struggles is going to more more sympathetic to other people who struggle, and be more inclined to help them. The Golden rule and all.
There's a limit, of course. People in the poverty line don't give as much as people in the middle.
I know how hard it is to break out of the "hold on to every bit habit." But then there are also the rich people who do things like go out, abuse the waitress, and leave a scanty tip because lol she was lazy. It has a lot to do with personality and empathy as well as sheer wealth class.
I think it's great that he's leaving at issue 12, on top and with a good run under his belt, and going over to Snagglepuss. It's not being dragged out and it's going to stand as an excellent, jam-packed with content run.
>a person that has never known anything but wealth will not understand the true worth of money and spend it flippantly.
That's part of the psychology at work.
Spending huge amounts on yourself is considered better than giving it to another. Even if it's something you're bored of in two days.
>But then there are also the rich people who do things like go out, abuse the waitress, and leave a scanty tip because lol she was lazy.
To be fair there are a lot of middle and lower class people that do that too.
Either that or I found myself serving a lot of rockefellers in stained t shirts and blue jeans when I was a waiter.
Which is something you should always do
Nevermind, gimme a (You) went and did it myself
A person not raised in wealth is not used to living in a way other than paycheck to paycheck so they have very little relevant skills/experience when it comes to maintaining that wealth long enough to be donating in the first place.
For example. Did you know that all business lunches are for free after the tax deduction? So long as it was an official meeting for business purposes you don't have to pay shit for food.
A person not born into wealth is going to have no goddamn idea that he/she could/should be doing that to save money in the first place.
Or yachts.(my memory isn't perfect on this one so this is more of a guideline) You can get the US government to give you money for a second house at the cost of something i can't recall since it's negligible after you do this. So what you do is give a boat a kitchen, bathroom, etc to have it technically be considered a house. Then you rent that fucker out to the yacht club for free money. And you can still take your yacht out for a spin during the times you decided to not rent it out instead of gathering barnacles like people who don't know of this trick would be doing.
>so they have very little relevant skills/experience when it comes to maintaining that wealth long enough to be donating in the first place.
But that is exactly wrong, a person that is used to being frugal will continue to be frugal even if they suddenly find themselves with money, the ones that you see quickly blow through money and end up back where they started are people that were usually on welfare or so ridiculously poor that they had as little understanding of the worth of a dollar as a rich person, but working poor people that live paycheck to paycheck are not as likely to be so careless with money they have.
Anon did you read that link? It makes Oprah look good and the gov evil.
The company gave away the car to the audience. The company then went on to pay most of the local and state taxes that would be owed. The 7k or less left over is out of her hands and doesn't benefit her in anyway.
So what did she lie about? Not predicting the gov would pull obscure tax laws out of their ass?
Just because the rich give to charity doesn't mean the poor will benefit. You can give money to a theater, or a hospital, or a school, but that won't necessarily benefit the poor.
the problem with rich business people being ordinary people with ordinary flaws is that their extreme power amplifies every little flaw into massive pain and suffering for everyone around him.
Yeah sure, hindsight is 20/20. But the extent of that shit is not always predictable. We're not talking about something like, I don't know, creating a fake university that specifically targeted people with money problems.
Again most of those people were not living paycheck to paycheck they were living welfare check to welfare check.
Getting everything handed to you by the government can alter your perception of worth just as much as having everything handed to you by your rich parents.
>But what if he really was at the top the entire time? Then he'd keep on being a bastard forever? Some people really are on top all the time, so does that excuse their actions?
Yes he would, and it does to them.
>Should have America Chavez time traveled to punch out Mr. Slate in a Communist takeover of the quarry, and then opened their borders to the sinister tree people?
That just made me realize, Flinstones, Midnighter & Apollo, Champions, and America were all out this week and had similarities (Flinstones and Champions tackled rich people, Apollo and Midnighter and America had gay leads) and yet Flintstones and Midnighter & Apollo felt like stronger reads. Why is that?
Note the parallels between Slade firing his workers and Fred and Wilma replacing bowling ball with a new one when the older ball still worked. It shows that this behavior isn't just exclusive to the wealthy. People rarely tend to think profoundly on how their actions affect those below them.
>Not predicting the gov would pull obscure tax laws out of their ass?
>hindsight is 20/20
Obscure? It's the fucking difference between a gift and a prize. It's not obscure. It's about as basic a tax detail as you can possibly fucking get, especially when you deal with television. She could have paid the taxes and had it filed as a gift by her show's accountants. The recipients would have been in the clear. Instead, it was categorized as a prize.
>26 U.S. Code § 74 - Prizes and awards
>26 U.S. Code § 102 - Gifts and inheritances
God fucking damn that page had my sides flying all over
Game shows as far as I know offer you to trade it in for cash value. Thats it. And the lottery taxes still catches people to this day. Its why you here about people going bankrupt and other stupid shit.
Her company went out of its way to pay off as much as it could for people. Its the exact damn opposite of showing spite and greed. Bitching about this is looking a gift horse in the month.
