#Toys That Kill

[mispelled]

Didn't feel like cleaning this up but I still think it's funny

[sunderwight]

Bingqiu AU where Luo Binghe's the chosen village sacrifice to the evil deity who lives up the mountain.

Normally the village sends maidens, but they've more or less run out of expendable girls of the right age and, ahem, "virtues". So of course Luo Binghe's early life bad luck kicks in. In the wake of his mother's death there's no one to really care about what happens to him, he's fairly pretty, and the village leaders decide that if they dress him up like a girl the teenaged homeless kid should pass well enough. And hey, y'know, he's probably got a hard life ahead for him anyway -- dying in a brothel of some venereal disease or on the streets of exposure or starvation. At least as a sacrifice, everyone else gets to benefit from his loss! And the kid will get added to a shrine and be remembered as a hero! If anything, he should be happy about this!

Binghe is not happy about this.

But he's also a skinny underfed nobody who is easily overpowered, dressed up like a bride, and tied to a post. So. Not much he can do but wait for the evil deity to come and do whatever horrible thing he's gonna do to him.

Meanwhile, Shen Yuan is pretty sure he's been isekai'd into the over-powered hero of some kind of supernatural adventure story? He's not totally sure because he doesn't recognize the setting, but the signs are there. He's got a shrine-like base of operations (though it seems to have become corrupted/ruined, probably he has to restore it somehow), he has a very resilient and handsome new body with spiritual energy of some kind flowing through him, and a very clearly magical sword. Plus lots of neat starter powers! Though it feels like he has other abilities that have been blocked somehow? Probably he has to level up in order to access them.

When he treks out of his "base" and finds what seems to be a distressed maiden, he takes it for his beginner hero mission. The girl claims that she's been doomed to be sacrificed to an evil god. That sounds a little above Shen Yuan's pay grade for dealing with, so he unties her and decides that they had better just get out of the whole region altogether. He already packed up anything useful from his base, anticipating he might get caught up in an adventure once he left, so they follow the river away from the settlement until they reach another one.

While they travel, Luo Binghe tells Shen Yuan about the cursed deity, Shen Qingqiu, who was cast out of the heavens for slaughtering one of his brethren and has apparently being do-who-knows what to maidens from the local village in exchange for his "protection" ever since. Sounds like a real asshole! And also mid-level boss type bad guy at least. Shen Yuan hopes he doesn't have to fight him, but he probably will.

Thank goodness he found Binghe, though! Clearly the helpful little sister type! He's definitely going to require her assistance if he's going to figure out how to navigate this world and level up his skills enough to take on a god.

[deich-was-here]

HES SO FUN TO DRAW-

[lui-the-cute-snek]

these silly drawing trends are the only reason i still have a twitter account

also i found out you can record progress in krita, so now you can watch me struggle lmao

[sheikfangirl]

“You can stop looking, I’m right here.”

Glory to Puppet Zelda ✋

[innieirving]

maybe i've missed it, because i know everyone likes to talk about the love poem hans keeps hidden under his bed in the devil's den, but i have not seen anyone mention this next to hans' bed

it's......it's a little wooden duck

and in the inventory, it specifically says dog toy

did hans whittle a little dog toy for mutt? :')

[metamatronic]

hey shoutout to middle school me, who (during the FNaF 4 era) drafted an AU where a vengeful Crying Child was the real murderer behind the entire franchise—having possessed his own father in order to kill his bullies and stuff their bodies into the suits as ironic retribution (the MCI), leaving a tragically confused William to deal with the aftermath and consequences. it’s not nearly as funny as what I ended up with but damn was it interesting.

[pricegouge]

Gougie, I saw your little post about fairy!reader caught in a spiderweb and being found by Soap - and I didn't think I was in to microphilia but holy shit that one post sent me down a rabbit hole. Hot damn. Like.

I just wanna be a lil fairy, small enough for the boys to carry me around in their pockets when I'm sleepy.

