Two ideologically opposed men of an older generation have an altercation in a park because, unbeknownst to the right leaning man, his dog actually has bitten the other. But when the commotion begins said man only sees the other kick the dog away from me, so he flies into a rage and hits him. His daughter is a witness and tells him it was the dogs fault but he doesn’t listen to her, and even goes so far as to put up an erroneous blog post painting himself in a decent light.

The pacifist left-leaning person is inclined to let it all go, but his son is really bothered by this emasculation and decides to retaliate, which results in a sort of pressure cooker situation unfolding. Life also conspires to have the two children meet as the narrative also follows their lives and how the events at the park change them.

What follows is an exploration on a few things. Primarily, I think, it’s trying to shine on a lot on motivated thinking; you might also have heard it called confirmation bias. It might also be exploring toxic masculinity, but I think that is a sort of byproduct of the narrative and not intentional. It doesn’t really land the themes it’s going for in a satisfying way, if it aims to. I think it mostly wants a dialogue with the complexities and limitations of empathy. Sometimes it’s effective, other times not. The resolution of this central tension between the older men, for instance, feels quite odd to me. The peripheral characters have plot beats, even the dog does, but these are left somewhat hanging at a very ambiguous ending that would have done better to resolve a few things.

The result it feels toothless, but interesting, at times. Which is how I felt about the artwork as well. Interesting, but uneven and a bit strange; spontaneous panels do look exceptional, though.