124 7986


Hopefully the reason I got behind on this one is self explanatory. :P Update: Next comic will be up this afternoon (Monday.) Doing the shading now.

124 thoughts on “Corpsing

        1. Especially your expected viewership for extremely bad movies. Demographic is all over the place in sometimes weird ways for those for those.

        2. Part of the question is if you get the expected viewership you need, or the expected viewership you deserve.

        3. Part of me has to question the size of the market they’ve decided they need to reach, but another part of me wonders if I overestimated their funding or purpose (like a school project).

        4. But if you separate your demographic to the part you are confident in and the part you’re striving for, how can you fail to question how to pull in the part you’re striving for?

        5. Having multiple personalities does not make an individual a demographic, at least not one that can easily survive being physically separated into parts.

        6. Indeed, and that survival is what makes it possible for the individual entity to be a demographic.

        7. I was a bit surprised on that change on your part too, but I didn’t want to bring it up. Though it’s hardly surprising that things could get muddled eventually.

        8. I gave you three – I thought it best after the third to converge on a topic, before it started to get repetitive.

      1. Reminds me of the line from “Some Like it Hot” – referring to Marilyn Monroe’s character Sugar:
        Jerry (Jack Lemmon): “Will you look at that! Look how she moves! It’s like Jell-O on springs. Must have some sort of built-in motor or something. I tell you, it’s a whole different sex! “

  1. “Hey, no cheeseing up my cheesy script”
    “Aww, I though we did a Gouda job” :-(

    And I’d that Jill Valentine with the blood squirt gun? I’m getting a Jill vibe from her.

        1. You damned kids today with your thousands of zombie games bloating the genre. IN MY DAY there were only a couple-a Zombie Games and you either liked them or found something else to do!

          Sorry, I got distracted down memory lane. Jill Valentine is a protagonist/recurring character from the Resident Evil games.

          NOW GET OFF MY LAWN! *shakes his walker threateningly*

        2. Heck, resident evil wasn’t even the start of zombie games for me. I mean, we had the castlevanias (they tossed some zombies in from time to time…just couldn’t tell what they were in the first couple games) or the ghosts & goblins/ghouls & goblins/whatever combinations, plus other random undead in so many other games (the final fantasy games always have undead/zombie enemies…but those are a different style entirely)

          Anyway, even at the genres infancy there was a selection of games with zombies, just no “zombie game” genre yet (although Zombies ate my neighbors might be a good starting point…)

          Um…yeah, “Jill sandwich”…”master of unlocking”…”LOOK. … …Over THerE…..!” I miss horribly done live action segments in video games.

        3. But…that was a year after Zelda…though nothing directly listed as a zombie there, but I’m also not including computer games (Ultima may have had zombies [i mean, part of the whole premis of the game was taking out some evil wizard with the immortality gem, necromancy makes sence], and that was first out in 1981)

          On the more absurd side of things, pen & paper RPG’s have had zombies longer than the video games too, but that’s an entirely different subject to tackle.

          But yeah, zombies prior to resident evil, but resident evil really brought zombies into the limelight.

        4. I dunno. I think it was the movie “Night of the Living Dead” and its remakes that brought Zombies into the limelight, and they predated Resident Evil. As far as video games, I’d think the Doom series – which also predates Resident Evil rather brought Zombies into the limelight earlier – albeit in a science fiction setting on Mars as opposed to the Earthbound setting of Resident Evil

        5. [Tempted to claim the paddles in Pong were intended to be hordes of zombies being run from, predating all the rest.]

        6. I thought those were just mutants in DOOM. Altered Beasts still has my vote though. Mushy targets with exposed bones…but that may be because i hardly ever played DOOM.

        7. Oh, no doubting Night for zombies in the limelight in general, but I was sticking to games & related media.

      1. Not necessarily, though I should have said filming is expensive. Every minute wasted is money you’re paying people just for being there.

