#because he is more complex than that

[mediumgayitalian]

okay this is not the blog for this but i’m gonna explain myself anyway. i know this story was written by a bisexual woman. and the movie was directed by a gay man. i know there were queer actors. i know this film was important to so so many people. it was important to ME — i wasn’t allowed to watch it when it came out; i watched it in silence on a plan at 1 in the morning looking over my shoulder. i wept and muffled the tears into my hand. this movie was revolutionary.

it was still straight pandering.

i don’t mean that it was a bad representation of queerness. i don’t think it was; i think it was pretty good, actually, especially for the time it was made. but the message, and the point of the film, is straight pandering — the point of the film is to normalize gay people. on one hand, that is validating for queer people. on the other hand, this film is directly written for straight people. this is a letter to them. this letter says: look how normal we are, look how alike you we are, please please please find it within yourselves to treat us with respect.

this is not me reaching. this is almost a direct quote. in fact, let's look at the opening lines, from simon, to the audience (emphasis mine):

"I'm just like you. For the most part, my life is totally normal...My dad was the annoyingly handsome quarterback who married the hot valedictorian. And, no, they didn't peak in high school...I have a sister I actually like...And then there's my friends. Two of them, I've known since pretty much the beginning of time...One of them, I just met a few months ago, but it feels like I've known her forever. We do everything friends do...So, like I said. I'm just like you. I have a totally, perfectly normal life. Except I have one huge-ass secret...

from the very first line! "I am just like you!" if he were talking to other queer people, there would be no 'but'. no need for the "huge-ass" secret. we have the same 'secret', after all. no need to tell us. but he is not talking to queer people. he is talking to non-queer people, he is talking to straight people. this entire story, in simon's voice, is directly addressed to straight people.

that doesn't necessarily mean straight-pandering, sure. so far it's just straight-addressed. except there is an appeal in there -- a please, please, accept me, i am like you, i am not a freak, and, worse, i am not like those other freaks. i am normal. i am like you, see that i am like you, that, like you, straight person, i am normal. the association is straight = normal; and, therefore, queer = freak. this ideal is further cemented with ethan's entire character -- who is not only queer, but is gender non-conforming (GNC).

ethan 'looks' gay. he is feminine, he is open, he is flamboyant. before he is called ethan he is called fag. the first time we see him, he is being mocked; in fact his entire character is a bit of a caricature: here, look, see simon, gay and normal, and see ethan, gay and Other. were this film not straight-pandering, the idea might be: here is simon, here is ethan; both gay, both 'normal'. instead, ethan is posited as Abnormal. his Otherness, even, is presented as the reason he cannot be treated normally:

[BULLY]: Whatever, fag.

LEAH: Dicks.

SIMON: Wish Ethan wouldn't make it so easy for them.

there! right out of the gate! right out of simon's own mouth! [ethan's] queerness is his own targeting. if ethan were normal, like simon, like the straights, he would not be so mocked. but because he is visibly queer, because he is GNC (think about the implications of that, maybe, think about the 'LGB' movement, the 'gay people against trans' movement, think about queer infighting that has gotten so so so much worse in the years since that movie came out), he is bringing it upon himself.

obviously this is a pretty clear and blatant case of victim blaming. and the victim blaming isn't necessarily the problem -- that is a great opportunity for growth! this would be the point on which we, as an audience, could reflect upon at the end of the movie; look at where he started, like all of us, hating ourselves by hating each other, and look at where he has come. this would make his character arc very clear.

except...that doesn't happen?

even after martin outs him. he spends his break isolated and terrfied, as is to be expected, and then there is this brief brief second where an arc is teased.

this is where i might differ in opinion from some people. is love simon straight-pandering, or simply sanitized? both? neither? what's going on?

in my personal opinion, the sanitization is straight-pandering. it frustrates me that everything about us must be as close to cis and non-queer as possible to be presented to the mainstream (it frustrates me that we strive so hard to be mainstream at all, but that's another conversation). the sanitization and the straight-pandering comes in because even when simon is tearing through his closet, looking for way to signify himself, to wordlessly tell other queers he is like them, he cannot commit to it. even in this fantasy movie, even in this rom-com happy ending all loose ends are tied and everybody clapped (literally, everybody clapped, it is too much fantasy to let queers -- to let us -- be our total, uncensored selves.

