1) I reject the implication that there is no amount of humor that could justify a comment regardless of its other substance (given its length and the context). I accept for consideration the criticism that my comment wasn't funny enough, but not that it was categorically wrong to have a comment that is nothing but humorous.

2) To say that the comment had no substance aside from humor is a fine enough thing to say, because and only because the reader will interpret it as meaning that you didn't see any other substance. It is a fine enough thing to say if one thinks the probability of other substance is sufficiently low...but how close to zero did you think it was? "World domination" really did make me think of Pinky and the Brain, FWIW.

3) The value of a comment with no substance aside from humor here was to somewhat mitigate what I saw as an impending avalanche of critical comments and downvotes.