A more thorough explanation:

Actionable per quod refers to potentially defamatory words that are not inherently defamatory and therefore require allegation and proof of special damages. For instance, if someone says, "The plaintiff is crazy," the statement is actionable per quod. This means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended the words to mean that the plaintiff was mentally impaired or deficient in business or professional capacity, and that these words caused the plaintiff to suffer special damages.

On the other hand, actionable per se refers to defamatory words that are legally and conclusively presumed defamatory. For example, if someone says of a fiduciary, "That person embezzles client funds," the statement is actionable per se. The plaintiff does not have to allege or prove special damages.

The terminology "actionable per se" has caused confusion with another doctrine that distinguishes between words that convey a defamatory meaning on their face and words of veiled detraction whose offense is apparent only when the context and circumstances are revealed. The former are sometimes said to be defamatory "per se," whereas the latter must have an accompanying "innuendo" or explanation to be properly pleaded.

• If someone says that a doctor is incompetent, the statement is actionable per quod. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended the words to mean that the plaintiff was deficient in professional capacity, and that these words caused the plaintiff to suffer special damages.
• If someone says that a person is a thief, the statement is actionable per se. The plaintiff does not have to allege or prove special damages because the statement is inherently defamatory.

These examples illustrate the difference between actionable per quod and actionable per se. In the first example, the statement is not inherently defamatory, and the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to defame them and caused them special damages. In the second example, the statement is inherently defamatory, and the plaintiff does not have to prove special damages because the statement is presumed to be defamatory.