Mondays & Thursdays

Looking For Group

Tuesdays & Fridays

Non-Playable Character


Tiny Dick Adventures

  • MTSeth

    Russia doesn’t stand a chance….

  • David herbert

    So is Richard now in the real world?

    • Nanashi Nemo

      Yes, providing his own viewpoint on world news.

  • Shady Shariest

    Heh. A bastardized version of Calvin and Hobbles?

  • Anta

    Sooooo the year is 2008 and the crane is Kosovo?

    • BiggyDingus

      Anta, what is your problem with Muslims and their right not to be raped and murdered by a Serbian dictator?

      Lousy bigot.

      • Anta

        ↑Obvious troll is obvious.

        • Guest

          The word of the day is Sarcasm.

          • Anta

            The word of the day is “obvious”.

  • Phynyx

    You crane = Ukraine and RIchard plays the role of Russia, saving said country from ‘destabilizing circumstances’.

    • Ανδρεας

      Richard plays the role both of Russia and USA – EU

      • BiggyDingus

        Funny how only the Russian readers are seeing it this way.

        Fact is, only a moron can see Richard as being the U.S. right now, because we haven’t acted at all.

        In a few weeks, you might be right. I wouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. intervenes, and history shows that we do indeed sometimes step in it when we try to intervene. But right now, there’s only one country that has unwanted boots on the ground in the Ukraine, and that country speaks Russian and hates gays.

        • Laur Joost

          His name would be Andreyi, not Andreas, if he were russian. Also a bigger hint, that’s greek, not cyrillic alphabet.

          I think what he meant is that while Russia is the one doing active X_X-ing, US and EU contribute by being too passive.

          Thing is, US and EU have nothing to gain from Russia having a stronger foothold in the Black Sea. They don’t get the hat.

    • Brendon Leenheer

      omigoodness… you’re totally right!

  • TruDivination

    Out of curiosity, will this whole comic be Richard and politics? If it is, can we see more fwooshing? OF everybody?

    • matt

      More fwooshing that is a policy I can get behind.

      • Matt Dameron

        Vote for me and I will raise the international fwoosh rate!

        • Martin Burne

          You mean infwooshion. :)

        • roxassword

          I can get behind infwooshion but I wonder how this will affect me, the homicidal manic with a weapon but no fwoosh.

  • Rarazal

    I guess this is not about a specific situation, but about that thing called “international peace keeping” in general. A powerful country (the U.S, in most cases) walking into a land with the intention to “help”, then causing more damage than anything else.

    • Qurop

      “Do not worry ,we are here on peace missions!”

      With weapons!

      And tanks.






  • DOOMLover21

    I laughed so hard when I read this

  • RadBaron

    He wasn’t talking to the crane, he meant the fish!

  • Fellow

    Ooh, great pun.

  • Elizabeth Barton

    Was Richard in New York this morning? Building exploded and fell over. hmm

  • NapalmJackson

    Link to a site that is mainly US based and, while they claim to report without bias, cannot possibly hope to actually remain without bias.

    • tiago capela

      tell that to the ucranians

    • Casey Fuentes

      Ooh, you’re so… stereotypical. “Hue hue, like a large majority of the rest of the English-language internet content, this site hosts its datacenters in the US, therefore must be unreliable!”

      …your paltry attempts at greasy, excuse-based rhetoric notwithstanding, the US wasn’t the one who rolled in with tank battalions, occupied territory belonging to another sovereign nation, and started shooting citizens.

      …not this time, anyway :/

      • NapalmJackson

        *le sigh*

        Did you look at the Wikipedia page he linked? It was to a conflict from about 80 years ago, which had nothing to do with tanks, guns, anything like that, and has little to do with today, since it was an entirely internal affair by the Soviet Union.

