I can’t agree with the description “PizzaCake for men”. I read PizzaCake as well and the similarities to Penny Arcade are surface level at best. The comics about parenting are similar insofar as many comics about parenting are relaying an experience that many people can relate to, but outside of that, I would say Penny Arcade’s comedic range is far broader than PizzaCake’s. And I don’t mean that as an insult to PizzaCake; PizzaCake just tends to focus primarily on parenting and politics while Penny Arcade covers a much wider berth of topics (in addition to just having many comics be glorified shitposts carried by erudite prose).

Frankly, my biggest criticism of PizzaCake is that when they do choose to make political comics, they’re typically really unfunny. They’re just blunt statements about Republicans being stupid/evil/hypocrites/etc with no real setup or punchline. I enjoy bashing conservatives as much as the next guy, but I can’t consider PizzaCake’s political comics to be funny or insightful. They’re mostly just variations on this:

I agree with the other comments here saying the comic just might not be your cup of tea, which is totally fine.

But since you’re asking for people to share their favorites, I’ll share some of mine here. I think it’s a fun comic, but they’ve also been making comics consistently since 1998 and they can’t all be zingers. Most of my favorites tend to be on the absurd side, leaning on the characters’ respective weird idiosyncrasies or their #relatable moments with getting older and having kids.

• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/03/26/space-is-still-the-place
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10/i-hope-you-like-text
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/02/side-effects-may-include
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2016/02/08/decrepitude
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2017/08/02/the-age-of-gabriel
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/04/11/he-who-fights-with-nerds
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2017/07/31/the-seventh-axis
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2015/12/18/i-am-not-your-father
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/10/06/behold
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/25/retales-part-one
• https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/05/26/the-unhorse

I’ll probably edit this comment to add more later cause I know I’m forgetting some bangers.

Perhaps I misunderstood the author’s intent. Though even if their position is that the red team and blue team will be on a more even playing field when both have access to AI tools, I’m not sure I can agree with that assessment. The asymmetrical nature of offense and defense isn’t fundamentally changed by the advent of AI tools. While the current slate of AI tools may be uniquely more useful for finding and patching bugs, I can’t imagine a future in which AI tools aren’t also being tailored for exploiting and penetrating. The red team isn’t just going to sit around and not adapt the available toolset to favor their use cases as well.

Much like the arms race between anti-virus development and virus development, there will be defensive AI development and offensive AI development. Similar to what we’ve already seen with the arms race between LLMs and software that can detect if something was written by an LLM.

This fluff piece has quite the pie-in-the-sky attitude toward the blue-teaming applications of AI.

Some commentators predict that future AI models will unearth entirely new forms of vulnerabilities that defy our current comprehension, but we don’t think so.

How reassuring.

The defects are finite, and we are entering a world where we can finally find them all.

Could’ve said the same thing when enterprise anti-malware came onto the scene decades ago, but the reality was it was just another vector for the arms race between the red team and the blue team. The author seems to put a lot of stock in the whole “the blue team has access to these AI tools that the red team doesn’t currently have access to” argument, which kinda ignores the fact that that reality is simply not going to last.

I could be wrong, but any article suggesting “zero-days are numbered” doesn’t pass the smell test.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

🤦‍♂️

Yes, I’m an American. Are you speaking from personal experience, or going off of what you see online? Because the horror stories you see online are not representative of the whole of society. The scary and outlandish stories make headlines and get shared around by people. Nobody shares links to videos or writes articles about “Father goes to park with kids, everybody is chill and nobody panics”.

Don’t buy too much into all the ragebait on the internet. I take my kid to the park all the time and no one has ever so much as looked at me sideways. And no other fathers solo-parenting their kids at the park have ever been accosted during the many, many hours I’ve spent there.

Yes, some idiots foolishly assume man+kid=danger, but this is not a typical reaction at all. People who react negatively and make a scene are an extreme minority.

The scientist is a hipster who uses the 2155-equivalent of a flip phone. Through a lifetime of grit and determination, he’s extended his attention span to 6 entire seconds (the global average is 4) so he could complete the time machine and save the world (by asking someone else to do it)

its not. Its mediocre and needs time travel to work.

This mentality misses the point, IMO. Even if the Harry Potter books were written in such a way that made even the staunchest critic go, “Wow, these books rival the works of of J.R.R. Tolkien and Shakespeare,” that should have zero bearing on whether or not any given individual makes the decision to boycott an author’s work on idealistic grounds.

I like plenty of art that could be classified as schlock; not everything we enjoy has to be masterpiece theatre. I’ve boycotted all HP content ever since Rowling became a professional asshole, but I won’t pretend I didn’t enjoy the books and the films as a teenager.

Here’s a hard pill to swallow: shitty people can make good art. We can condemn bad people unequivocally without simultaneously needing their art to be bad. Michael Jackson was my favorite musician for many years, but hearing his music in 2026 always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But I won’t pretend that it wasn’t my jam and I certainly won’t suggest that the music was mediocre.

Edit: And although it goes without saying: this decision is always up to the individual. I have trans friends who don’t concern themselves with Rowlings’ sociopolitical views and continue to enjoy HP content. I don’t begrudge them for that; we all have different, if arbitrary, boundaries.

I think “attribution” might be more apropos than “advertising” when it comes to an artist’s signature. Of course the presence of an artist’s signature will advertise their authorship, but the signature’s purpose isn’t inherently trying to drive you to a website/patreon/whatever; it’s letting you know who put in the effort to make the art.

It’s technically possible, but an absolutely terrible idea

This is part of my broader point. Nothing in OP’s story suggests the old lady is actually flush with cash; she just has a bitchin’ car. She could be an idiot who signed on for 45% APR. Seeing someone with a nice car doesn’t mean they’re actually rich.

I was being sarcastic. OP’s shower thought is asinine.

Yep, never seen a young person buy something that they can’t really afford. Young folks are so wise, patient, and financially literate that it strains my imagination to even entertain the idea of one making poor purchasing decisions.

Yep, never seen a young person with an expensive car before

I love Peanuts as much as the next guy, but I dunno if “animal standing on two legs” is a unique enough trait to say Garfield was stealing anything from Snoopy’s design. Mickey Mouse had already been walking around on two legs for decades at that point

I figured you were just being funny, but I’m feeling talkative today, lol

People always say this on stories about “obvious” findings, but it’s important to have verifiable studies to cite in arguments for policy, law, etc. It’s kinda sad that it’s needed, but formal investigations are a big step up from just saying, “I’m pretty sure this technology is bullshit.”

I don’t need a formal study to tell me that drinking 12 cans of soda a day is bad for my health. But a study that’s been replicated by multiple independent groups makes it way easier to argue to a committee.