Soap pries this cute lil fairy from the spiderweb but ooohh no it looks like a wing was broken in your struggle - those things are so delicate what a shame. And you look up at Soap all wide eyed, maybe a little teary bc ouchies, and he's like well he can just leave you there, flightless and injured.

Maybe there's a language barrier, so you don't really know exactly whats going on, BUT WHO CARES, this handsome human just saved you from a far worse fate than just a broken little wing. Freak matches freak, Soap wants to keep you bc your so small and sooooo cute sitting in the palm of his hand like that - and you don't want to leave! Not when this human is giving you all the attention in the world!

Basically never leave his side when he's not on a mission. If he is gone on a mission he leaves you with Kate to look after you and you are INCONSOLABLE. WHERE DID YOUR HUMAN GO?? BRING HIM BACK!!! THAT'S MY HUMAN!!!

When he comes home in one piece you get to pepper his face with tiny, sweet kisses. He can't help but laugh a little, its rather ticklish to have your little lips on his cheek. He makes sure to return the affection tho, picking you off his shoulder and cupping you gently in his palms, and then kissing you up and down. His kisses are downright smothering, but they still leave you giggling and flushed, hair a little disheveled, breathless and aching for more.

And then riding around on his shoulder while he's home from being deployed, watching every little thing he does, content to lean against his neck bc he's so warm and always conscious of you.

When he's doing paperwork you're basically a little fidget toy for him, which you are more than pleased with. He keeps you laying on your belly in his free hand, idly running his thumb up and down your back - free massage! And you just fall asleep all warm and soft until he's done. Sometimes he puts his thumb on your cute little ass and wiggles you around just for fun. Maybe if you've been well behaved and not a mischevious little shit, he'll let you grind on his finger until you're satisfied. Mumbling praise and sweet nothin's at you - you don't fully understand what he's saying, but you don't care, you love the sound of his voice and you know he's being sweet on you, and that's all you need to finish.

Ofc whatever mess you made, he can just lick clean, he has no objections there.

When he's relaxing on the couch, watching TV, you can just curl up on his chest - maybe he buttons down his shirt just enough so you can lay on his hairy chest, and keeps his hand cupped over your little body like a blanket. Feeds you bites from whatever candy or snack he has with him - he doesn't let you have any of his alcohol tho, last time he let you try a strong drink, you got drunk after just two or three sips of the stuff and you were cranky and hungover the whole next day. As lightweight as you are small.

So.... yeah.... I might just be into that shit now....

this was so unexpectedly fluffy my god :')

imagine being that small and trying to take care of him in kind. you want to help out where you can, return the favor as much as you're able because he's been so good to you, but it's so hard! chores are right out because everything is so big! and you're just a little thing :( but you can help with his person, usually. feeding him chunks of strawberries that make you sweat when you go to pick them up, breathless with effort and laughter when he snaps his teeth at you playfully. he's never taken care of his nails before you and it shows, but that's okay, you like knowing his fingers better than anyone - better even than him, probably, as you doubt he can see well enough to spot that thin, silvery thread of scar that covers his knuckle, the one you think he must've gotten when he was still young judging by how fully it's healed. you like to imagine what had caused it, almost prefer being unable to ask because this way, it could be anything. maybe he'd even gotten it while taking care of another scary spider!

and you're more than happy to help when he has... different needs.

most of the time he just likes watching you, gets himself off as you writhe on his palm or balanced precariously on the mountainous bulk of his thighs. he likes comparing you to himself when you're there, makes your face heat as he chuckles, seeing how you're barely taller than his cock. sometimes, he lubes himself up copiously and cradles you in his palm as he strokes himself, careful to let you do all the squeezing with your limbs wrapped tight around his shaft lest he accidentally crushed you. it's nice, feeling the strong pulse of his vein throbbing against your clit, your nipples catching on the ridge of his glans with every upstroke. it's better yet when he doesn't drag you along, though, lets you stay put with your mouth working against his cockhole, kissing it the way you've seen humans kiss each other, with your tongue darting in to steal quick tastes of his cum.

unfortunately, he tends to drench you when he does cum, the sticky fluid catching in your hair and blocking off your airflow until he wipes it off with a gentle thumb. he's always so sweet after though, you can't be mad at him - coos as he helps you wash it all off because he knows it's too thick for you to properly scrub. he always lets you sleep in the big bed after, something that usually gives him pause because he's so afraid of crushing you. but it seems he needs you close just as much as you need him after nights like this, even going so far as to button his shirt around you just to keep you warm and close.

