Some random observations.
There are certainly examples on how actually neither
of good art and a good story is strictly needed, eg. Dinosaur Comics, Natalie Dee. The comic portions of xkcd also fall here, I think; what graphical interest the comic has is mostly in the field of design than art IMO. (Not that that's a clean-cut boundary.) But this seems to be a rare thing to pull off.
Upon a little reflection, it is also fairly rare for me to really enjoy a story where I have to keep looking "past" the art (rather than "thru" or "at")… but this does occur as well. The Mansion of E
would be one such example.
I would also argue that a large part of webmangas out there, while superficially pretty, are anything but "good" art, once you take a closer look (including things like composition).
Art evolution is also a thing. Schlock Mercenary may be the best example I can think of of a comic that started out looking pretty horrible but has evolved to an entirely professional level. If you have patience and a will to practice, don't worry if your skills aren't much now: you'll get better.
If you really really
can't draw, photocomics and sprite comics are also an option, and probably not even such a bad one if you can avoid the usual pitfalls. That is, you'll want to take inspiration from Irregular Webcomic or MS Paint Adventures, not Bob and George… (8-bit Theatre may be a borderline case.)
And as a last resort, there's always the "fuck it, I'll go abstract" option, even if "underground cult classic" is apparently then the best status you may even hope for. See eg. Triangle and Robert
(Perhaps unfairly, shitty stories with competent art can thrive much better, since art is
the first thing your visitors will see of the comic. Especially if the premise itself is interesting and it's just the delivery that doesn't hold up.)