because this movie is straight pandering.

it's really obvious to me in simon's college fantasy. it hit me when i was 17 even, watching this film and crying from the joy of it; the self-hatred was so evident i stopped and recognised it. in simon's actual, unwitnessed mind, he is so embarrassed by flamboyant non-straightness that he cannot entertain it. he must announce it to the IMAGINARY AUDIENCE, DO YOU GET THAT, IN SIMON'S PERSPECTIVE WE, THE AUDIENCE, ARE THE FICTIONAL VOYUERS OF HIS LIFE, WE, THE WATCHERS OF THE MOVIE SIMON IS NARRATING AND ADDRESSING US THROUGH, ARE THE STRAIGHTS HE IS TALKING TO, that is is seperate from the faggy queers.

SIMON: Maybe not that gay.

isn't that awful? doesn't that hit you? there's no re-evaluating at the end of the film. even when simon does get the chance to talk to ethan, one-on-one, he cannot come to an understanding. he doesn't get it. in fact, he is still separating himself from ethan! ethan makes himself vulnerable and tell simon that his mother pretends that he is straight and it kills him. ethan, the non straight-pandering voice says, out loud: i am different and i am proud of it. i am gay and obviously so and any other implication is a betrayal of my soul. i am a fag. i am flamboyant. i am not straight, and i am proud of that. i am PROUD.

when the dumbass VP assumes simon and ethan are dating, simon cannot correct himself fast enough.

simon is not evil. he recognises his ally and brother in ethan, he is careful and civil with him. but he also recognises the position being ethan's friend and being associated with ethan puts him in. it's explicit in the bullying scene! in the VP's office! should simon fail to fervently and frequently align himself with straightness, with 'normalcy', he will be assumed as one of those gays. he will be that gay, the weird ones, the ones who 'shove it in our faces, you know?' the uncomfortable gays. the gays that cannot be made into corporate interest.

you can have all the gay writers in the world. but what a major gay movie, backed by corporate sponsors and literally addressed to fucking straight people, cannot be a genuine and true representation of queer, in both senses of the word. it cannot show the other. it has to, by virtue, align itself as closely as possible with the straight people funding it, with the cheque-writers in the room going hm, that's a little too gay for me.

love, simon begins with one idea: i am just like you, but i have a huge-ass secret.

at the end, the secret is revealed. but simon is not desperately vying to be just like his straight audience any less.

yes yes love simon is straight pandering blah blah blah. but "you get to exhale now, simon" will never not knock me fucking flat to the floor.

[silosbears]

i think alphonse would still experience depersonalization and dysmorphia even after getting his body back

[verflares]

touched up penn doodles from the other day that i dontttt think i will be finishing but it feels like a waste not to at least post em

[deadpoetsandlivinglegends]

Something something every time Charlie isn’t fighting to be the center of attention, he is always looking around to others to gauge their reactions and silently observing them all something something he is searching for connection, to fit in and be loved but he doesn’t know how to ask for love so instead he gains their attention by acting out in ways he knows they’ll notice and tries to pretend their attention and love are the same thing

[divineandmajesticinone]

RED BLUE レッドブルー (2024-2025) I EP. 4

Okubo Nalu as Hazuru Yuga

[arson-09]

Tamlin is actually such an underrated character in acotar. Because of feyres very biased narrative she forces readers to ignore the complexity of his character and man. its sad

Tamlin is a character who is genuinely GOOD at his core. He changed so much of the spring court for good, eliminating slavery within the spring lands and mortals having more protection. Hes a morally good character that made a few mistakes and is boiled down to just those mistakes. Locking feyre in the house and the magical/emotional blow up, which are both pretty decent fuck ups (i dont think siding with hybern fully counts as he was a double agent all along and tamlin was decently justified in thinking feyre was being kept against her will. lets be fr here) and even after he’s extremely fucked over by the nightcourt, his lands and court burned to shit, he still saves rhysand. Saves rhysand and tells feyre to be happy, even when he has every reason to NOT do that!