I get the gist of what you mean, but its just the worst possible example you could pull.
This resolution feels too facile to me. Slate has one setback and he suddenly turns humble and everything is fixed? He suddenly doesn't care about his profit anymore instead of trying to maximize his profit even more to one-up Clod? Not to mention that the moral of the story falls rather flat when guys like Clod and that blonde are still living the high life with no consequences. Rather than showing Slate did something wrong, all it showed was that Slate was too weak to be part of the elite so he fell back on the "weak" religion. It literally proves Vorp's point that only losers need mercy and compassion.
>oh we ran out of space, we'd better just reset the status quo in one page hurp durp
Fucking this, if you don't know the pain of earning honest money, then you're never gonna spend it wisely.
That's why trust fund babies and those otherwise inherenting it are just as shit at managing it as morbidly obese welfare leeches.
Both need to try some blue collar work for 3 months to see how the real world is.
>It literally proves Vorp's point that only losers need mercy and compassion.
Because it's unfortunately true. It's just that many more people are losers than they realize. But the actual wealthy and powerful could not give a shit mercy and compassion, and never will. Which is why it's up to the rest of us losers, even those more well off, to pick up the slack.
>Slate has one setback and he suddenly turns humble and everything is fixed?
Have you not been reading the comic? This is something like the third epiphany Slate has had. He's still an asshole, he's just able to recognize that he's screwed up. This is the first time we've seen him make an actual positive change.
>This is something like the third epiphany Slate has had.
This is true, first time was in the first issue
Second time was the one where they all thought an asteroid was gonna destroy the Earth.
Cant find any actual source of issue 12 being the final issue. Can someone posy any proof?
Yeah Future Quest is ending at 12, Scooby Apocalypse is continuing beyond issue 13.
Where's the proof?
Shakespeare in comics always makes me hard.
>New workers work at half the speed according to him but at half the price
Only Fred said he can work at twice the speed of the replacements. I'm sure there are plenty of workers who can't.
You're problem is that you're looking for a comic to shove some idea of morality down your throat in the most hamfisted way possible, rather than tell a story about characters written in a believable manner.
You should probably fuck off back to the America Chavez or Champions threads. That trash might be more your pace.
That's such an iconic image I wouldn't be surprised if it's being saved for something special. Though since the issues are running out, ending on Fred being locked out of his own house might be a little too dark a note to go out on depending on how it's portrayed.
We don't deserve this comic.
Anyone know if it's going to get a deluxe edition after the final issue #12 comes out? What're the odds that if it does it'll also have the Booster Gold/Flintstones Special in it? Otherwise I'm gonna have to bite the bullet and buy that as a floppy.
>(That's not to say that some leaders don't preach a "classless" society for the same reason....)
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see.
I just mean the themes in general. They already have class conflict, interpersonal conflict, cross-species conflict, and they add race on top of it all, and given the nature of their jobs I can't tell if they're trying to make a slavery analogy.
It's just unnecessary, the story works without saying "THEY'RE JUST LIKE MINORITIES, GUYS."
And the analogy falls apart eventually, unless we've been unknowingly eating soylent green.
>and when he bought a new car every few months just so he can drive it around without a license plate (there was a law saying that new cars have x months to get a new license plate, so he bought a new car whenever the limit was up).
That's just crazy
he's right about the media. Graphic artists don't make much unless they're into marketing or hardcore backed propaganda visuals, but performing and media arts (television film) are super politically charged and throw around millions like it's nothing. Those political pundits, talk show hosts, radio hosts, directors actors etc- that's the "Media" that has had a monopoly on public opinion for decades and has become entrenched in the old established political system of telling us that its the big bad mean rich evil people keeping us down.
Hey, /co/, wanna talk about the socioeconomic system of your country?
This is the only issue i've read but if the others are half as good as this im gonna make a few purchases asap.
It's one of the best comics of the year
Good writing and art and aesops.
Plus the Stone Age stuff lets them do some pretty remarkable philosophic explorations that feel sort of schmaultzy but not awkward
It's a clusterfuck with varying rules in every province and its often led and directed by ideals and emotional stories of fairness (from both the right and left) rather than efficiency and rational compassion
Who else is hype for the Booster Gold crossover and FINALLY meeting the lizard people?
Yes. But there's still a crossover special incoming:
>Welcome to the twenty-fifth century, where the Earth is a polluted postindustrial nightmare, most animals are extinct and reptilian aliens are invading cities across the planet! In their time of need, the world’s citizens turn to the time-traveling Booster Gold to save the day. To learn why these aliens are seeking revenge, Booster dives deep into the prehistoric past to see what happened the last time they hit the planet. In this bygone era, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble must help Booster learn the truth and return to his own time armed with the information that will bring down the invaders—if Booster can convince them to help him. No problem—we all know how persuasive Booster can be, right? Right?!
It's not the same, but Yang is killing it over in New Superman right now and may be ramping up to something pretty amazing in the next issue. Also, his understanding of Superman's powers as they relate to Chi is extraordinary.