You still see the frog on the wall in the first and third panels, you just might not notice it's colorful so the comic has a chance to do that subversion and surprise at the end.
With the way it's structured now you aren't surprised by the ending because it's very clearly a poisonous looking frog.
It feels like the punchline doesn't quite fit like it should...
I think the second panel should be leaning in for the kiss with the frog out of frame, third panel the same, a new fourth panel showing a close-up of the frog so we can retroactively piece together what happened.
True, but the amount they shrink and grow across the grain tends to be proportional. A 2x4 is very rarely measurably different from 1.5"x3.5", but a 2x10 (like you've shown) is 1.5"x9 1/4" but is often anywhere between 9 1/8" to 9 3/8"
I'm genuinely curious on what the math works out to, but I think you'd need to account for time spent around each, or a "per encounter" statistic or something.
Otherwise there could be a scenario where the bear encounter is 100% deadly for example, but if most bears are never encountered it'd make them seem safer.
Of course, this scenario is specifically an encounter in the woods, so it'd need to be something like: total encounters between women and bears in the woods vs total encounters with women and men in the woods, and then factor in non-deadly encounters, other forms of assault, etc. That probably has next to no useful data though so good luck...
Tip for next time: shine a bright light across the wall to cast shadows and really emphasize any imperfections. I do this while sanding, and circle with pencil anything that needs another coat of mud to fix then go back and take care of those.
Total aside: there is a group that you can visually identify when it comes to anesthetics. Redheads tend to have a higher tolerance and can need as much as 20% more for the same pain management effects.
What will happen if all benches and horizontal places will get some anti homeless details? Homeless will magically disappear from the world?
If I'm being charitable, it's less about magically making homelessness disappear but forcing them out if unacceptable places/behaviors. Of course, very typically the same people most in favour of hostile architecture are also against giving people the help they need so maybe there's some magical thinking there after all lol.
I'm the weird one who wants tons of support and isn't against certain hostile architecture, but I get why I'm often lumped in with the magical thinking ones you alluded to.
I want nobody to have to sleep on a bench, but also nobody to be able to choose to do it either as that's not what the bench is for! Go sleep somewhere that's meant for sleeping and leave the bench for those who need to sit down.
I'd argue there's nothing wrong with it being be hostile to "misuse" whatever that would be. Like how traffic calming works; "hostile" to traffic in order to make it better for pedestrians etc.
For the bench, you could make the case that laying on a bench means one person occupies it for a long period of time instead of it being open for several people to use when needed for shorter periods. It's not necessarily anti homeless, just anti bench hogging (even if it's typically homeless "misusing" the bench).
You still see the frog on the wall in the first and third panels, you just might not notice it's colorful so the comic has a chance to do that subversion and surprise at the end.
With the way it's structured now you aren't surprised by the ending because it's very clearly a poisonous looking frog.