Hes a character that clearly holds himself to a higher standard. throughout acotar he puts lucien and feyres safety above his own, even sending feyre away when she was the only one who could save him. Even though what he did to her wasnt great its not completely irredeemable, rhysand did much worse things to feyre and other people but hes living his best life while Tamlin seems to find himself unworthy of being a person (acosf wheres hes been in beast form for roughly over two years) hes a perfectionist who now doesnt even think he deserves anyone because he accidentally hurt the people he loves most.

Sjm accidentally created a beautifully rich and morally righteous character who is so extremely fucked by the narrative. Which doesnt even work half the time as sjm cant seemingly commit to making him a full villain (seemingly by accident again she gave him quite a reasonable explanation to everything he did ‘wrong’ but still chooses to make him a punching bag)

If Tamlin was genuinely a morally evil character he wouldnt have NEARLY the amount of fans as he does. Hes a character that requires the minimum amount of media literacy and comprehension to understand and i LOVE him.

[casscainmainly]

"My long-held belief that Duke and Luke should not get along" <- could you please elaborate on this? I'm fond of both and I collect your thoughts and analyses like they're rare trading cards so I'm ready to be all 👀🫳🍿

First of all anon this might be my favourite ask ever, I've been dying to write my thoughts on these two so THANK YOU. Secondly my belief that Duke + Luke wouldn't get along actually stemmed from WFA, I was super annoyed with Luke giving Duke the pep talk in ep 76 because they have no relationship!!! Then I started thinking harder and realised they are a really interesting pair. In case anyone hasn't noticed I'm fond of giving Duke relationships where he's annoyed with the other person so 😭 this is very on brand.

The thing about Duke + Luke is they are, on the surface, similar - they are Black members of the Batfam who operate mostly independently, 'separate' from a legacy as Signal/Batwing (though I will deconstruct this later), devoted to their family, have a strong sense of justice, and view crime-fighting as a business. But I believe at their cores they are fundamental opposites - and it's this hidden opposition that makes me think they wouldn't vibe with each other. I'm focusing on We Are Robin Duke and Batwing Luke, though I will also refer to Duke's Signal days + Luke in Detective Comics.

(This is going to be a long post because this is lowkey my Luke + Duke thesis 😭)

Introductions

Duke and Luke were both introduced in the New 52, actually in the same year (2013!). What's really cool about their intros is that you already see how different they are. We first meet Duke in Zero Year, where he's fishing in the subway and then attacked by a gang; we then get the famous scene of him solving crosswords by Bruce's unconscious body. When Bruce tells Duke and his family to leave, Duke refuses, telling him they can't leave Duke's grandma and that all it takes is one riddle to free the city from Riddler's influence.

By contrast, we first meet Luke in the spotlight as he's wrestling for MMA in Batwing #19. He's been wrestling to get Batman's attention, refusing all job offers from his dad to do so (and thus creating some juicy father-son tension). In Batwing #20, we see he has two degrees from MIT, lives in a fancy apartment, and is really tech-oriented; his cover story for Batwing is that he's travelling the world.

Already, there are a couple things that already firmly separate them:

Class: Duke is from the Narrows whereas Luke is rich

Connection to Batman: Duke stumbled across Batman and gained his attention quite organically, whereas Luke was actively begging for Batman to notice him

Agency: Duke's actions were motivated by the extreme circumstances of Zero Year and a desire to help rooted in his material environment, whereas Luke's is a more internal, abstract wish to help (pointing to their class differences again)

Gotham: Duke refuses to leave his city, whereas Luke immediately packs up and travels the world

Intelligence: Both of them are fiercely intelligent, but in different ways - Duke loves puzzles and riddles whereas Luke is more inclined towards engineering and technology

And these differences only grow as they get older!!

