I loved this comment about this week's comic from a Boing Boing reader:
This is Russell's paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
In this case, if the machine failed, then the situation would be ironic. But if the situation is ironic, then the machine worked. But if the machine worked, then the situation would not be ironic. So then it must have failed. But if it failed, then that's ironic, which would mean that the machine worked....
It's an infinite loop. The situation alternates (or waffles) between being ironic and not ironic. Unless there's a Wittgenstein waffle-head nearby, poor Donald P. Hotchkiss is in some serious trouble.
This seems to happen frequently in Tom the Dancing Bug. The comic takes a philosophical idea and makes it look totally absurd. And I never know, is the author making fun of the idea, or is he just making fun in general? Or is he making fun of his audience? Or is he making fun of the pinheads who waste their time thinking about these kinds of things? I get the sense that he's doing all of these things at once.
For example, after 60% of all Maltby strips, I have to sit there quietly (shivering) and ask myself, "Is this author making fun of me? How did he know that I do these things?" And that of course is a classic Maltby moment. As soon as you think, "Is this whole thing about me" then you are a fool just like Maltby. But if you're a fool like Maltby, then the comic is about you, and you're not a fool. It's the same paradox.
Welcome to the "bitterest of ironic situations". (And sorry for killing the joke.)
At least I enjoyed that far more than the first comment made, which was: "I could swear Tom the Dancing Bug used to be funny.." Oh, well, I can always reminisce about the good old days.