[glitter-stained]

Damasio, The Trolley Problem and Batman: Under the Hood

Okay so @bestangelofall asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "Damasio's theories on emotions in moral decision-making add another level of depth to the analysis of UTH as a moral dilemma" and I thought this deserved its own post so let's talk about this.

So, idk where everyone is at here (philosophy was mandatory in highschool in my country but apparently that's not the case everywhere so i genuinely have no clue what's common knowledge here, i don't want to like state the obvious but also we should recap some stuff. Also if I'm mentioning a philosopher's or scientist's name without detailing, that means it's just a passing thought/recommendation if you want to read more on the topic.)

First thing first is I've seen said, about jason and the no killing rule, that "killing is always bad that's not up for debate". And I would like to say, that's factually untrue. Like, no matter which side of the debate you are on, there is very much a debate. Historically a big thing even. So if that's not something you're open to hear about, if you're convinced your position is the only correct one and even considering other options is wrong and/or a waste of time... I recommend stopping here, because this only going to make you upset, and you have better stuff to do with your life than getting upset over an essay. In any case please stay civil and remember that this post is not about me debating ethics with the whole bat-tumblr, it's me describing a debate other people have been voicing for a long time, explaining the position Damasio's neuropsychology and philosophy holds in this debate, and analyzing the ethics discussed in Batman: Under the Red Hood in that light. So while I might talk about my personal position in here (because I have an opinion in this debate), this isn't a philosophy post; this is a literature analysis that just so happens to exist within the context of a neuropsychological position on a philosophical debate. Do not try to convince me that my philosophy of ethics is wrong, because that's not the point, that's not what the post is about, I find it very frustrating and you will be blocked. I don't have the energy to defend my personal opinions against everybody who disagrees with me.

Now, let's start with Bruce. Bruce, in Under The Hood and wrt the no kill rule (not necessarily all of his ethics, i'm talking specifically about the no kill rule), is defending a deontological position. Deontology is a philosophy of ethics coined by christian🧷 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The philosophy of ethics asks this question: what does it mean to do a good action? And deontology answers "it means to do things following a set of principles". Basically Kant describes what are "absolute imperatives" which are rules that hold inherent moral values: some things are fundamentally wrong and others are bad. Batman's no-kill rule is thus a categorical imperative: "Though Shall not Kill"🧷, it is always wrong to kill. (Note that I am not saying Bruce is kantian just because he has a deontology: Kant explained the concept of deontological ethics, and then went up to theorize his own very specific and odd brand of deontology, which banned anything that if generalized would cause the collapse of society as well as, inexplicably, masturbation. Bruce is not Kantian, he's just, regarding the no kill rule, deontological. Batman is still allowed to wank, don't worry.)

In this debate, deontological ethics are often pit up against teleological ethics, the most famous group of which being consequentialism, the most famous of consequentialisms being utilitarism. As the name indicates, consequentialist theories posit that the intended consequences of your actions determine if those actions were good or not. Utilitarism claims that to do good, your actions should aim to maximise happiness for the most people possible. So Jason, when he says "one should kill the Joker to prevent the thousands of victims he is going to harm if one does not kill him", is holding a utilitarian position.

The debate between deontology and utilitarism has held many forms, some fantastical and some with more realistic approaches to real life like "say you're hiding from soldiers and you're holding a baby that's gonna start crying, alerting the soldiers and getting everyone in your hideout massacred. Do you muffle the baby, knowing it will suffocate and kill it?" or "say there's a plague going on and people are dying and the hospital does not have enough ventilators, do you take the one off of the comatose patient with under 0.01% chance of ever waking up to give it to another patient? What about 1%?", etc, etc. The most famous derivative of this dilemma, of course, being the infamous trolley problem.

