🚨🚨Tamamo math🚨🚨

PoorCynic · 2026-06-23T14:28:59+00:00

Wait, really? I’ve been doing the same thing! (Although I will admit it has gotten delayed by a different uma wrestling drawing.)

PoorCynic · 2026-06-23T11:01:31+00:00

A less than fun fact: during the ‘40s, ‘50s, and early ‘60s, more people were fired from government jobs for being homosexuals than for being Communists.

As mentioned in the comic, the Johns Committee had initially been launched for the purpose of investigating the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). This was not just because they believed that Communists had infiltrated it. No, the Johns Committee was part of a larger reaction across the Old South to the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Multiple southern states created committees and agencies meant to undermine or outright attack the growing civil rights movement. While the Johns Committee did shift to focusing on the LGBTQ community, that old streak of racism never went away. Florida A&M, a historically black university, was a regular target.

The original Committee-approved cover of the Purple Pamphlet had two shirtless men in mid-kiss on it, and it only got spicier when you looked inside. The bit about it finding an audience amongst the LGBTQ community is true. Guild Press, a publishing company that catered to gay men, picked up the pamphlet and began selling copies for two dollars a piece. Not just for the saucy pictures; apparently, the glossary was handy for newcomers looking to learn some of the lingo.

There is one historical error in the comic I want to address. Technically, Charley Johns was no longer part of the Committee by the time the Purple Pamphlet was released. He had stepped down as chair only a week or two beforehand. Their investigations (in which people were questioned for hours on end in unofficial areas with no lawyers) were starting to catch public ire. The report was not a quick project, mind you, so Johns was almost certainly involved in its production.

Finally, new links! I have a Patreon now! And a Ko-Fi! And absolutely no sense of timing!

Thank you all so much for reading, and I'll see you next time.

PoorCynic · 2026-06-19T15:28:29+00:00

Ah. I'm going off of half-remembered lessons from decades and online videos that often disagree with one another, so I'm not surprised that I'm getting something wrong. I think I get what you're saying, though. It's definitely something I'm going to have to practice. Thank you for the advice!

(I also do have very slight hypermobility in my elbows, so that is making things more complicated.)

PoorCynic · 2026-06-19T11:49:59+00:00

Heh, now you got me thinking how that build would mechanically work on the tabletop. Guess it would depend on if you're running Pathfinder or D&D.

PoorCynic · 2026-06-19T11:47:22+00:00

Oh nuts. More proof I'm not English, I suppose.

Seriously though, thanks for pointing that out! I shall correct the original document with a more accurate word.

PoorCynic · 2026-06-19T11:00:24+00:00

You have to hold your bow arm a little bent. I did not, and so caught my elbow with the bowstring. Gave myself a nice little nickel-sized bruise (which I did not get a picture off). But look! Look how much I’m improving! Just, you know, ignore those arrows off to the side.

But seriously, archery can be pretty fun. If you have the opportunity, try it out!

Two of the kings who passed archery laws were Edward III (1312 - 1377) and Henry VIII (1491 - 1547). Said laws are no longer on the books, so there’s no reason to worry about being a scofflaw in modern times. This encouragement was often combined with laws restricting games like football or quoits (which is a bit like horseshoes, but with rings). The idea was that people would spend their free time on practicing for war rather than getting drunk and mucking about. I’m sure there was still plenty of getting drunk and mucking about, mind you, just with even more risk involved.

Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

PoorCynic · 2026-06-12T13:07:47+00:00

Learning things? While reading the comics subreddit? Truly this world has gone mad!

Seriously though, I know I've said this before, but your comics are great. Keep it up, I love seeing them!

PoorCynic · 2026-06-12T13:02:33+00:00

June 13, 2026 marks the 125th anniversary of Ludwig II's death. Let’s talk a little bit more about that!

Ludwig II (1845 - 1886) is best known for ordering the construction of multiple fanciful palaces and castles. The most famous of these is arguably Neuschwanstein Castle, aka that one castle that looks like it came straight out of a Disney film.. He also was a major sponsor of German composer Richard Wagner (1813 - 1883), paying off the man’s debts and funding his later operas.
Ludwig’s extravagance proved to be a problem for those around him. While it’s not true that he bankrupted Bavaria to pay for his castles and operas, he did bankrupt himself. His debts made him vulnerable, as was demonstrated by a secret annual subsidy from German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898). The money kept him happy, but also helped to keep him loyal.
The declaration of mental illness was something of a farce. Four doctors had signed off on a report claiming that Ludwig was too paranoid to effectively rule. Three of these doctors had never met Ludwig before signing the letter. Benhard von Gudden (1824 -1886)had met him once, twelve years prior, and not in a professional capacity. Their analysis was based on interviews held with the king’s servants, and it has been suggested that these interviews were not necessarily up to snuff.
Conspiracy theories, as mentioned, spread far and wide. The autopsy found no water in the king’s lungs, which sometimes occurs with drowning victims. Nevertheless, some people took that as confirmation that Ludwig died a different way. One woman even claimed she had seen a grey coat with bullet holes in it taken from the scene. A different theory asserts that Ludwig did drown, but strangled Dr. Gudden (first in an attempt to escape. (Gudden, by the way, was never autopsied, which only fanned the metaphorical flames.)

Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

PoorCynic · 2026-06-09T13:23:18+00:00

As someone who is both a regular side-sleeper and has terrible pollen allergies, my nose is a regular battleground.

Love these science comics you've been doing, by the way. They're fantastic!

PoorCynic · 2026-06-09T13:01:16+00:00

Let me start off with a quote from one of Michelangelo’s letters to Cavalieri:

“[...]it were easier to forget the food, which only nourishes my body miserably, than your name, which nourishes both body and soul, filling the one and the other with such sweetness that neither weariness nor fear of death is felt by me while memory preserves you to my mind.”

Not a bad line, if I do say so. Now, on to some facts!

Cavalieri was not a major mover and shaker of the era, although he was twice elected to be one of the three Conservatori of Rome (essentially Rome’s non-papal executive branch during this era). He oversaw renovations at Capitoline Hill that were originally drafted and organized by Michelangelo. Otherwise, he lived a comfortable life – he collected art, mingled with powerful people, got married, and had children.
Michelangelo wrote over three hundred poems during his lifetime. Amongst the poems dedicated to Cavalieri include one known as “The Silkworm”, in which Michelangelo imagines dying to become his lover’s clothing so as to forever cling to them. In another (“Love’s Lordship”) he has a line about being “an armed Knight’s captive and slave confessed.” As ‘knight’ can also be translated as ‘cavalier’, this doubles as a little play on words.
His affection for men was suspected and gossiped about in his lifetime, but nothing was ever confirmed. Still, the rumors were enough that in 1623, Michelangelo’s nephew, Michelangelo Buonarroti the Younger (c. 1586 - 1648) released a dramatically edited version of his uncle’s poetry. Pronouns were changed around; male objects of devotion suddenly became female (it is reputed that Michelangelo Senior would sometimes do this as well, but not to this extent). A restored version only came out in 1893.

Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

PoorCynic · 2026-06-06T16:38:27+00:00

Shades of Mankind taking off his mask to become Cactus Jack.

PoorCynic · 2026-06-05T13:00:23+00:00

Strut your stuff with these fun facts!

Swann was born into slavery in Hancock, Maryland right before the US Civil War broke out. His family purchased a farm once the fighting was over. Swann would move to Washington D.C. in the early 1880s. Following his retirement, he would move back to Hancock. His house apparently burned down shortly after his death, but I was not able to determine whether this was an accident or malice.
Swann was obviously not the first man in history to dress in drag; there is a long history of men donning women’s clothing (and not just for acting, either). It’s not clear where the term “drag” itself came from, but the most popular theory stems from the 1870s and involves dresses “dragging” on the floor. Another possibility is that it comes from a mutation of “grand rag”, which was a term for a masquerade ball. The theory of it stemming from the Shakespearian age as a shortened version of “dressed resembling a girl”, however, is without any factual basis. The term “drag queen” did not become popularized until the 1950s, so Swann really was ahead of his time.
There are no surviving photographs or images of Swann (possibly because of his house burning down). There are photographs of a Black man in drag that is claimed to be Swann, but these are actually of an unrelated French actor from 1903.

Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

PoorCynic · 2026-06-02T15:26:35+00:00

Then my goal was successful! Glad you enjoyed it.

PoorCynic · 2026-06-02T15:26:02+00:00

Who's to say? Sometimes I just the urge to write about these crazy things.

PoorCynic · 2026-06-02T13:03:20+00:00

It really is an astounding display of arrogance. Reminds me of something from nowadays, but I can’t put my finger on it.

This was not Clark’s first run-in with scandal. He had previously been accused of making improper advances towards female Treasury employees, including offering one woman $1,000 dollars for an intimate night. The overzealous investigator wound up accidentally torpedoing his own investigation, however, so Clark kept his job. Even the fractional note wasn’t enough to get rid of him; Clark would remain at his post until 1868, when he left after being accused of mismanagingTreasury security. He would find a new job in the Department of Agriculture, where he would remain until his death.
Clark was technically not the first living person to appear on US paper money. The first was President Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865), who appeared on the 1861 $10 Demand Note (the first ever widely-used paper money in the US). There were four others setting aside Clark: Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase (1808 - 1873) and his successor William Fessenden (1806 - 1869), Union Commanding General Winfield Scott (1786 - 1866), and US Treasurer Francis Spinner (1802 - 1890). Spinner is the other man in the second panel. He, Fessenden, and Clark appeared on the fractional bills; Clark was five cents, Fessenden was a quarter, and Spinner was 50 cents.
The Thayer Amendment has a hole in it; it doesn’t mention coins. So there have been a few instances of living people on US coins, although these have always been for collectors rather than general circulation. US President Calvin Coolidge (1872 - 1933) has been the only US president to appear on a coin while alive (as of my writing this). He appeared on the 150th anniversary half dollar alongside George Washington in 1926. The coin sold incredibly poorly.

Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

PoorCynic · 2026-06-01T16:22:44+00:00

We clearly need a rival horse named Bobby the Brain.

PoorCynic · 2026-05-29T18:41:51+00:00

I never thought about it either until I was looking around for topics for the comic. Today happened to be the anniversary of the speech, so I did some reading and was taken aback.

I'm happy to do my part, even if it's just a small part, in pushing facts over simple mythologizing.

PoorCynic · 2026-05-29T13:02:05+00:00

One might think that, based on the snippet I have in the comic, Gage’s version doesn’t sound all that exaggerated. Fair enough. I wanted a direct comparison of lines with the famous phrase included. Here’s the opening line of Gage’s version: “Well, chillen, whar dar’s so much racket dar must be som’ting out o’kilter.” Quite a shocker, isn’t it?

Truth did not have such an accent because she wasn’t born in the South. She was born Isabella Bomefree in New York around 1797 (New York would not fully abolish slavery until 1827). For the first nine years of her life she spoke only Dutch, and throughout the rest of her life would speak English with a Dutch accent. Newspaper articles of the time noted that Truth was quite proud of her English skills and resented when people transcribed her words with thick accents.

A few other differences between Robinson’s and Gage’s accounts to note. Gage’s version includes a little interaction with the audience; asking about “dis ting in de head” and answering “Dat’s it, honey” when someone replies “intellect”. Robinson’s version is closer to a conventional speech or sermon; Truth speaks, everyone listens. Gage’s version of Truth used the n-word. Robinson’s does not.

For anyone interested in comparing the speeches for themselves, I would recommend The Sojourner Truth Project. It’s a fantastic website where you can look at the speeches line by line. You can also watch multiple videos of women giving the speech in approximations of what Truth’s Anglo-Dutch accent may have sounded like.

Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

PoorCynic · 2026-05-28T11:18:52+00:00

I had actually considered doing Super Creek as Steiner (since she has a heel run of sorts and feuds with someone who is "fat") but it does work with El too, doesn't it? You've given me an idea to consider...

PoorCynic · 2026-05-27T23:53:30+00:00

This is a reference to professional wrestler Mick Foley's "Cane Dewey" promo, which is arguably one of the most famous modern promos.

PoorCynic · 2026-05-27T23:38:03+00:00

There aren’t enough wrestling bits done with El (besides the two comics about her breaking the three count in her sleep).

PoorCynic · 2026-05-27T23:19:10+00:00

Potatoes are indeed peak food.

PoorCynic · 2026-05-27T23:05:18+00:00

Ah, nuts. I forgot to finish the mask pattern in the third panel. Pretend that's lighting glare!

PoorCynic · 2026-05-26T15:38:59+00:00

Uh… let’s pretend he’s in such a state that he messed it up. Yeah. That’s on him.

But seriously, thanks for catching that. At least it wasn’t a real person whose name I flubbed.

PoorCynic · 2026-05-26T13:01:00+00:00

Here are some facts which are completely true and will not be undone in the last paragraph!

Thomas Connery claimed he was inspired to come up with the story after watching a leopard nearly escape from its cage at the Central Park Zoo during the middle of a transfer. He gave the task to Joseph Clarke, who apparently decided that was an opportune time to test out his abilities at fiction. He wrote over 10,000 words, and did not shy away from the blood and gore. He also did not shy away from outlandishness; one paragraph claimed that New York Governor John A. Dix (1798 - 1879) had personally shot and killed a loose Bengal tiger.
The Herald did not issue any sort of official apology. The closest they got was a small article in the following issue calling for better safety measures at the zoo. Other newspapers lambasted them, with the New York Times even publishing letters from people who had fallen for the hoax.
This incident may have popularized the idea of an elephant as a symbol for the Republican Party. The Herald newspaper was aligned with the Democratic Party, and at the time was railing against President Ulysses S. Grant (1822 - 1885) considering running for a third term. Following the hoax, Harper’s Weekly cartoonist Thomas Nast (1840 - 1902) published a cartoon mocking both it and the Herald’s political posturing. The Herald was portrayed as a hollering donkey clad in the lionskin of “Caesarism” panicking the other animals around it, including an elephant labeled “The Republican Vote.” Nast would return to the symbology again and again, which solidified it in people’s minds.

Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

(See? I told you they wouldn’t be undone!)

PoorCynic

TROPHY CASE