#Betrayers; Account

[alabs1]

Asari Dokubo: Yoruba Are Betrayers; I Emptied My Account To Campaign For Tinubu, Got Nothing; Now I'm Forming Alliance With North

Former Niger Delta militants leader and President Bola Tinubu’s supporter, Asari Dokubo, has vowed to form an alliance with the Northern region and dump Tinubu ahead of the 2027 general elections. Asari made the remarks in a series of videos while accusing Tinubu of betrayal after working for his emergence as the Nigerian president in 2023. Dokubo claimed that he spent his money canvassing for…

[secret-spirit]

Doodle from the 4th whiteboard that exploded a week ago that I'm proud of :>

Close up

-lyrics in order in undercut:

I can see it in your smile and in your eyes

There's no compassion, no there's nothing left inside

Over and over no you're never satisfied

Made your decision now you're gonna have a bad time

I see your mind now it's slipping faster

Kill or be killed only thing that matters

Across the land all their ashes scatter

Who's the monster now?

[amber-laughs]

something about robb marrying a nobody from a nothing house after finding out his oldest and closest friend betrayed him only to be betrayed by her family too

[jaggedjot]

The tale Lestat told of his turning was met justifiably by open suspicion from Claudia (“Magnus could be a sous chef in Switzerland for all we know.”) and unspoken doubt from Louis. It speaks to the unnavigable depths of mistrust created by Lestat’s actions that the pair have to question even the horrific violence he describes receiving (“One sob story about his birth”) or the complicated trauma caused by Magnus’ suicide (“I think he killed Magnus.”). The only person who could possibly verify the truthfulness of this story is Armand; he met Lestat shortly after the latter became a vampire, he knew Magnus and what he was capable of longer than Lestat did (“[...] one of my deserters”), and he has a penchant for perusing the minds of others. Armand sharing this knowledge could provide Daniel with a better understanding of the events and subjects of the interview, as well as help Louis parse his complicated feelings for Lestat. It is striking then that when recounting his shared past with Lestat to Daniel, which is presumably the same story he had previously given to Louis, Armand is careful to never say anything that could fully corroborate or dispel those suspicions. When Daniel calls attention to this (“To hear Louis tell it, Lestat becoming a vampire was a horror show.”), Armand gracefully deflects (“That may be.”) and heavily insinuates that Lestat is not someone who can be trusted; calling into question the extent of the trauma that Lestat expressed over a century later (“But he made a remarkable recovery shortly thereafter.”), before describing Lestat as a skilled manipulator (“[...] his hand feeding the audience”), using imagery that paints Lestat’s words as equally captivating as they are fantastical (“How words came out like canaries, summer fruit in the dead of winter.”). The quickness in which Armand concludes that Magnus must be dead (“He’s died, hasn’t he?”) suggests that Lestat could only be free if he was, but still leaves it ambiguous whether Lestat played a role in his demise. While Armand confirms that there is truth to Lestat’s claim that he was not given any guidance by Magnus (“I can teach you what he didn’t.”), the subsequent accusation that Lestat pretended to reciprocate Armand’s love in order to learn that knowledge means that Lestat is still positioned as dishonest. By maintaining and reinforcing this uncertainty about Lestat through opening up about his own past, Armand is looking to gain a degree of sympathy and trust from Daniel, as well as reinforce the image that he would not deceive others.

[callofthecorvus]

Connected Timelines Ramble: Backing off my previous 'Geno has an ex' headcanon, what if Dust happened to be that ex? I can see them bonding over shared trauma: surviving a genocided timeline and losing their brothers.

So when Dust eventually came clean about his past, that he genocided his own timeline [and others under Nightmare], even if he felt guilty and wanted to change, the heartbreak and betrayal Geno would have felt was devastating.

Even if it was originally done to stop Chara, the fact that he continued to genocide other timelines was despicable in Geno's eyes. Dust became the very same person he hated, and all Geno could see when looking at Dust was her. He broke it off instantly and Dust respected his decision and never contacted him again.

Given that Nightmare and Dream have now been at peace for decades, they're often invited to the same get togethers. They've never told anyone else about their previous relationship, so they act all awkward around each other and nobody knows why.

[lyculuscaelus]

How easy it was to blame all these misadventures the Achaeans suffered upon their homecoming on a man in revenge for his son.