This is what is meant when we say "the UTH confrontation is a trolley problem." The final confrontation at the warehouse is a variation, a derivative of the utilitarian dilemma that goes as follows: "if someone was trying to kill someone in front of you, and that murder would prevent the murder of thousands, should you try to stop that murder or let it happen?"

Now, here's a question: why are there so many derivatives of the trolley problem? Why do philosophers spend time pondering different versions of the same question instead of solving it?

My opinion (and the one of much, much smarter people whose name i forgot oops) is that both systems fail at giving us a satisfying, clean-cut reply. Now, most people have a clean-cut answer to the trolley problem as presented here: me personally, I lean more towards utilitarianism, and I found it logical to pull the lever. But altering the exact situation makes me change my answer, and there is very often a point where people, no matter their deontological or utilitarian velleities, change their answer. And that's interesting to examine.

So let's talk about deontology. Now my first gripe with deontology it's that it posits a set of rules as absolute and I find that often quite arbitrary. 🧷 Like, it feels a little like mathematical axioms, you know? We build a whole worldview on the assumption that these rules are inherently correct and the best configuration because it feels like it makes sense, and accidentally close our mind to the world of non-euclidian ethics. In practice, here are some situations in which a deontologist might change their mind: self-defense killing, for example, is often cited as "an exception to the rule", making that rule de facto non-universal; and disqualifying it as an absolute imperative. Strangely enough, people will often try to solve the trolley problem by deciding to kill themselves by jumping on the tracks 🧷 which is actually a utilitarian solution: whether you're pulling the lever or you're jumping on the tracks, you are choosing to kill one person to stop the people from being run over. Why does it matter if it's you or someone else you're killing? You're still killing someone. Another situation where people may change their answer would be, like "what if you needed to save your children but to do so you had to kill the ceo of united healthcare?" Note that these are only examples for killing, but the biggest issue is that deontology preaches actions are always either good or wrong, and the issue with that lack of nuance is best illustrated with the kantian problem regarding the morality of lying: let's say it's the holocaust and a family of jews is hiding in your house. Let's say a nazi knocks on your door and asks if there are people hiding in your house. You know if you tell the truth, the jews in your house will be deported. In that situation, is it morally correct to lie? Now, Kant lived before the Holocaust, but in his time there was a similar version of this problem that had been verbalised (this formulation is the best-known derivative of this problem btw, I didn't invent it) and Kant's answer, I kid you not, was still "no it is not morally acceptable to lie in that situation".

And of course, there are variations of that problem that play with the definition of killing- what defines the act of killing and can the other circumstances (like if there's a person you need to save) alter that definition? => Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely deontological frame claims, and pushing deontology to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

Now let's take utilitarianism to its own limits. Say you live in a world where healthcare has never been better. Now say this system is so because there is a whole small caste of people who have been cloned and genetically optimized and conditioned since birth so that their organs could be harvested at any given moment to heal someone. Let's say this system is so performant it has optimised this world's humanity's general well-being and health, leading to an undeniable, unparalleled positive net-worth for humanity. Here's the question: is this world a utopia or a dystopia? Aka, is raising a caste of people as organ cattle morally acceptable in that situation? (Note: Because people's limits on utilitarianism vary greatly from one person to another, I chose the most extreme example I could remember, but of course there are far more nuanced ones. Again, I wasn't the one to come up with this example. If you're looking for examples of this in fiction, i think the limits of utilitarianism are explored pretty interestingly in the videogame The Last of Us).

=> Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely utilitarian frame claims, and pushing utilitarism to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

This leads us back to Under the Hood. Now because UTH includes a scathing criticism of Batman's no kill rule deontology, but Jason is also presented as a villain in this one, my analysis of the whole comic is based on the confrontation between both of these philosophies and their failures, culminating in a trolley dilemma type situation. So this is why it makes sense to have Bruce get mad at Jason for killing Captain Nazi in self-defense: rejecting self-defense, even against nazis, is the logical absurd conclusion of deontology. Winick is simply taking Bruce's no-kill rule to the limit.