Maturity

Duke is 16 (in my head, canonically it's vague but he's between Damian and Tim so 14-17) and Luke is 23. This age gap is honestly not that big, but I think it would feel big to both of them. And what's worse is that Duke is quite mature, but Luke is said to be immature:

Batwing #23

I don't think Luke is actually immature, but it's a recurring theme that other characters perceive him as unwilling to grow up; and I genuinely do think Batwing, for him, is kind of an adventure at first. Now compare this to Duke, whose circumstances disallowed him being childish. He had to grow up because his parents weren't around anymore, and he became quite jaded as a result. Even after he's mellowed out in his Signal days, I still don't think he could tolerate working with someone who comes off as light-hearted as Luke does. Duke would be annoyed by how he perceives Luke doesn't take things seriously, and Luke in turn would be annoyed when Duke inevitably criticises him for it.

Arc

Following on from above, their arcs are actually in total opposite directions. We first meet Duke alone and disillusioned with everything, putting his whole being into finding his parents. Then, through We Are Robin and Robin War, he begins to understand what Robin means as a symbol and finds community, leading to his brighter personality in Signal comics. Luke, however, begins very light-hearted (as seen above), with a huge respect for Batman and the Bat symbol. Once his family starts being torn apart, though, he becomes increasingly aggressive, more isolated, and in a much darker place. Compare a narration box from the last issues of both:

Batwing #34 / We Are Robin #12

These encapsulate their journeys: Duke learns that he doesn't have to act alone, whereas Luke struggles with accepting all that has happened since he put on his suit. Being a vigilante improves Duke's life, whereas it essentially ruins Luke's. This is why I don't think that WFA ep made sense!!! They have nothing in common in terms of the vigilante experience, and I think they would frustrate each other because they have such different conceptions of what the vigilante life is!!!!!!!

Batman and Robin

Okay so I said that Luke + Duke aren't legacies; even though Batwing is one, Luke doesn't actually talk to David Zavimbe, and his Batwing is not spiritually connected to David's really. But Luke and Duke both do take inspiration from other Batfam members - Batman and Robin, respectively.

Batwing #25 / Batman (2011) #45

Luke is the rare Batfam member whose motivations don't spring from tragedy - he's inspired one night when Batman saves him and he jumps in to help. Luke's love for Batman is wrapped up in Bruce himself, as a person rather than a symbol; he genuinely thinks Batman is awesome and wants to help people under his name.

Duke is the exact opposite - Robin is not a person for him but a symbol, and a symbol that can be spread to many people. It's also intimately tied with Duke's relationship to Gotham, because Batman is "on the gargoyle" and Robin is "on the street". Importantly, Duke says to Darryl that "I know you work for him, but you're us". Working for a singular person is in opposition to this 'us' that Duke believes in.

Luke, though not exactly an employee, literally wanted to work for Batman, Inc. Batwing is in many ways a 'job', an alternative to the corporate life Lucius wanted for him. Duke would, I think, take huge problems with Luke's philosophy as a whole. Separated from Gotham, attached to Batman as a person rather than as a symbol, Duke just literally wouldn't understand where Luke is coming from. And Luke, too, doesn't seem to respect Robin as a mantle (this is after someone mistakes him for Batman in Batwing #34):

I think Luke views Robin as firmly a kids' role, a sidekick for Batman; that would annoy the STUFFING out of Duke. I actually could write a whole post in itself about this incident and Luke being mistaken for Batman but that's for another day. The point is they are attached to the Batman and Robin legacies which in themselves are already vastly different, but Duke is kind of anti-Batman and Luke is a little anti-Robin, so they would not mix.

Family

One thing they do have in common is a deep love for family. But even then, their familial relationships are extremely different: Duke has a wonderful relationship with his parents, bolstered by the fact he lost them for a while, whereas Luke has a contentious relationship with his. Duke in some ways idealises his mom and dad, while Luke is sharply aware of his parents' shortcomings.

Batwing #20

Now this wouldn't be an issue normally, but Duke canonically has, like, a problem with judging other people's families. It's a really consistent (and somewhat hilarious) trait of his:

We Are Robin #5 / We Are Robin #5 / Gotham Nights #8

The Dre comment ("you're a mob kid?") is particularly telling. Because Duke has such a good relationship with his parents, and because he's shaped so much by them, I think he sees children as reflections of their parents/families. It's hard for him to see someone completely divorced from their family - you even see this a bit in Batman & The Outsiders, where although Duke understood Cass' disagreements with Shiva, I don't think he really got the nuances of what that felt like for Cass.