Yes, we know what Palamedes did, and we know that he deserved it. We know that the disaster near Cape Caphereus did happen, and Nauplius was the one behind this. But we have not learned of anything else about the other part of Nauplius’s revenge from any sources earlier than pseudo-Apollodorus’s Epitome (and we know that the entire chapter 6 of Epitome is very likely tampered by Tzetzes already). Since, to be fair, Homer wasn’t the only one who neglected all this resettlement of Achaean heroes.

There was no mention of the name “Nauplius” in Proclus’s summary of the epic Nostoi, and the only chance for him to show up is in “the description of the storm around the Capherian rocks”. We know that Nauplius would make an appearance in the Nostoi through, again, pseudo-Apollodorus. But nothing more. The corruption of Argive wives did not happen in the Epic Cycle, and both the Nostoi and the Odyssey did not elaborate on any exile of any Achaean leader especially Diomedes.

And Aegialeia was still a steadfast wife of Diomedes in Homer’s epics. And Clytemnestra could still find her justice in her lament for Iphigeneia in Aeschylus’s and Euripides’s plays. Any role Nauplius could play in this would be redundant—prudent Aegialeia simply wouldn’t comply, and Clytemnestra wouldn’t need him to convince her.

So, why the attribution then? A likely explanation would be the attempt to connect the hero with those foundation myths in places outside the Mainland Greece like Magna Graecia. And what better way to get the hero there than exile? And what better way to exile a hero than the betrayal of their wife if they had one? (Well there are better ways but you know what I mean) The thing is, why did it have to be Nauplius? I mean, the tragedy at Cape Caphereus was infamous indeed. I could totally see people blaming Nauplius the Wrecker for more things than simply lighting a false beacon and throwing rocks. So now we have our avenger Nauplius traveling around Greece contriving the corruption of Argive wives and causing shipwreck for the returned fleet and in some versions even bringing false news to Anticleia which led to her suicide (again, not the version in the Odyssey)…Nauplius just seemed to be such a convenient device to connect these events.

But does that have to be the only case for their nostoi? I mean, Homer certainly did not include anything about this exile in his epics, and we could totally have our Nauplius simply causing shipwreck, without messing up with other heroes’ families. Is it tragic? Certainly. But in the meantime, it is cathartic. Heroes like Diomedes, Idomeneus, Philoctetes still get to stay in their homeland, even if it’s just in a few versions—one of them being Homer’s version.

[happyk44]

To me, children of Zeus are natural strategists in the same way children of Athena are. But the difference is that Zeus and his kids have multiple plans and contingencies if a plan fails at a certain point and needs to shift gears. So like they employ Plan A and get all the way to stage four of the plan when suddenly there's a deviation from expectations for whatever reason. So they shift gears from Plan A1 to Plan A2, which accounted for this deviation and continue on.

Athena and her kids, however, come up with one solid, somewhat broader plan and refuse to deviate from it at all unless there is literally no other choice, in which case they will improvise quickly and efficiently to accomodate the change and get back on track to the original plan.

[ahalliance]

how do i turn qantoine’s spontaneous marriage proposal to qetoiles into evidence of his early-days fear of qfrench drifing away and keeping secrets from one another

[torchstelechos]

You know those "do not separate"/"often bought together" memes that people did for the Submas plushies? I like to think Immortal Volo found out that Ingo had a twin fully because he saw one of these memes and went, Ah fuck I separated them :(

[avrorean]

not for nothin but I have a bone to pick with the fact that we see there's a lot of layers behind the blood magic trap debacle and Uldred's rebellion and Irving is the one typically focused on for blame and not Greagoir and the other templars for creating an environment that makes the people within it feel like desperate and morally abhorrent measures are necessary to protect themselves

[whoops-im-obsessed]

He LIED to us

[iniziare]

Following my usual daily ventures on X and Tumblr, I realized that there's two things that I wanted to address/bring up. So, as per usual: spoilers. /echo, echo.

