Big boobies.

[Jared Katooie]

Now I'm as tolerant as the next skull, but this month's Meg cover really takes the synthi-biscuit! Essentially it's just a massive close-up of, well cleavage to be honest.

Now no offense to Andy Diggle and Dave Bishop but they too have been guilty of such unscrupulous methods of reader recruitment. I wouldn't have a problem with this sort of thing if it didn't give the impression that I'm either a moron or pervert or both.

So c'mon, give me a break! Stop the gratuitous nudieisms now! It looks like im reading some crap adult "comedy" publication like Viz. Agh! Mercy, please....

I know the editors can stop this so please please stop...

Of course photo nudity inside the issues is positively to be encouraged...

Jared "Pervmaster 5" Katooie

[2000AD Online]

you mean that theback cover of last months meg is the cover...oh dear

[Jared Katooie]

Oh, eh I assumed so actually. May not be. But I'd guess that it is.

The shame...

[Oddboy]

So have you seen the new Meg or not?
Is it another comic to file with this lot?

http://www.2000adonline.com/covers/megazine/thumbnails/2.42_thumb.jpg">http://www.2000adonline.com/covers/megazine/thumbnails/1.16_thumb.jpg">http://www.2000adonline.com/covers/2000ad/thumbnails/1129thumb.jpg">http://www.2000adonline.com/covers/2000ad/thumbnails/987thumb.jpg">http://www.2000adonline.com/covers/2000ad/thumbnails/1228thumb.jpg">

[2000AD Online]

i'm trying not to anything here

[Tu-plang]

I actually think the last 3 on that list are bloody good covers and weren't too gratuitously OTT as far as tits go.

I'm just wondering if it's a running gag in Empathetically Yess to send DeMarco the jumpsuits with the faulty zippers.

[paulvonscott]

Of course they weren't too OTT Tu-Plan, of course...

The picture on the front isn't that bad (the close up of just the tits was a joke) her wig is appalling, the pink cover makes the whole think look pretty lurid and we should be grateful the words 'She'll suck you dry' are barely noticeable :)  Having said that, she looks the part.

[Tiplodocus]

The funny thing was that inside the article said "We don't want this to be cheesy".  Which is exactly what it was.

[2000AD Online]

oh i am really going to enjoy this

(sarcasm is such a dirty word)

[rius]

Any opportunity for gratuitous nudity should be rigorously pursued by the editors of any publication featuring 'strips' about women with gravity-defying norks! Rock on!

[Devons Daddy]

question then
does this kind of cover sell more issues?
i have no problem with it. though customs and excise in singapore do i admit.
but whats the rational. if it sells 500 or more copies extra. can you blame them. if it has no effect. then you have a valid arguement.

me i dont see it in that way. its art. nothing more.all in the eye of the beholder.

[Tiplodocus]

The more cynical among us (well, the bloke that sits next to me in the Office and reads 2000AD and the MEGAZINE) might say that using a photo cover like the one on this months Meg has only one benefit.

That is; some of the blokes in the 2000AD/MEGAZINE office have met this "bird" before and thought that they'd organise a photo shoot to see if they could chat her up.

That couldn't possibly be the case, could it?  

[2000AD Online]

ha ha ha ha

interesting honest hee

[Jared Katooie]

Art? Art my arse.

Ta.

j.

[Trout]

This fish has reversed his stance on overtly sexual covers since taking out a subscription.

But I do sympathise with those of you who don't receive their comics in unmarked envelopes.

I liked the cover, but felt the feature on how it was produced was perhaps a bit much.

- Trout