    1. Having worked background a few times, I know that talking on set while shooting when not specifically told to do so is probably the easiest way to get yourself kicked out. Even when you are in a scene where you are talking, like at a party, everyone is just dead silent mouthing fake words (except for the people that have lines).

    2. There may be a bit more patience than there might otherwise be due to the vast wealth of other extras lining up to take their places.

  2. How can he tell her to not smile for the camera? Who cares if they are supposed to be fleeing for their lives, she looks so cute smiling like that. #Letelliedoherthing2016

  3. Yep. I still like this guy.

    And LOOK AT THAT CAMERA. Plus, camera guy appears to have an awesome beard. Unrelated, but we need one of those somewhere in SS methinks.

        1. I always figured a Live Action SS featuring Anise’s love of her life would borrow the Cousin It costume from Adams’ Family and try to adjust it for the eyes and top of the head to show out the top.

      1. That definitely sounds like it belongs in the AVN awards (though according to the list on Wikipedia, it’s not one).

    1. stupid keyboard keys.

      SHOTGUN SHUFFLE has a 2,283 accumulated vote total for the month of February. This translates to a 78.72 vote average per day. Which in turn reflects an average 3.28 votes per hour.

      March is coming up and with that, the Comics Mix March Madness Webcomics tournament as well. We need to make sure that we can get SHOTGUN SHUFFLE onto it again this year. And once through the seeding round back to the sweet sixteen. Personally, I’m going to put up to $40 aside from my tax returns for this. :D GO GO GADGET RUSCHE!!!

    2. Day six, 32nd place with 543 votes.
      This is roughly 90 votes per day!
      Let’s keep this up people, and let’s get more people looking at


      Ooooooohh rahhh

  4. So they run with guns but don’t get to fire any shots, even when up against a barrier? They may as well leave in Ellie smiling at the camera as if she’s not about to be mauled at this rate.

      1. I don’t know if they’d be allowed or not. Even with that bad of a movie the concept that a pointblank shot with a shotgun wouldn’t at least cause a few momentum hiccups in a herd of zombies is difficult to stomach.

        1. And yet we get to see it even in the big budget films wherever some extras just need swarming.

  5. The fun thing about voting TWC at the start of the day is how wildly it swings. Shortly after 5 AM I got to see us jump 20 after voting with my phone’s data connection and my ISP.

    Speaking of voting, I hope everyone in a US super Tuesday state went out and voted today. Even if you can’t morally vote for any of the candidates and have to leave it blank (I leave ~80% of my ballots blank, to be honest), it’s important to get out and show that you’ll get to the polls and vote for a decent candidate if one presents him/herself. Aside from civic duty reasons, voting data will show who turned out, and that percentage for >65 year olds is the reason social security and medicare are treated so carefully. Also if we can get those percentages of no vote or third party votes up high enough, it might result in more candidates trying to actually show how they can do something positive instead of just trying to paint their opponent as the Devil’s racquetball partner. The potential of a large enough segment of the electorate doing this during the Nov elections to win every single state had they instead voted one way or the other seems like it might be in reach if we end up with Trump & Hillary on the ballot, and that MIGHT get politics to change a bit.

    [steps off soap box, dusts it off, puts it under arm and walks away]

    1. I avoided responding to this for a few days basically because I really don’t want to start a political war in the comments section of my favorite web comic.
      Why do you think Hillary would change politics? My understanding is that she is a business-as-usual mouthpiece for the special interest groups who have run America for decades, increasingly more in the open after the Supreme Court ruled businesses are people too.
      She is full of the same platitudes and uses the same buzzwords as all of the other politicians, regardless of party affiliation, to get elected. Once in office the elected official seems hell-bent to ignore their promises (lies) to the voters while providing whatever services the special interest groups who funded the campaign request.
      I will readily admit I have not been following this election closely. My understanding is incomplete, and accordingly I ask the following question; what information do you have that you can share with me/us illustrating that Hillary Clinton would buck the system she is a part of?

