“Emily” looks more like a clothing store mannequin than an actual person. (Either that, or she’s completely blitzed out of her gourd. Which, to be fair, I wouldn’t blame her if that’s how she prepared to meet this dullard.)
For that matter, weren’t all the parents driving their kids to school instead of having them take the bus, save for that one kid? Did they all decide to make the kids take the bus again (for… reasons, I guess)? Although that wouldn’t explain why they no longer have enough drivers, since there were enough before that to cover all the students. Or did The Burnings in Westview (i.e., the Booksmellers fire that didn’t even damage the books) force all the Westviewians to migrate to Centerville? (Actually… that could have some merit. Yeah, these appear to be much younger children, but the Westview parents could have realized that, if they stayed in that town, their kids might eventually end up with Best Actress Academy Award Winner Les Moore as their teacher, and they decided moving towns was the better option. Plausible enough for a No-Prize, at least…)
His real name is… Pizza Monster. He actually went to the trouble to have his name legally changed to “Pizza Monster”. (What it was before that, Tom ain’t sayin’. Probably because he doesn’t know, either.)
I think the difference is Non Sequitor does do it EVERY Sunday; it’s actually created and then printed (in newspapers) in a vertical format (I believe it was done specifically for papers to fill up a vertical spot in their Sunday comics pages). Batiuk makes “vertical” strips to fit a horizontal space, and sends them to the syndicate that way, so they’d have to actually rotate the strip to present it vertically (which I believe they’re contractually disallowed from doing, at least in Batiuk’s case).
(One of Batiuk’s old contracts – with King Features, probably – explicitly specified that the syndicate could make NO changes to his strips unless the material could get them in actual legal trouble; i.e., there was something libelous or whatever. Annoying readers obviously wouldn’t have fallen under that exception, so they wouldn’t have been able to alter the strip. And I can’t imagine Batiuk – or any creator, for that matter – after getting that in a contract once, would ever agree to have that control taken away.)
As far as I can tell, this is fully on Batiuk. (Mostly for doing these inane strips in the first place.)
“HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR” -New York Post, April 15 1983
Certainly better than anything Skippy here is going to come up with.