        Moving onto the comtemporary conflict. If you had been following sources outside of the US (and potentially non-EU also), you would have known that Russia hasn’t fired a shot a civilians or Ukrainian soldiers. Pretty much, to the best of my understanding, they walking into Crimea, said that they were gonna chill for a bit under the pretense of protecting Russian interests, and did just that. It got to the point of some Ukrainian soldiers wanted to go back to work, so they called Russia’s bluff, walking, in step, back to their posts, unarmed, and just started going about their daily business. Russian soldiers didn’t do anything. If this is a hostile takeover like you seem to say it is, then it is the most damn peaceful hostile takeover I have ever seen or heard of.

        While the US-EU forces haven’t done anything (because we have been too scared of the repercussions, etc), I took the comic as more of a precursory or predictive joke, since, as Ανδρεας pointed out, our usual course of intervention generally does mean tanks, explosives, shooting people, and such, and all indications pointed to that if we were to try to step in, like many thought we were, it was gonna be guns blazing, shoot-first-ask-questions-later.

        Also, as an afterthought, use Wikipedia for information, but realize they will still be slanted and generally report the news as their home sources report it, so breaking stories get pretty heavy swing depending on the language you read it in more often than not.

        • BiggyDingus

          Comments like yours make me miss the downvote count. “If this is a hostile takeover like you seem to say it is, then it is the most damn peaceful hostile takeover I have ever seen or heard of.”

          Have you studied history at all? When Hitler first started invading Europe, he started with “damn peaceful” hostile takeovers. Apparently, if a country that still fields cavalry units decides to stand down instead of getting slaughtered trying to fight off the largest and most modern mechanized army in the world, that counts as “wanting the occupation.” When he implemented his “final solution,” the Jews and the other “undesirables” for the most part didn’t fight back as they were marched to the ghettos, then the camps, and finally the gas chambers. Much like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it was pretty peaceful. I suppose by your standards, there was no Holocaust and no genocide: It was all a big, peaceful mass suicide.

          Oh I know, since you seem to hate America so much, this example might better fit your myopic world-view. When we invaded Iraq during the second Gulf war, the first few weeks of the invasion were “the most damn peaceful hostil takeover I have ever seen or heard of.” Pretty much every military unit encountered either immediately surrendered, deserted, or defected. Most of the civilians seemed pretty happy to see us there–they were legitimately pretty sick of Saddam and thought we would improve things. As it turns out, the guys who didn’t want us there were just biding their time, and the guys who initially did want us there changed their minds after ten years of waiting for their lives to get better. But by your standards, that still counts as a “peaceful,” “voluntary” occupation, right?

          Also, here’s some useful information from someone who has actually served in the military before. “Pretty much, to the best of my understanding, they walking into Crimea, said that they were gonna chill for a bit under the pretense of protecting Russian interests, and did just that.” This is called an act of war. If the U.S. sent a large military force into Russia, and it wasn’t because we were invited to march in the Victory Day parade again, would you consider that an aggressive act? If we arrived with such overwhelming force that people were too scared to fight back, would that be any less aggressive?

          • NapalmJackson

            Allow me, if I may, to start with how I’m defining takeover: a move to seize control of, with intent to permanently occupy and eventually annex a region.

            Under this definition, I’m not counting the US occupation in Iraq as a takeover, though I do put it as hostile. I am fully aware that people wanted us there at the beginning. But just because you came off the line well doesn’t mean you won the race. The same can be said about the Nazi ragime. Even if they did not start agressively, the end was still pretty damn bloody. We aren’t near the end if the Crimean struggle, I would assume, but, and please correct me if I am wrong (honestly, my history education is slightly lacking, so some of what you put forth was new information to me, but it isn’t so new that it changes any of my arguements) Russia hasn’t really done anything aggressive besides place troops in a location that they already had interests (read: a naval base) with intent to eventually annex the region. Thus, I’m calling this a peaceful takeover, as thus far in the race, it has been peaceful. This view could very well change in time.

            As to your last point, thank you. It is generally an act of war to random drop troops in a location because there is something there that you want to defend or obtain, isn’t it? (US went into Iraq to disarm nuclear armanents. Any time we have gone into a place to “defend democracy and freedom”) Yet, somehow, we still claim to have never been the initiator of any war. Something has to give, bro. I love the US, but we can be such hypocrites when it comes to international affairs.

