If you can, definitely inject a bit of humour into it. Philosophy can be a bit of a dry subject to people unfamiliar with it, but humour can make stuff stick even better.

I would certainly be interested in the history of philosophy, I think.

Yeah my intent was to make it a bit comical or at the very least more approachable for people

This could be interesting! I don't know a great deal about philosophy myself (at least in the modern sense), so it'd be great to have a primer for what it is .

great that's the intention!

One philosophic topic I'm particularly interested in is the golden record on the voyager 1 spacecraft. How do we introduce ourselves to potential alien life? What defines us as human? How would we even communicate? etc.

That'd be a good thing to explore, it would have to be later since it would deal with a ton of material and ideas. what is life, what is value, etc etc

Ethics, logic, the works.

the works it is

oh man ... wow. thats a good one. my instinct is to suggest some of the stuff by non traditional philosophers a touch of the native thoughts on place and living within a world past that science as a kind of philosophy. hmmm the greats. plato etc, or even the philosphy of marc twain :) im trying to be reasonably thoughtfull - oh perhaps touch on stalin and lenins thoughts played against others. there is so much stuff out there. i hope any of this has given a small dash of insperation. peace be with you, the big kitty.

I definitely need to bone up on my non-western philosophy and philosophers, especially to get more limelight for philosophy beyond just religious or general life views. (those are awesome too, but things like metaphysics and epistemology work outside western philosophy is really not given much attention)

I'm curious about the logic behind forming and analysing a thesis. What constitutes a good (or proper) philosophical statement, and is there a way you can tell (apart from simply memorizing rhetological fallacies) whether or not someone is making false statements disguised by regular logic?

I like Camus and Nietzche, but I like hear from the ideas of less known philosophers, so long as they aren't quacks and contributed something meaningful to the study.

like to hear from*

that...hmm. I think I'm going to give a shot on answering that here since I dunno that I could explain all that in comic form.

Arguments in the philosophical sense are a set of propositions in support of a conclusion. So for instance this is an argument.

Statement: My cat is a mammal (this is what I am defending)

1. Mammals are warm blooded
2. Mammals have fur
3. My Cat is warm blooded
4. My cat has fur

Therefor my cat is a mammal.

so this is a particularly simplistic argument and they tend to get much more complex,but they for the most part are all boiled down to this type of structure. This is a deductive argument (there are inductive ones, but you can't prove the truth with induction, just that something is really likely)
So in the context of a philosophical argument any statement that has a set of propositions to back it up is fine for a "thesis" as it were. Basically anything that can be tested using logic (like that cat mammal argument above)

A good statement simply is one that is structured into a logical argument and holds up really. There's a few ways to argue against a conclusion (a proposition is false or the structure is wrong mostly)

Anyway for the other part of the question "is there a way you can tell (apart from simply memorizing rhetological fallacies) whether or not someone is making false statements disguised by regular logic?"

sort of? Something to keep in mind, fallacies largely show bad rhetoric, it doesn't mean that an argument is false outright. Here's an example.

Statement: You shouldn't feed grapes to dogs

1. It's bad to feed poison to Dogs
2. Grapes are poisonous to dogs
3. My opponent on this is an asshole.

Therefor: Dont feed dogs grapes.

So in this example, premise 3 is an ad hominem (my fav fallacy) which means the argument isn't great, but it's not false. Premise 1 and 2 are true, and 3 is just irrelevant. So taking 3 away, it's a fine argument.

The other easiest ways is, Is there a contradiction in the premises. If there is a contradiction something logically must be false. For instance, A and ~A (~ means "not") is a contradiction. I can't say "this statement is both true and false" that's not logically possible. If a statement is a contradiction. Or an argument has a contradiction in the premises then it can be shown to be false.

That's the easiest way. There's other ways like seeing if an argument is valid. In this context that means that the premises lead to the conclusion, that it has the right structure.

This is getting a tad long, it's a simple question where the answer is basically the introduction to a logic course lol. Analyzing arguments is one of the biggest skills to pick up, esp being able to parse into a standard logic structure.

Oh wow! Well that was all some pretty useful info.

Looking forward to the comic. I'll study the reply a few times and maybe I'll have an edge in Logic 101.

Well the important thing to remember is every philosophy has its problems and solutions. If you are going to do this Id recommend doing one of 2 ways, either little nuggets of wisdom Or Clever/humorous.
Ive done several journals on philosophy before and if your interested in talking about it Im all ears.

Yeah, my intent is to do more of the formal western philosophy and cover the different theories and their issues, sort of like a humorous version of the intro to phil and intro to ethics courses I used to teach.

I may do a bit more continental stuff, some of that (nuggets) of wisdom, but I'd really like to focus on making analytic philosophy more accessible since there's not a huge amount outside phil classes that cover it in depth.

Sounds like fun. If you ever need another Philly mind to bounce ideas around with Im happy to be your wall.

I'll keep that in mind. At the moment I'm working out if I want to approach it from a history of philosophy idea and follow through the development of theories historically, or tackle each set of theories within their own group.
I do like the context and development shown in the historical approach, but I'm not sure it outweighs the benefits of the theory set approach, especially in this sort of medium.