        1. Very much so. Poor phrasing on my part in the initial statement.

          The current political trend is for the vast majority of the voters in the US of A voting against the opposite candidate rather than voting for their own (with a possible exception of 2008 where Obama really did seem to convince a lot of people he was something other than a politician somehow). I think the specter of Hillary vs Trump would certainly be playing into that same vein, but there are also such a large number of people on both sides of the aisle who could not, in good conscience, vote for either one of them. If those people would go to the polls and vote 3rd party, write-in, or leaving it blank rather than stay home in disgust, I strongly suspect that those votes would be larger than the margin of victory in most-to-all states.

          It’s my, possibly foolish, hope that something like that would convince the political establishment to try to start finding people we’d vote for rather than trying to find someone just barely less slimy than the other guy.

          I also cannot imagine Hillary bucking the political status quo unless she was well and truly backed into a corner and had no other choice. Even then, I’m not convinced she might not just commit suicide or go mad rather than buck the status quo.

        2. Ok, I now understand and agree. I had no idea how anyone could see Hillary as anything other than the Democrat’s establishment candidate.
          I can’t recall the last time I voted for a candidate. All my recent votes, excepts at the local level, have been an attempt to block what I felt was the worst choice.
          You and me, we’re ahhhh communicating.

        3. It’s hard to only vote FOR candidates and not AGAINST candidates. Seems like most people would tell you, upon learning that you voted for a third party or turned in an empty ballot, that you are throwing your vote away.

          Your best response probably depends on who is giving you their unwanted opinion.

        4. I find it interesting that people are saying Hillary is an Establishment candidate. To me that means she has succeeded very well.
          After Bill did his dash, she felt she could also contribute on a national level, but everybody saw her as simply riding Bill’s coattails. The acknowledgement that she was an equal to Bill in the brains and policy department wasn’t enough, The fact that she’d been in the White House for eight years already was actually commented upon suspiciously.
          So she went and won a Senate seat in New York, head down bum up & formed policy, showed that she could work in a bipartisan environment. She was then appointed and served as Secretary of State.
          She established her bona fides pretty well, I reckon. But now it’s all, “oh no, she’s part of the Establishment.” You’re kidding me, right?

        5. I don’t think any kind of degree of success or influence on one’s own goes into most people’s view of “the political establishment.” I’ve always thought it was more a question of mindset, connections, and most importantly, being a part of the mainstream of government. By that kind of lens I think Hillary easily qualifies.

          People only start talking about “the establishment” when they want to say that they’ve been getting it wrong, and that’s why it ends up having some negative connotations. When people think the government’s been going along swimmingly you don’t hear the term at all. So really it’s just a question of how much people view them as “part of the group that caused the problem.”

      1. Is not Hilary per se, but the people who would vote for her just because. Because she’s a female candidate but not the first. We have had an unofficial female president while the husband was sick.

        But it could just be a repeat of the 2008 election in which I quote one voter verbatim, “he’s pay black, and if he’s part black, then he’s all black and I’m voting for him because he’s all black.”

        1. Granted, the most common reason I hear for voting for Trump is “He’s not one of them!”
          Meaning not one of the political elite.

          And that alone just isn’t a good reason as well.

          So far it would seem that the two most likely to make the race both do not exactly look convincing. With Hilary having the advantage of at least knowing what she’s signing up for.

        2. I haven’t been able to vote for an actual candidate for president since I was old enough to realize that the school test-taking mentality of needing to fill out all the blanks didn’t actually apply to voting, and that it was actually a better service to the community to leave blank any races where I didn’t actually know anything about the people running.

          The sad thing is just how bad the candidates are to choose from in a general election. I can’t stand the senator that was up for election in 2012, so I sat down the week before the election to see what I could learn about his opponent. After 45 minutes of searching for things other than campaign websites, all I could say positively for the opponent was that he didn’t have any massive horrible scandals that had come to light yet, he had some at least a little deployed military service, and as a kid he helped some old lady with occasional yardwork. I REALLY wanted to vote for him, but when I there was that little positive about him I could find in 45 minutes of specific effort to find positive things, I couldn’t really vote for him in good conscience either.

