That comic doesn't explain "what entrapment actually is" but rather it explains how a few trite but common misconceptions about the law as it pertains to those circumstances are not precisely entrapment. I don't think his reasoning is very good. ie: "It's amazing that this myth has stuck around so long when tons of undercover arrests prove it wrong every day" I'm not sure how an arrest can prove that since an arrest is not a finding of fact. IMO lawcomic is rather biased toward a prosecutor's definition of what s/he thinks the law ought to be.

Maybe it's my own cognitive dissonance about the difference in what the law is and what I think it ought to be, but I don't have a favorable opinion of lawcomic. Now you've posted it here in defense of the prosecution of a mentally retarded man/child for an offence which he is probably incapable of committing without a non-trivial degree of assistance, and most likely would not have committed if he'd simply been left alone. Even though this case the prosecution may prevail in court, IMO it does not serve any useful purpose for the gov't to aggressively ferret out easily manipulable people by manipulating them until they sufficiently incriminate themselves.

Why wouldn't you link to this page to start with? http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=674

And I would've said that most of these plots foiled by the FBI come as close as possible to entrapment without actually being so. They provide means, methods, opportunities, and it seems in some cases plenty of motive but not the initial spark.