— The Fade prison is still failing. It needed replacement (which is referenced on several occasions, but a big one is during the memory with Mythal that expands on the DAI scene), and nothing in current lore tells me that this has changed in any way: it's still failing. Nothing I can find says that it now being bound to Solas, who is decently weaker than Elgar'nan, magically 'resolves' that issue. Therefore, his 'atonement' doesn't automatically equate to an 'eternal imprisonment', even if Lavellan's choice of words for going with him include 'forever', for she simply doesn't know what she's walking into or for how long, and instead enforces this tether to him from the deepest form of trust one one else could ever find (heartbreak.mp3). The atonement lasts as long as Rook decides as they hold the dagger, or until the Veil falls on its own. But that touches on another topic briefly: if you want to 'punish' Solas the most, or longest— though this ending is 'kindest' (not quite), it is the one that keeps him in the prison the longest. The dagger trick (this warrants a post on its own, and it's the only one I have writing beef with, character 'bias' aside), or the worst ending(s) all send the lyrium dagger with him, which, has you wonder if he's then simply given the opportunity to slice into the Veil, and slip out. Does the prison need a host, if said host holds the lyrium dagger? And even if he couldn't what could he do from inside after 'Pride' has been taunted, and 'punished' (in Rook's, and the audience's eyes), since again, he is in possession of his dagger? There is no atonement here, only resentment from a spirit that is now even closer to finding its fully perverted nature of a Pride demon. So I think if speaking morally across the board, which option is really 'for the greater good of Thedas', instead of personal resentment (though understandable)? But in that, I like that we're repeatedly told that we don't know, and we're making it up as we go. Out of all protagonists, Rook's personal journey of mental development is the most intriguing to me, and arguably (in my opinion), is the most 'human' in the sense that I think they give us the most relatable options of choice, understandable/relatable resentment being one of them. But anyway, I digress: if the atonement ending isn't chosen, then I definitely think the story isn't quite concluded, even though I don't believe that it ever really is.

— Blood magic. No, Solas has no loathing for the nature of blood magic at its essence. He stated so very clearly back in DAI during a conversation with the Inquisitor in Haven, and the bit of the conversation that pertains to my point goes as follows: 'Magic is magic, just as water is water, but it can be used in different ways. (...) Dalish magic is more practical, not needing Chantry approval, although they still frown on blood magic. Superstition.' And when you ask him to elaborate, 'You said censure against blood magic was a superstition...' He adds: 'Most modern cultures forbid blood magic. Publicly, even Tevinter disapproves of it. But as I said, magic is magic. It matters only in how it is used.' And yes, I can already hear it, I know exactly what point will be brought up (lucky me, I found a video that touches on this exact topic that showcases both scenes): and I want to say firmly that no, this is not a retcon, nor is it Solas changing his mind, nor is this a total and utter lie (he rarely, rarely lies that fully, and clearly). He simply states that he abhors the use of it, as in— he, himself, despises using it; which is why he so firmly says no to Cole, when the notion is brought up in DAI. Now yes, he did employ the use of blood magic in relation to Rook (the extents, I need to do research on, as it's obvious that Solas absolutely winged that part of this 'plan', but all of it is also a bit flimsily written due to, for starters, the details that Varric shares being incredibly personal at times, but I digress), and I see so many on X and whatnot complain of how this means that 'Solas changed his mind', no— what it intends to show you, is the ferocity with which he believes that he, and only he, is able to fix what he broke. The game intends to show you that over, and over again, and it is to prove just how far a spirit can be pushed from where it started. And no, stop approaching Solas as if he is your regular elf next door, or anything but exactly what he is: a spirit. Trying to sway a spirit from its nature is incredibly difficult (we'll go into Mythal, and the nature of his care, and devotion to her that started the journey of his spirit's perversion, another day), and that is literally the explanation behind what people are calling an 'inconsistency'. It's called desperation, but more so, the strength of a belief, or more specifically, how far something that is akin to being... the 'personification' of a belief can go in, well, its own belief. I think Solas has proven that one can go very far. The perversion of spirits, and the reality of what demons then truly are, is a tragedy that Dragon Age has been trying to prove to us for years. It doesn't take away the wrongs that they can do once they get twisted, but it's tragic, because spirits are benevolent; serene, and peaceful at their core. And it's kind of heartbreaking to know that something so purely good, can be pulled from that nature.

[yinyuedijun]

needing to build himeko after putting it off for a whole year feels so tragic 😔 I can't believe pure fiction would do this to me......

[quillkiller]

if u think narcissa is irredeemable what do u think abt regulus?

have i accidentally made it seem like i think regulus is a good person…. he’s my emotional support holier than thou self pitying manipulative failguy who can’t shake his superiority complex no matter how hard he tries and no matter the au..

[your-fave-is-being-blended]

no. you know what? fuck you.(/j) *blends your @mynameis-a*

@mynameis-a from Tumblr is being blended!!

You cannot save him.

how could you do this to me maur :c