          It just seems to me our national politics has been filled with “doesn’t stomp on babies as a hobby” candidates and we have ended up with the government that follows from that.

          I’m sure you have your headaches for your national politics as well, though it’s always a slightly different flavor from one place to the next.

        3. I kind of look at elections as hiring someone for a job. It’s certainly not a great way to look at the whole general process, but there’s one area where I think the comparison is relevant:

          If you select two (or three or four) job applicants to be interviewed, and then you interview them for the job, and find that neither are suitable for the job, you don’t hire them. Strangely, when it comes down to elections, we hire one anyway. Shouldn’t we just say, “I’m sorry, but we are going to pursue other applicants at this time, we’ll keep your resume on file though, and good luck with your job search – by the way ask the front desk on your way out, they’ll validate your parking.” Then just start the whole campaign over?

          Ugh… that’s right, we’d have to endure another two years of campaigning.

        4. Yeah, I think quite often that the founding fathers should’ve mandated two additional items on every ballot: “I do not know anything about these candidates” & “No confidence” and mandated any elections won by “no confidence” be do overs. It’d make the election cycles longer, but I think it’d be worth it over all with a result in somewhat better government.

        5. “No confidence”…

          I actually like that as an option. It would be impractical, sure. But I still like it.

          We do have something like that in Switzerland, by the way. Since for any vote decided by majoritarian system, in the first run there will be an ‘absolute majority’ of half of all valid voting ballots returned (and yes, empty ones are valid). And if no candidate reaches it (or not enough to fill all seats), there will be a second run without (only for the remaining seat in the mentioned option). Often with candidates dropping out or joining in in the meantime.

        6. Honestly, I’m not sure the cycle has to be that long anyway. Why is it a full year of mud slinging in the primaries, followed by close to a year of mud slinging in the general election? Most countries have a much shorter electoral process. Though admittedly, it takes a while for people to take any of it seriously, but I think that’s part of the long cycle. It’s not going to be over for a while, so why bother paying attention a full year out?

          I’d definitely go for a “sorry, no one likes you enough to vote FOR you. Please try to improve your personality, and try again.” concept. I’ve wanted to throw out the candidates and start fresh around this time for the last several election cycles. Apparently, the people who vote first don’t have the same opinions as I do. Who knew?

        7. Totally agree – and aside from the amount of time wasted campaigning, think about the amount of money wasted on it. I mean, that money could go to probably a million better causes than really-publicized squabbling and name-calling between otherwise-supposedly-mature adults.

        8. Well, actually that’s why the election cycle has stretched out so far. The “news” media in this country forgot, or just doesn’t give a damn about, the reason they got a callout for freedom in the first amendment, which is that keeping the public well informed is vital to proper functioning of a democracy. They’re in it for the money, which means they’re in it for the ratings. Also a lot of that money wasted in campaigns goes straight to their pockets, so it’s profit rather than waste in their view.

          That’s why the election cycle is stretching out so far, some of us fall for it and the rest are driven away and they falsely believe we don’t care enough to keep in formed anyway, rather than being too nauseated about it.

        1. really, that’s what it’s called? and all this time i was showing my friends and coworkers my phone case and saying “Fear the Taratchula!”

        2. Yep, as per the comic title at least. I think Rusche said in the comments that we’d see one more future mutation (I think ratchantulapede, but I’m not 100% certain about that).

  6. Then she jiggles into overdrive and some due in SFX says “We can’t handle the jiggle Director…we just don’t have the powah!”


    1. I can’t tell if older guy is doing so in the top panel or not. He’s either got his finger around the trigger guard or on the trigger there. As for Ellie, she is a cop’s daughter, so it seems not odd that Herb would’ve taught her proper firearm handling.

      I agree that it’s a nice detail that is way too frequently ignored.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.