And that's part of what gets me about Jason killing goons (aside from the willis todd thing that should definitely have been addressed in such a plot point.) It's that it feels to me like Jason's philosophy is presented as wrong because it leads to unacceptable decisions, but killing goons is not the logical absurd conclusion of utilitarianism. It's a. a side-effect of Jason's plot against Bruce and/or, depending on how charitable you are to either Jason's intelligence or his morals, b. a miscalculation. Assuming Jason's actions in killing goons are a reflection of his moral code (which is already a great assumption, because people not following their own morals is actually the norm, we are not paragons of virtue), then this means that 1) he has calculated that those goons dying would induce an increase in general global human happiness and thus 2) based on this premise, he follows the utilitarian framework and thus believes it's moral to kill the goons. It's the association of (1) and (2) that leads to an absurd and blatantly immoral consequence, but since the premise (1) is a clear miscalculation, the fact that (1) & (2) leads to something wrong does not count as a valid criticism of (2): to put it differently, since the premise is wrong, the conclusion being wrong does not give me any additional info on the value of the reasoning. This is a little like saying "Since 1+ 3= 5 and 2+2=4, then 1+3+2+2 = 9". The conclusion is wrong, but because the first part (1+3=5) is false, the conclusion being wrong does not mean that the second part (2+2 =4) is wrong. So that's what frustrates me so much when people bring up Jason killing goons as a gotcha for criticizing his utilitarian philosophy, because it is not!! It looks like it from afar but it isn't, which is so frustrating because, as stated previously, there are indeed real limits to utilitarianism that could have been explored instead to truly level the moral playing field between Jason and Bruce.

Now that all of this is said and done, let's talk about what in utilitarianism and deontology makes them flawed and, you guessed it, talk some about neuropsychology (and how that leads to what's imo maybe the most interesting thing about the philosophy in Under the Hood.)

In Green Arrow (2001), in an arc also written by Judd Winick, Mia Dearden meets a tortured man who begs her to kill him to save Star City (which is being massacred), and she kills him, then starts to cry and begs Ollie for confirmation that this was the right thing to do. Does this make Mia a utilitarian? If so, then why did she doubt and cry? Is she instead a deontologist, who made a mistake?

In any case, the reason why Mia's decision was so difficult for her to make and live with, and the reason why all of these trolley-adjacent dilemmas are so hard, is pretty clear. Mia's actions were driven by fear and empathy. It's harder to tolerate sacrificing our own child to avoid killing, it's harder to decide to sacrifice a child than an adult, a world where people are raised to harvest their organs feels horrible because these are real humans we can have empathy towards and putting ourselves in their shoes is terrifying... So we have two "perfectly logical" rational systems toppled by our emotions. But which is wrong: should we try to shut down our empathy and emotions so as to always be righteous? Are they a parasite stopping us from being true moral beings?

Classically, we (at least in my culture in western civilization) have historically separated emotions from cognition (cognition being the domain of thought, reasoning, intelligence, etc.) Descartes, for example, was a philosopher who highlighted a dualist separation of emotion and rationality. For a long time this was the position in psychology, with even nowadays some people who think normal psychologists are for helping with emotions and neuropsychologists are for helping with cognition.(I will fight these people with a stick.) Anyway, that position was the predominant one in psychology up until Damasio (not the famous writer, the neuropsychologist) wrote a book named Descartes' Error. (A fundamental of neuropsychology and a classic that conjugates neurology, psychology and philosophy: what more could you ask for?)

