2009-11-04
Explanation
This comic is titled "Arguments That Don't Work in Court" and shows a disheveled, nervous-looking man who says, "I prefer sex DEFENDER." The implication is that this man has been labeled a sex offender and is trying to rebrand the term by swapping "offender" for "defender," as if a simple word change could alter the nature of his crimes or his legal situation.
The humor is in the absurd idea that legal proceedings could be swayed by semantic reframing. The word "defender" has positive connotations -- it suggests protecting rather than attacking -- so the character is attempting to spin his designation into something that sounds heroic rather than criminal. Of course, this is transparently ridiculous, which is exactly why it falls under arguments that don't work in court.
The votey panel shows the same man shouting, "I acted in sex defense!" This extends the joke by having him try to invoke something analogous to "self-defense" as a legal justification, further illustrating his desperate and futile attempt to reframe his actions using more favorable terminology. The escalation from passive rebranding to an active legal defense argument makes the absurdity even more pointed.