Luke's relationship with his father is complex and contentious. They love each other, but Lucius' desires for Luke just don't match what Luke wants, and Luke can't tell him about Batwing either so it's a constant back-and-forth. This secrecy is another thing Duke wouldn't get - I've made posts before about Duke and honesty, and it's a huge value of his. It's significant that as soon as his mom is healed she finds out about Signal; dishonesty is not really a factor in Duke's life, whereas it is Luke's central conflict. Luke's entire thing with his dad and his alter ego is something Duke has never had to deal with, and I think Duke would just be like 'tell him?? and make up??' and Luke would sigh so loud and hard.

Personality and Authority

But all of that aside, I just think their personalities wouldn't mix! Duke is a jaded teenager whose overt honesty and resistance to authority often give off a bad first impression (see his first encounters with Black Lightning, We Are Robin, Damian, even the Bruce train scene...). People do warm up to Duke quick, and once you love him you adore him, but there's a hurdle to becoming close to him that you have to leap first.

Luke, on the other hand, is affable and immediately likable. He's popular in school (as Russell mentions in #25), has experienced college social life, and is open and friendly. I think in an initial meeting Luke would find Duke off-putting and rude, while Duke would find Luke shallow and annoying. Luke is an extremely confident person, as shown in both Batwing and Detective Comics (particularly the latter). I think Duke would take this confidence as him being stuck-up, especially because Luke is rich.

Their class differences also separate their reactions to authority. Luke doesn't take authority at face value - he disobeys Bruce basically as much as Duke does. However, given his upbringing he isn't that anti-authority. Compare Luke and Duke's attitudes to cops:

Batwing #25 / We Are Robin #2

The Luke narration box is after the cops shoot him and accidentally make him kill his best friend 😭😭😭 like if that had happened to Duke his inner voice would NOT say that. This is another example of how their different upbringings and personalities cause them to have DRASTICALLY different outlooks on things. Batwing also sides with Batwoman when she kills Clayface in Detective Comics, something I think Duke would not do (he would've sided with Cass) so their ideologies often put them on opposite sides.

FINALLY, and least importantly, Luke is not a reader. This is a recurring thing and it's so funny:

Batwing #21

That's Tam telling Luke to "read a book". I think this exact interaction would happen with Duke taking the place of Tam, where he'd just be super annoyed that Luke doesn't enjoy literature. Honestly I think Duke might remind Luke of Tam in a lot of ways, since Duke is Bruce's golden child just like Tam is Lucius'. And that would annoy Luke, like he can't escape annoying younger siblings even as Batwing?? Bruce liking Duke more than Luke, even when Duke doesn't even care for Bruce's approval, would send Luke's blood pressure through the ROOF.

Conclusion

Um anyway I'm so so sorry this was so long but that's why I think Luke and Duke wouldn't get along!! It's mostly that they have such different outlooks on literally everything and their personalities clash. Anyway, if anyone bothered to read til the end here's your reward!! A little edit of what SHOULD have happened in WFA ep 76:

[korkorali]

The Misogyny of It All

So a lot of Della Duck Discourse is rehashed all the time, points are made again and again, but one thing that I almost never see people defend -and conversely, see people attack all the time- is The Line.

You know what I'm talking about. The Line from Glomtales.

"Your plans, your schemes, they only lead to bad things for your family. If you want to be a part of this family, you've gotta stop."

That one.

Now, what exactly Della was trying to get across with that line is a whole other can of worms that deserves its own post (basically she -and also the writers- horribly failed her Speech check).

What we're going over here is how that mimics a certain line from the last season, said by a parental figure to a child, that gets so much less flack. That, in fact, often gets paraded around as 'an interesting twist on a character.'

"You are not family!"

I have never seen people attack this line with the same amount of vitriol as they attack Della's, which is funny when they're the exact same line.

Actually, not even that- Scrooge's is worse.

It's more direct, it's literally yelled at Webby, it doesn't even attempt to address the issue Scrooge had (Webby blaming him for what happened to Della) and instead just straight-up attacks her as a person.