Damasio's book's title speaks for itself: you cannot separate emotion from intelligence. For centuries we have considered emotions to be parasitic towards reasoning, (which even had implications on social themes and constructs through the centuries 📌): you're being emotional, you're letting emotions cloud your judgement, you're emotionally compromised, you're not thinking clearly... (Which is pretty pertinent to consider from the angle of A Death in the Family, because this is literally the reproach Bruce makes to Jason). Damasio based the book on the Damasio couple's (him and his wife) study of Phineas Gage, a very, very famous case of frontal syndrome (damage to the part of the brain just behind the forehead associated with executive functions issues, behavioural issues and emotional regulation). The couple's research on Gage lead Damasio, in his book, to this conclusion: emotions are as much of a part of reasoning and moral decision-making as "cold cognition" (non emotional functioning). Think of it differently: emotional intelligence is a skill. Emotions are tools. On an evolutionary level, it is good that we as people have this skill to try and figure out what others might think and do. That's useful. Of course, that doesn't mean that struggling with empathy makes you immoral, but we people who struggle with empathy have stories of moments where that issue has made us hurt someone's feelings on accident, and it made us sad, because we didn't want to hurt their feelings. On an evolutionary level (and this is where social Darwinism fundamentally fails) humanity has been able to evolve in group and in a transgenerational group (passing knowledge from our ancestors long after their death, belonging to a community spread over a time longer than our lifetime) thanks to social cognition (see Tomasello's position on the evolution of language for more detail on that), and emotions, and "emotional intelligence" is a fundamental part of how that great system works across the ages.

And that's what makes Batman: Under the Hood brilliant on that regard. If I have to make a hypothesis on the state of Winick's knowledge on that stuff, I would say I'm pretty sure he knew about the utilitarism vs deontology issue; much harder to say about the Damasio part, but whether he's well-read in neuropsychology classics or just followed a similar line of reasoning, this is a phenomenally fun framework to consider UTH under.

Because UTH, and Jason's character for the matter, refuse to disregard emotions. Bruce says "we mustn't let ourselves get clouded by our emotions" and Jason, says "maybe you should." I don't necessarily think he has an ethical philosophy framework for that, I still do believe he's a utilitarian, but he's very emotion-driven and struggling to understand a mindframe that doesn't give the same space to emotions in decision-making. And as such, Jason says "it should matter. If the emotion was there, if you loved me so much, then it should matter in your decision of whether or not to let the Joker die, that it wasn't just a random person that he killed, but that he killed your son."

And Bruce is very much doubling down on this mindset of "I must be stronger than my feelings". He is an emotionally repressed character. He says "You don't understand. I don't think you've ever understood", and it's true, Jason can't seem to understand Bruce's position, there's something very "if that person doesn't show love in my perspective and understanding of what love is then they do not love me" about his character that I really appreciate. But Bruce certainly doesn't understand either, because while Jason is constantly asking Bruce for an explanation, for a "why do you not see things the way I do" that could never satisfy him, Bruce doesn't necessarily try to see things the way Jason does. And that's logical, since Jason is a 16 years old having a mental breakdown, and Bruce is a grown man carrying on the mission he has devoted himself to for years, the foundation he has built his life over. He can't allow himself to doubt, and why would he? He's the adult, he's the hero, he is, honestly, a pretty stubborn and set-in-his-ways character. So, instead of rising to the demand of emotional decision-making, Bruce doubles down on trying to ignore his feelings. And Jason, and the story doesn't let him. Bludheaven explodes. This induces extremely intense feelings in Bruce (his son just got exploded), which Jason didn't allow him to deal with, to handle with action or do anything about; Jason says no you stay right there, with me, with those emotions you're living right now, and you're making a decision. And there's the fact Bruce had a mini-heart attack just before thinking Jason was dead again. And there's the fact he mourned Jason for so long, and Stephanie just died, and Tim, Cass and Oracle all left, and the Joker is right there, and Jason puts a gun in his hands (like the gun that killed his parents)... All of that makes it impossible for Bruce to disregard his emotions. The same way Jason, who was spilling utilitarian rhetoric the whole time, is suddenly not talking about the Joker's mass murder victims but about he himself. The same way Jason acts against his own morals in Lost Days by sparing the Joker so they can have this confrontation later. That's part of why it's so important to me that Jason is crying in that confrontation.