            As for some source on my claim from my first post (as to the Ukrainians just kinda walking back to work), this isn’t the exact place I first saw it, but actually goes into slightly more detail, kinda:

            There is also this, that I found while looking for that source. It shows a little bit better that the Crimeans “wanted the occupation.” (Your words, first time I’ve said anything close on this site):

            If I have anything wrong, please let me know. I’m not afraid nor ashamed to admit defeat, I just like having the facts straight. =)

        • Laur Joost

          I’ll leave the rest of your response unchallenged for now, just to remind you: USSR was not a single state, it was a federation with a somewhat despotic permanent leader state. Interstate politics was heavily dictated.

  • Fernando Santos

    As someone outside the US, i´m loving this cartoon! And for me Richard here is the US…

    • The Gray Watcher

      Dude, I’m baking cookies today in your name! :D

      • MidnightDStroyer

        I hope those are big cookies…That’s a pretty long name to be writing with frosting for small cookies.

        • The Gray Watcher

          I backed Brownies in home made cookie forms <3

  • Lord Thorn

    As an rational being, I strongly belive that no country has rigth to interfere in others country’s internal busines; maxime if we are speaking of a militar action. What US called “pacification of Irak” was no more than a mere invasion, no so different from the ones performed by colonialist empires before WWI.

    In the other hand, when a country’s own goverment is making suffer its own folk; it is bery difficult to get a pacific solution without external interference. BUT, for that types of situations was born the United Nations at the end of WWII. They should be the only ones with power to interfere in a country’s internal crisis and only when extreme situations are happening.

    So if Ucranian people are asking aid for being protected of their own goverment, only UN should have the rigth to answer to that call. Not Russia, UK , USA or any other “International-police-wannabe”…

    • Labbear

      Except the US, Russia, the UK, China, and France signed the “Budapest Memorandum on Security Issues” in 1994 in return for Ukraine’s disarmament. At this point, Russia has completely violated articles one and two of that agreement. I believe that because Ukraine’s inability to defend herself is a direct and intentional result of that agreement the other signing parties have a moral obligation to act in her defense either directly, through military action, or by dissolving the agreement and supplying the government of Ukraine with weapons of a similar type to those they sent to be dismantled.

      • Artem Rudkovsky

        It was signed, but neither Russia`s, no US or UK governments ratified it so it has no legal status.

        the strip is great, nontheless)

        • BiggyDingus

          You don’t seem to understand how international law works.

          Ratification accomplishes two things. Internally, it gives terms of the treaty legal effect on a country’s own citizens (particularly important in countries where an executive has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, but only a separate branch of government has the power to legislate.)

          Internationally, it constitutes formal acceptance of a treaty, whereas a signing only indicates that the executive finds the terms of the treaty acceptable. Is this an important difference? In this case, not really. Within a country, the difference between accepting a contract and kind of vaguely agreeing that a contract is okay is pretty important. An actual contract can be enforced by the judiciary of that nation. However, in international law, there is no general body for treaty enforcement.

          For large, multilateral treaties, formal ratification is important. If a hundred nations sign a treaty regulating the ivory trade and set up an institution to enforce that treaty, failing to ratify the treaty means that you can escape it’s jurisdiction, but you also lose the ability to bring grievances or to exploit any other benefits of the treaty.

          For treaties involving very few signatories, there generally aren’t governing institutions. The treaty is enforced primarily by moral condemnation and political pressure from the U.N. and non-signatory nations, and the military power of the signatory nations. Thus, Artem’s comment has zero relevance to Labbear’s. The agreement was that Ukraine would disarm, and that the five signatories would refrain from invading it, and keep each other honest on that count. Ukraine kept its end of the deal. So did the others for about 20 years, until Russia broke the agreement this year, giving the other signatories the right to intervene under the treaty. Alternately, you can look at it Artem’s way: The treaty never existed because Russia never ratified and never planned to keep its word. There is no treating binding the U.S. or the EU to either inaction, or a specified course of action. So when Ukraine is invaded by Russia, and asks for our help, there is nothing forcing us to intervene. But there is also nothing forcing us not to.