Now, to be fully honest- I like this line! I do genuinely think it's an interesting route for Scrooge to take, and is quite realistic to the grumpy old bastard. It's just funny that nobody ever comes to Webby's defense the same way they do for Louie.

Because the thing is- between Webby and Louie, one of these two has genuine, canonical issues with feeling like they're not a part of the family, like they're an outsider amongst those they love the most, like they don't belong.

And it's not Louie.

It is a consistent part of Webby's characterization that she feels like she doesn't belong. This gets touched on in all three seasons (and honestly, it could be argued that it gets worse after this moment).

Conversely, that just is not a part of Louie's canonical characterization. Even in the first episode of season 2, the one where Louie gets the closest to an 'I don't belong in this family' moment, it's less 'I don't belong here' and more 'fuck me I am terrible at adventuring'. And! It gets resolved in that episode!

(Of course, there is absolutely something to be said for how it's resolved- specifically by Scrooge encouraging him to be a scheming little bastard, which then thusly becomes the thing that threatens his family the most. Which would, logically, be a pretty big blow to his self-esteem. This isn't what I'm here to discuss right now but it is genuinely interesting.)

Louie never really shows an issue with feeling like he doesn't belong in his family. He shows a disconnect with his family at times, but in canon that never really evolves into a full-blown feeling of displacement. It does get close in Glomtales, but never quite reaches it.

So it's 'interesting' (read: not interesting) that Scrooge's fuckup here gets brushed away pretty easily. A lot of the time the line just straight-up isn't addressed, and when it is, often times it's about how "Oh he apologized to Webby offscreen, obviously."

Which.

Not he did not.

I mean, let me be clear: I don't mind it when that's the answer. It works for me to just brush it away if it's not meant to be the focus...

But Scrooge almost certainly didn't apologize for it.

As 'New Gods on the Block!' Showed us, Scrooge is downright awful at realizing when his actions have hurt people.

More likely than not, Scrooge would just assume that everything is fine and would avoid bringing it up at all costs because he'd feel awkward about it. Because he is, very importantly, not good at talking about things he doesn't want to talk about.

So why is it that Louie is always the one feeling like he doesn't belong? Why is it Della who is always a terrible parent for what she's said? Why are Webby's feelings of disconnect never really given the same gravity as Louie's? Why is Scrooge's blunder let off the hook super easily?

It just feels silly to me.

And, well.

Kinda like the fact that, since Scrooge is a guy and Webby's a girl, and Della is a woman and Louie's a boy, has something to do with it.

I'll happily give the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not deliberate, but quite frankly it is a double standard.

I think that people would be less upset with the Della Duck Discourse if Scrooge was held in a similarly critical position over what he's said and done. If it was acknowledged that Della isn't uniquely awful in what she says and does, and that a lot of the others have fucked up in extremely similar ways.

(I mean for fuck's sake, everybody goes on and on about how Della left her kids for ten years -which, for the record, wasn't what she wanted to do- but nobody ever criticizes Donald for taking the kids away from their family and never talking to them about Della- which is something he actively and deliberately chose to do)

TL;DR: The fact that Della gets intensely criticized for what she's said and done, but Donald and Scrooge are conversely celebrated as 'interesting' and 'complex' for what they've said and done, even when it brings harm to the kids, is a blatant double-standard. And if you don't think that this double-standard is bad or wrong for existing (or even that it Doesn't Actually Exist), instead of immediately claiming that it's a non-issue, maybe try to look inward and figure out why you really think that is.

[dootznbootz]

Fascinating how Polites, the character who is the personification of Odysseus' optimism and is only in 5 songs, is more grieved and appreciated than Eurylochus, a character who is his own person and is in 11 songs.

[breesperez139]

Dc x Dp Prompt #3

Immortal Ghost King Au:

Daniel Fenton was crowned as High King Phantom of the Infinite Realms on his 16th birthday. He knew many were opposed to him being crowned at such a young age (he was too), but the Realms had gone too long without a ruler and it was getting restless.

