UPDATING OCCASIONALLY (FOR NOW)

9 thoughts on “558 – Cotton Clad Calamity”

  1. Raznaak

    Yup, he’s a bastard XD

  2. Dr. Norman (not a real doctor)

    Are those pajamas available in XXXL in the gift shop?

  3. Otaku

    It’s been a while, so let me ask: Did we get a reason for him to WANT Susie dead? Not to backseat, but if we didn’t, I’m worried were about to move into “Stupid Evil” territory. Now, stupid happens, don’t get me wrong. It’s not bad storytelling for that to be the case here.

    You’ve just done a good job NOT having that be a driving factor, so the “Kill off the stars of my successful reality TV show.” seems shortsighted, otherwise. Oh, I guess I could be mistaken about the in-story reality TV show’s success. Like, if the company behind them is losing money, or they think a change in management at the ranch would make the whole thing more popular/profitable, then I can see the above scenario happening as well.

    I REALLY think I’m just forgetting something important, but that I don’t have time to deep dive to remind me of, hence the comment. >_<

    1. Deoxy

      It certainly has been stretched out over quite a while, but there have definitely been hints from quite near the beginning that whoever is running the reality TV show definitely wants her dead.

      But I certainly don’t recall any reason why.

      1. Clint

        Yeah it’s fair to not remember since it’s been a hot minute (many, many minutes) but if you feel like a refresher the most relevant bits would be the beginning of Episode 8 and the end of Episode 15. We haven’t explicitly spelled out exactly what The Exec means by his “side hustle” or who was on the other end of that phone call, though.

        I’m hoping that when the whole thing is eventually available it will make sense, or at least enough sense to have hung this narrative on.

        1. Otaku

          Thanks for the replies, Deoxy and Clint. Yeah, I’d totally forgotten about those things. Good to know!

  4. Evervigilant

    Seems about time for the two people who aren’t there to make a surprise entrance as the ace Susie didn’t even know she had.

  5. Scarsdale

    There’s still 3-5 people on her side that might be planning something. This guy is a megalomaniac with a god complex, so letting him think he’s the sharpest tool in the shed sets him up for a fall. Everything depends on those cameras, and I suspect their little stop over by the charging coffins had something to do with her actual plan, not the one the a-hole thinks it is.

  6. lyra

    Really enjoyed the opening of Zombie Ranch. I like the combination of the western setting with the zombie concept, it gives the story a really distinctive atmosphere. I’m a freelance illustrator and animator, and I’d be interested in seeing how some of these scenes could translate into motion, especially as a short animated teaser or character scene.

    If you’re ever interested in something like that, you can reach me here:

    IG: eve_verse_
    Email: [contact.lilaclines@gmail.com](mailto:contact.lilaclines@gmail.com)
    Discord: Lyralilac_

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


 

558 – Cotton Clad Calamity
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Dawn

What would you call this? Armchair assassination? Merk-from-home?

Well, Suzie ain't dead (or undead) quite yet, so we'll just have to see if his gloating is justifiable.

Panic at the orphanage

Posted on July 22, 2015 by Clint

Oh, man. If you’re a webcomic author who has been cruising the social media in the last few days, chances are you’ve come across a volatile posting or reposting by a friend or someone in the business you follow warning of an impending apocalypse along the lines of “In three days Congress is going to flush your copyright down the toilet!”

The hubbub is over the Orphan Works Act. Which isn’t actually an Act. It’s not even close to being considered as an addendum or repeal of current copyright law, much less being a looming Armageddon requiring immediate and drastic action. Yet that didn’t stop some inflammatory posts from well-known people that fanned the flames of panic.

I understand. Creative artists tend to be busy people, and for that matter people who would rather be thinking about their stories and art projects than the complications of the business side, so when someone they trust (or who at least seems to know what they’re talking about) starts shouting that the sky is falling and it’s ALMOST TOO LATE, it’s far easier to take up the cry than take a breath and have a cautious look outside first.

As you might be getting, things weren’t quite as dire as first presented. You can read up at a couple links here, which also include links to the actual report from the U.S. copyright office and some of the hyperbolic posts and videos that started the whole mess.

http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/orphan-works-copyright-law-controversy-dont-panic/

http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/dont-believe-the-hyperbole-theres-no-orphan-works-law-before-congress/

I myself found it odd when the “news” first blared across my feed because not a week beforehand I had attended not just one but three different panels at San Diego Comic-Con discussing IP law,  and not one of the professional lawyers on those panels had brought up any impending catastrophic changes along the lines of an invalidation of copyright law As We Know It. You would think that would be important to them since a large part of their livelihoods kind of hinge on it. Not a peep, which is even more odd when you consider the proposal in question has been published since early June, making it unlikely they wouldn’t have heard of it by early July.

Well, yeah, for one thing it’s just a proposal with absolutely no legal weight to it. Brainstorming. Asking for commentary, good or ill. It’s like your buddy saying out loud, “Wouldn’t it be cool if they made grocery stores donate all their just expired food instead of throwing it out?” and then looking around at the rest of you to see if anyone wants to chime in on the idea.

Confusion might have arisen because the text of the report resembles earlier attempts at revisions to copyright law in the case of orphan works. Orphan works are basically those creative works where the author or other copyright holder(s) cannot be found, leading to a difficult decision for people or companies wanting to make use of them, especially in for-profit enterprises: go ahead, and risk an expensive lawsuit if and when the copyright holder turns up later on? Or forego the use entirely because of that risk? The revisions are trying to address this conundrum by limiting the liability of parties who make use of such an orphan after a “good faith”, reasonable search for the owner has turned up nothing.

Now, the sticking point here — if such a revision were ever to find itself actual law — would be defining what constitutes evidence of reasonable good faith, should the artist of Illustration X suddenly turn up after his 10 year self-exile to a desert island with evidence that he owns the copyright and he sues seeking damages for infringement. I’m not an expert, but a good portion of the text seems devoted to establishing things that ought to be done at minimum for good faith liability protection to apply, for example checking with the copyright office, searching online databases, etc. To run with the orphan analogy, the court wouldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) accept a defense of “Hey, I found this kid wandering the street by herself and I shouted for her parents but nobody came, so I took her home with me.” You’d need to show you checked with the police, etc. etc. Similarly, the stuff I’m reading as written is no carte blanche to ignore copyrights.

But again, it’s just in a brainstorming stage at this point. Is it good to keep abreast of changes in copyright doctrine and other legal issues as an independent publisher? Sure, absolutely. That’s why I went to those panels I mentioned. For example, if you want to talk dilution of copyrights, there’s already a situation out there that I don’t hear a lot of peers talking about, which goes by the moniker of “transformative doctrine“. According to a law professor at one of my Comic-Con legal panels, transformative use has become the number one defense in the majority of cases dealing with copyright infringement in the United States, probably because cases like this got decided in favor of the defendant. Or this one (first ruled for plaintiff, then defendant on appeal). Suddenly all that fan art being sold in Artist’s Alley might not be as cut-and-dried illegal after all, eh? I mean, that’s not even copying and pasting someone else’s photographs, touching them up a tad and selling them for thousands of dollars like Prince did.

In any case, what’s not so good is panic, and especially panic that stresses out a class of people (creative artists) who really don’t need any more stress in their lives. So deep breaths, folks. The orphanage isn’t on fire just yet.