Well I do think it has reached a point of repetition.
Krok the early history of the other characters has already been pointed out to you. Characters just do not get birthed fully formed and your expectation that this one should is … odd. To add to the list (and I am hardly a regularly reader, really not entitled to write GBT) is the President of the college, who initially existed (to this day perhaps?) fairly exclusively to critique/parody modern college practices, from admissions to grade inflation to politically correct speech.
Your claim that this character exists “claiming to speak for conservatives and war vets” is also a conclusion that seems without any evidence; no more than Zonker has spoken for stoners or those who tan. He exists, for now, to make GBT’s point that an intellectually consistent conservative should be very upset with those who brought us this war (by illustrating a fictional one who is), and thus perhaps with the neocon movement itself, and to further B.D.s growth by providing him with that argument from a source that his character as written would consider it from. He may exist for other purposes too and be allowed to become a fully fleshed character, or not … but using a character for those purposes does not seem like “cheating” to me. Yes, it does to you, and you are entitled to react to the fiction you choose to read however you do.
Don’t know Animal Man so the allusion is lost on me.
It was a re-phrasing of part of post 108:
“I don’t interpret or deconstruct comic strips that way. I realize they are whatever the artist wants to do, for whatever reason, and I don’t find moral authority in the characters. I don’t hold Trudeau all that highly, it’s been decades since I found Doonesbury relevant or important. This is just another message in another form. It’s just a comic strip, visual rhetoric.”
Guys, everything you’re throwing at me, you already threw earlier. If you don’t see the Professor as Trudeau’s authorial voice in community college professor tweed and unearned service medals, nothing I say will convince you it’s there. And nothing you say will convince me to extend papal-level infallibility to Trudeau. If you don’t want to look at him critically, you don’t have to.
Again, you’re being insulting. Nobody is saying you should extend papal-level infallibility to Trudeau. Nobody is saying you can’t look at him critically. What we’re doing is looking at YOUR view critically, and you don’t seem to be able to handle that, responding to critiques of your views by suggesting that people are Garfield fans.
Good luck with that.
Edit: your rephrasing is unrecognizably incorrect.