The Realms were sentient to some extent. It can not run itself as it has no form but it chooses a host, a King if you will, to fulfill its wishes. It may have lived on an entire millennia without a ruler, but it was only out of sheer luck and the contributions of countless gods that it had survived. The Infinite Realms needed a King and Danny Phantom was the only contender.

So the people were ignored and their boy king was crowned. However Phantom was young and naive, a child as both a human and a ghost. Even worse, he knew nothing about being a king. But the little godling would learn and learn he did.

Most kings were taught before they were coronated, but Danny had no such privilege. His coronation came and left with the wind. His private lessons overshadowed any thoughts he had left of mortal schooling. And Danny gave up on living a normal human life.

That last part was perhaps the easiest for Danny. Amity Park was already considered too liminal for them to have any “sentience”. The GIW had all but declared war on the Realms with their continuous violent actions upon his people and the land itself.

It wasn’t difficult for Amity to give up their “rights” and “humanity” either. They said good riddance to the world that never helped them, to the heroes that ignored their cries for help. And they bowed to Phantom, declaring him their King, just as he declared them citizens of the Infinite Realms.

He welcomed his liminals with open arms, vowing to protect them from any harm that would come their way, just as he would with any of his other citizens. He gave them a home in the Realms, an island- no a haunt of their own should they wish to truly reject the land of the living, and they accepted. Not many wanted to try their luck against the human government.

But with a God, no, their King on their side, they knew their safety and happiness was all but assured. After all, it was Phantom who protected them even as they turned their own backs at him. It was Phantom who fought against foes that could have erased him from existence.

And of course it was Phantom who would now receive any and all support he could ever want and need should he declare war against the humans of Earth. No, there was no need for people of the Infinite Realms to worry. High King Phantom was a God after all. It was only ever his right to exact divine punishment onto those who opposed and threatened his will. It was not their fault if the humans actively went against his will. No, the humans had no one but themselves to blame for whatever came for them.

[merakiui]

mera, can u give me link to post about chalk line au pleeasee 🥺👉👈

Yes!! :D here is the origin post. If you would like to read more cute yan with Floyb, the tag fluffy floyd hours is full of similar writings. It's an old-ish thought, but despite that I'm happy it's still enjoyable and discussed even today!!!

I've been so Skully-brained I forgot all about the cutie eel who makes yummy meals for you and is so patient with you and tries to cheer you up in silly ways and is just so soft and gentle,,, 🥺 he's the sweetest eel. It's Jade who needs to be tortured in the most medieval of ways for his crimes........ >:( but maybe it's possible to think of soft, fluffy yan Jade.

[divorceblogger]

it’s the fantasy of submission!

[ab-horror]

[centaur-dreaming]

when you think about it--I mean really think about it--the feelings Jean has towards Kevin are so fucking palpable and Kevin, as much as I like you, I woulda fucking decked you so goddamn hard. SO hard.

Like, Jean really loved him. He really loved him. Kevin was this amazing shock of green amongst all the black and red and Jean was what 15? 16? Imagine being that age and falling for a boy who isn't wholly warm to you but who cares for you and looks after you better than anyone else in the hell you're living in does, only for him to get hurt one day--so badly hurt--that when he asks you a simple favour you do it immediately without thinking twice. Without suspecting a thing. It's nothing. It's so small and so easily believable that the physical pain you suffer at the hand of your master is almost nothing compared to the utter agony in your chest as your heart breaks and bleeds--realising he never felt the same.

He was everything to you, but you were just a piece on a board to him.

[kissingagrumpygiant]

I'm of the belief solas wouldn't fuck with emmrich actually

[scootersscooter]

I love Donald Davenport because yes all his actions are uniquely fucked up but at least at the start they came from a place of concern. Concern that children were being used as weapons of mass destruction. Concern of how he was going to raise them safely without them hurting themselves of others. And gradually over time that concern started focusing less on them and more on himself. How he could use their bionics to find a solution to things. How in order to do that he would have to distance himself from his kids. Stop seeing them as fully human children because they were capable of so much more. It drove him to become the one thing he didn't want to be. The one thing he wanted to stop. It doesn't matter if he went about it the "right way" he still molded his children into soldiers who would never be able to truly connect with their peers in the way that they longed for.