    • Phreak811

      Iraq and Ukraine. Please learn proper spelling before posting in English

      • Lord Thorn

        I beg your pardon, sir. When speaking a tounge that it is not by far ones mother tounge, someone can just forget that a country’s name it is not spelled the same way. I did study geografy in basque at school, not in english. But thank you anyway, you teached me something.

        • Chris

          Geography. Taught.
          :) English is weird.

          • MidnightDStroyer

            I’d agree with that. I read about a quote someone said but don’t remember the name or the exact wording, but here it goes:
            English isn’t just a type of language that borrows from other languages. It stalks, mugs in a dark alley & rifles through the pockets of other languages to take what it wants.

          • Ethorin

            it’s more like English is the Christianity of Languages
            you want to know something interesting?
            every Christian Holiday is on the same day as their pagan predecessors
            it made it easier to get converts when you had the same holidays
            English had something pretty similar going on
            Britain went around and got a bunch of colonies, and British and Native mixed and mingled occasionally,
            then America Happened and omg no language purists allowed

    • BiggyDingus

      As a rational being, I believe that every individual and every country, by default, is free to do whatever the hell they want, and that this freedom should only be restricted for the sake of some other compelling interest, such as the rights of others.

      You claim to be a rational being, and you’re clearly trying to make a rational argument, but it rests on a key assumption that you fail to justify: That “no country has the right to interfere in others country’s internal busines,” even when that country is asking for help. Because that is the case with Ukraine. When it was the police state abusing the human rights of its citizens, the people were seeking outside help from everyone. Now that old government is gone, and Russia has invaded, the people AND the new government are calling for aid against the Russians from Britain and the United States. So tell me, what rational basis do you have for some moral imperative that takes precedence over the wishes of two consenting sovereign nations on a bilateral issue. (Well, technically trilateral, but if you try to argue that Russia has a right to invade and occupy Ukraine without interference that takes precedence over Ukraine’s right to ask for help, and other nations’ right to provide it, I assure you, you will be mocked mercilessly.)

      If my house is on fire, and I run to my neighbor for help, should he get the hose to help me, or should he say, “Look, we’ve been friends for years, and I want to help you, but under Lord Thorn’s philosophy of pacific solutions without external interference, only an international coalition of firefighters has the right to interfere with your house’s internal combustion. But if the coalition votes to intervene, I will ask them to deputize me so that I can help them put out the fire when they arrive in five to eight days.”

      • MidnightDStroyer

        I think what Lord Thorn was getting at was the wrongness of *forcing* your “help” on those who don’t want or ask for it…Once you force your help, it’s just force, not help. Since this is not the case with Ukraine, then responding to a call for help would be appropriate.

    • wilder125

      As an eater of fried chicken and drinker of soft drinks. I think we should all agree that Little Dick wearing a crane hat is cute.

  • Dosh

    A one-off political/social joke every so often would be fine, but is this really the best place to release the Dick on a regular basis? I get that you can’t please all the people all of the time, but these intentionally inflammatory comics that make 33% of readers laugh, 33% of readers rage, 33% of readers troll, and 1% of readers do all three just don’t seem like a good idea. How about more of that pop culture? Fwoosh some celebrities or something.

    • JZSquared

      Dosh is right. We need to dumb this down to the American level.

      • The Gray Watcher

        But ye know! :P A lot of people living outside the states think Richard is “USA” so in that sense it’s hilarious. ^^ My opinion anyway, and this comes from an American who lives outside the country ;)

        But to comment on your statement, Is it not dumbed down to an American level? Just kinda done on the other side of the scale? XD haha

      • Dosh

        That’s exactly what I’m saying. Thank you for making my message more succinct. :P

      • MidnightDStroyer

        Actually, I discern the difference between fiction & reality…Hollywood is good for entertainment, but I also realize that it’s a whole sub-culture that devotes their careers & lives to manufacture & sell fiction for entertainment. Yep, Hollywood is its own Land of Fantasy, so when entertainers who are good for projecting fiction try to reach out into the real world (outside of their own sub-culture), I just turn around & walk the **** away from them.