Bruce's action at the end of the story can be understood two ways:

-he decides to maim/kill Jason to stop the insupportable influx of emotions, and him turning around is his refusal to look at his decision (looking away as a symbol of shame): Bruce has lost, in so that he cannot escape the dilemma, he succumbs to his emotions and acts against his morals.

-the batarang slicing Jason's throat is an accident: he is trying to find a way out of the dilemma, a solution that lets him save his principles, but his emotions cloud his judgement (maybe his hand trembles? Maybe his vision is blurry?). In any case, he kills his son, and it being an accident doesn't absolve him: his emotions hold more weight than his decision and he ends up acting against his morals anyway.

It's a very old story: a deontologist and a utilitarian try to solve the trolley problem, and everyone still loses. And who's laughing? The nihilist, of course. To him, nothing has sense, and so nothing matters. He's wrong though, always has been. That's the lesson I'm taking from Damasio's work. That's the prism through which I'm comparing empathy to ethics in Levinas' work and agape in Compté-Sponsville's intro to philosophy through.

It should matter. It's so essential that it matters. Love, emotions, empathy: those are fundamental in moral evaluation and decision making. They are a feature, not a bug. And the tragedy is when we try to force ourselves to make them not matter.

Anyway so that was my analysis of why Damasio's position on ethics is so fun to take in account when analysing UTH, hope you found this fun!

[tinseltastic]

Helena is desperate for genuine human connection but she sabotages herself with her impulse to always assert control. She slides into Mark's booth and tries to be humble and self deprecating, but the only reason she can have this conversation in the first place is because of her position of power!! She has access she didn't earn to two different versions of him! And she just HAS to slide in that she's "like, the head of the company" because she can't allow Mark to bite back too hard when they banter. He can't completely reject her advances because this is her game and she makes the rules. Her jokes are all at someone else's expense. She's toying with a man who isn't hers twice over. YOUR KIND EYES AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE, SCOUNDREL

[willosword]

[catboygirljoker]

ever since i made the original render in this post ive thought about the caption being what Axel says after Xion beats Xigbar's ass. well i finally got around to it. yippeeee

(subtitle font credit)

[averycutesalamander]

boothill loves to bring you up at every single occasion he can to everyone in the vicinity. every time you think he's run out of steam he comes back with some new little anecdote or quip or cute quirk that he's noticed about you, and everybody thinks he's fucking insufferable because of it. rappa's met you like twice and she knows your middle name, your favorite fruit, and the way you like your eggs. she has an insanely high tolerance for nonsense so she doesn't really care but everyone on the express knows your favorite color even if they haven't MET YOU.

it's sooooo much worse if you aren't a civilian. he restrains himself from yapping to complete strangers if you're a civvie (out of very reasonable concern for your safety) but i think that after the ipc is out of the picture he will literally never shut up about you. he'll be grabbing a bag of flour for you because you ran out in the middle of a recipe and he's telling the poor cashier about that time four months ago where he set the electric mixer too fast and completely coated both of you in flour and sugar and how you looked so damn cute when you were crying laughing. he gets out his phone to show pictures. his home screen has a slideshow of a billion different pictures of you. the cashier's begging him to leave because it's now 15 minutes past closed. he's never going to stop doing this until the whole cosmos knows that he loves you

[muppetmagic]

i don't think about the past, it's always there anyway

[clearlydusty]

Here's the final product for 6 Fanarts ! (Click for much better quality idk why it looks so bad omg)

Thank you so much to those who requested :

@zephramael for Kinger

@squishvicx for Woody

@lonisaiou for Annie Leonhart

@corruptpursuits for Mizuki Akiyama

@stationerykid for Gonta Gokuhara

@carbonatedstickers for Miles Edgeworth

[signanothername]

fell killer has nightmares moon thing on his choker and i think thats interesting, wonder if it’s something nightmare makes him wear

Ahem.. yes.