Hey, that's not your comic!

[naruki_oni]

Every once in a while when I am reading my daily bunch of comics, I get the deja vu feeling that I've already read one before. At times like those, I wonder to myself if the authors are deliberately plagiarizing or if they, like me, just have bad memories and forget that they didn't come up with the idea themselves.

Since most of the comics I read are pretty indistinguishable from each other, I also wonder if I am not just suffering from deja vu instead of actually remembering a different comic. I can certainly never remember the name of the supposed original, and searching my stack for the past few days invariably turns up no proof.

Until today, that is.

Oddly enough, the thief is someone who probably gets more circulation than his victim. Well, that seems odd to me, since you'd expect the funnier, more remarkable comic to be less likely to steal. But perhaps the rest of you are more cynical and experienced in these things than I am (I'm looking at you, BB2).

Without further ado, I present Wiley Miller's Non Sequitur and Dave Blazek's Loose Parts.





In case you were wondering, the Non Sequitur came out June 29, and the Loose Parts came out June 25.

Comments

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I think the standard answer in cases similar to this is "I submit my comics to the paper weeks in advance, and couldn't possibly have known he'd submit something so exactly like mine. It's simple coincidence."

Note that both comics are syndicated, and are, in fact, likely submitted well in advance of actual publication. Of course, that doesn't preclude more sinister or complex explanations.

Having said that, I have a personal bias against Wiley, and will therefore not comment on the uncanny similarities, which beggar belief in such a stunning 'coincidence'.

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

Given the similarities in drawing styles, I wondered if Wiley and Blazek weren't alter egos....

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

ETA... and I do remember that Wiley is snotty about web comics. Which makes my theory even more fantabulous. ;P

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I found it interesting that Blazek's version is the one which includes references both to what the Great Wall actually was for, and what a velvet rope is for, while Wiley's just sort of lays there without context.

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much par for the course for Wiley, isn't it? At least for his dailies?

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

You're baiting me. :P
Wiley's work speaks for itself. (Or, more to the point, doesn't. Heh.)

_{see how easy I am? Sheesh.}

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

Baiting? I tells the truth and nuttin' but da truth. ;P

And the barbarian!

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

It looks like...

Well, at first I thought it was some hiker with a backpack. But now that I look closer it seems, just seems, to be a guy in a suit reminiscent of an SS bodyguard type.