  • Dirnol

    The best way to protect things is by Putin them on your head.

    • Rarazal

      Great pun man! Made me laugh way too hard!

  • MsFlyingSnake .

    Dear people with more artistic ability than me and more drive to use what you love to make a living, please stop using what you love to make commentary on the real world. (There, see how silly all you complainers sound?) From actual me, keep it up. I love this comic and I love all the twists and turns you make with it.

    • The Gray Watcher

      A lot of great artists through out history has drawn both inspiration and the will to do art from politics/war/leaders/rulers. If you take that away, You take away an extremely important part of what we do! -> Making Statements!

      • John Belrose

        This this right here what Gray Watcher said. I mean if you did not half of the greatest written works would not have been written, the work of some of the greatest modern artists would not have been created. Just my two cents worth. oh well.

      • MsFlyingSnake .

        Couldn’t agree more.

      • MidnightDStroyer

        Trying to leave politics out of humor would really crimp the styles of a lot of stand-up comedians too…

  • Wyrmlaf

    Aside from the Russia-Ukraine jab and since I just recently watched the Lone Ranger movie from last year the last panel seems like a reference to Tonto with his dead crow on his head.

    • asdfadfs

      ha, they blatantly stole that from a much older movie.

      also that was racist of jonny depp bla bla grrr

      • MVG

        How was it racist? He has Creek ancestry and has been adopted into the Comanche tribe.

  • Ανδρεας
  • Rick

    is that in reference to the leader who invades and claims it’s for protection, or the leader who has treaties promising protection but claims nothing can be done about it?

    • asdfadfs

      por que no las dos

  • BiggyDingus

    Because Russia never invaded Afghanistan, or backed the Serbian rape and genocide of Muslim civilians in Kosovo?

    Oh wait, that was “the Soviet Union,” which is different from “the Russian Federation,” which is an entirely different nation that is blameless for the atrocities committed by the U.S.S.R.

    • ανδρεας

      if you had had a closer look at my posts, you would already notice, that i’m not a supporter of Russia, but you Americans (or American friend countries) and Russians have a difficulty to understand that your countries are exploiting all the other by the demands of the big companies and federations

  • asdfadfs

    you’re kidding right? this author loves that sort of thing.

  • Wyrmlaf

    So will the next strip be Little Dick hijacking flight 370? Or him blowing the plane up while Fwooshing the hijackers? The whole “the cure is worse than the disease” thing.

  • fearsome

    I know people think he’s Russia, but I still think the Richard best represents the USA. Forcefully, “protecting” those who don’t need or want it. …I’m an American.

    • Lexinack

      I think he’s both personally

  • fearsome

    Maybe it’s because these comic strips are very specifically politically charged. …Or did that go over your head?

  • roxassword

    Based on whats going on now, I’d say he’s Putin. But no one can deny that Tiny Dick really explains the problems in the world in a way that we can all understand… Hmm, a homicidal, sociopathic, murderous, undead, sarcastic Warlock is the best medium for explaining poltics… We should look at that in ourselves.

    • MidnightDStroyer

      Richard’s a good character for Putin on airs & Russian into situations where he can create mayhem…I approve of this comic.

  • decinaty

    Soooo, where is the update?

  • banaman

    ‘you, crane’ = ‘ukraine’ *facepalm* I can’t believe it took me that long to get that.

    • Speedy Marsh

      So, in other words, Vladimir is just Putin another feather in his cap?

      • Piret Rhapsodos

        Please join in being a hat for Dick? Thanks.

  • Mr. K

    So, later in the comic he always makes a “FWOOSH!” is there any particular reason it’s a “soosh”?