One of the strengths of PVP is that characters are well-defined -- they've been around for a while, and the author has a decent sense of how to write for each of them. This does not come without some pitfalls, however, ones that should be easily avoided but often aren't.
In today's strip, we find Cole talking to Francis about Brent's upcoming wedding. Cole thinks there's a good chance that there won't be a wedding, due to shortcomings on Brent's part.
Ruh-roh. Brent has overheard. But how will Brent react? The totally predictable set up leads us to believe that Brent will not be happy to hear it. But the way the panel is drawn (and even lettered) implies almost no sense of sarcasm in Brent's delivery, leaving the reader up in the air.
The author is too close to his characters, and I'm guessing that he hears the script in his mind, as if spoken out loud, as he lays out his panels. The problem is he doesn't take into account the difficulty in projecting sarcasm using only the written word. Email is a perfect example of this -- we use emoticons in IM and email for just this purpose, but in a comic strip the art is supposed to do the job.
The depiction of both Brent and Cole in the last panel are so lacking in context, that we can do almost anything with the dialog in this panel, including give the line to Cole:
... or give Cole a new line:
This ambiguity can hurt an on-going story line by leaving the reader with a false impression of what happened in the previous strip. If readers aren't given a solid sense of Brent's reaction at the end of this strip, they will be confused when Brent preditably decides that perhaps Cole isn't the right man for the job. And makes the troll his best man. Until Cole redeems himself.
(Anyone want to take bets on whether this is the planned storyline?)