A PVP Parody Too Far?

This is interesting to me at least as an indication that the largest webcomics are rippling through the waters of culture enough to attract attention from critics and commentators because of the webcomic or webcomic creator’s impact outside of the webcomic itself. (Earlier stories regarding Tim Buckley and recent video game controversies fit a similar vein).

August Pollack criticizes a recent parody product from Scott Kurtz, the creator of PvP. Pollack who is also a webcomic creator of a political bent, argues that the “Support the Pwned” awareness bands are demeaning to such bands as the “Live Strong” effort for cancer created by cyclist Lance Armstrong.

Kurtz responsed to such comments (although its not clear if Kurtz is responding to Pollack or others) on his website today:

Unlike those other awareness bracelets. When you buy the “support the pwned” bracelet, you know where 100% of your money goes to. Me (and thinkgeek to compensate them for cost of production and fullfillment services). Can other charities promise you such an ACCURATE audit of their division of profit? I think not.

Uncategorized

Xaviar Xerexes

Wandering webcomic ronin. Created Comixpedia (2002-2005) and ComixTalk (2006-2012; 2016-?). Made a lot of unfinished comics and novels.

16 Comments

  1. As much as I don’t want to, I have to side with Kurtz on this one. He’s capitalizing on a cultural/altruistic/fashion phenomenon. So what? Happens all the time and I don’t think it diminishes the success of authentic charitable organizations.

    If Pollack wants to complain about something, he should go into Hot Topic and yell at the clerks for selling similar bracelets that say “Slut” or “Cutie” or whatever. Kurtz’s parody is hardly an original interpretation.

    Just goes to show that some people will complain about anything.

  2. Unlike those other awareness bracelets. When you buy the “support the pwned” bracelet, you know where 100% of your money goes to…. Can other charities promise you such an ACCURATE audit of their division of profit? I think not.

    Right, you should definitely trust some guy with a video game website to provide you with accurate accounting and financial statements. On the other hand, you should definitely NOT trust a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is raising money to help people with cancer.

    You can download the Lance Artmstrong Foundation’s 2004 and 2003 Combined Audited Financial Statements, the 2004 LAF Form 990, their 2003 Annual Report, and their 2002 Annual Report.

    You can’t get that type of accounting from your average guy with a webcomic.

  3. PWNED! LOLZ!!!1!!

    =)
    It also means that Kurtz is the “Pwned” he speaks of since he receives the “support”.

  4. “You can’t get that type of accounting from your average guy with a webcomic.”

    Sure you can. 100% of the money goes in his pocket. Now we all know where both monies end up. In the end I don’t have a problem with Scott’s own band thing, because it’s not like he’s making a yellow one that says “I hope Armstrong gets some more cancer.”

  5. Those bands are everywhere for sale even here in Brazil, and every goddamn one who wants to be hippy and PC proudly displays one on their arm almost to the point of driving me crazy!

    What I mean is, sometimes we just have to sit back and laugh at such parodies for what they are supposed to be.

  6. I think some people have been taking Kurtz’s stuff way too seriously lately. We had someone complaining on Forumopolis earlier that a strip about a Fantastic Four fan lighting himself on fire and winning a costume contest posthumously for it crossed the line. Not for the whole lighting himself on fire joke, but for the RIP message at the end. Now people are getting their panties in a bunch over this crap. It’s because of people with a stick up their butt that the newspaper comics are so watered down and harmless. Don’t do that to my webcomics. I deserve something good to read

  7. No, your are completely and ridiculously wrong in your assertion that the simple (and incorrect) statement “100% of the money goes in his pocket” is equal in anyway to a 27-page independently audited document which, on just one of those 27 pages, breaks down a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization’s functional expenses into grants, salaries, wages, benefits, payroll taxes, supplies, telephone, postage, occupancy, other rent, printing, publications, entertainment, travel, legal, advertising, bank fees, insurance, permits, audio/visual, technology, etc.etc. In case you can’t see it, your statement has a lower level of detail.

    “100% of the money goes into his pocket” might be an equivalently accurate accounting if in fact 100% of the money went into a single literal pocket and then never came out. I’m suspecting that’s not true. And while I don’t have the financial reports that show this lack of a single pocket, a simple reading of the original quote on this article — “100% of your money goes to. Me (and thinkgeek to compensate them for cost of production and fullfillment services)” — makes it pretty clear that you are wrong in your assesment that 100% of anything is going to single pocket, metaphorical or othwerwise. I’m not sure who thinkgeek is, but apparently he/she has a pocket as well.

    I think this is so obvious that I was surprised I’d have to say it even one time, but here it comes a second time: In short, it is not correct to assert that the average guys making webcomics are more accurate in their public accounting than charities like the Lance Armstrong Foundation are.

  8. Dude, chill out!

    I don’t think Scott Kurtz is obliged to present anyone who buys his stuff adited documents proving he spent that money on pizza and WoW. He said his money goes 100% for him (minus the Thinkgeek share), and I can’t exactly see where this is not a correct affirmation.

  9. I don’t think Scott Kurtz is obliged to present anyone who buys his stuff adited documents proving he spent that money on pizza and WoW. He said his money goes 100% for him (minus the Thinkgeek share), and I can’t exactly see where this is not a correct affirmation.

    OK, for now the third time: It is not correct to assert that the average guys making webcomics are more accurate in their public accounting than charities like the Lance Armstrong Foundation are.

    This does not mean webcomic artists are obliged to give more detailed accountings of their finances than the Lance Armstrong Foundation does. This only means that until we actually do, we shouldn’t pretend that we do.

  10. Someone is seriously upset over this? Over what?! It’s something that is a new fad and making truck fulls of money and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon as fast as they can. Hell, most of the schools where I live have already ordered some with their team name on them because they think they’re cool.

    Despite my personal opinion that they’re overpriced rubber bands, they’re still not hurting anyone so I’ll echo the statement that some folks need to remove that stick firmly wedged in their ass.

  11. I will back you in the fact — not opinion — that a large charity’s accounting is more accurate than one webcartoonist’s. But it’s nitpicking.

  12. I for one am all for cartoonists presenting papertracks of every mercandise sale, ad sale and donation and how they spend them.

  13. Did you think it was nit-picking before or after you realized that you were wrong?

  14. I thought it was nitpicking after my blind ignorance was completely and utterly devastated by your surgical application of glorious truth and logic. You are to be commended for your bravery and wisdom.

  15. I want to know what foods he ate, and when! What kind of pillowcases does he have? Bed Bath and Beyond? Whatever happened to accountability?

Comments are closed.