#extortion argument!

[myfairkatiecat]

Btw words having connotations is a thing. Like I’m not nitpicky for the sake of fighting. I’m looking at a collection of scenes, and then at a word, and going, welp! That’s a word that has been applied to many contexts im gonna casually not group these scenes with, thanks!

[copypastus]

Sign me up for the tithe in the Spring Court I hear rent prices in Velaris went up again.

[hoofpeet]

-might get kicked out for unrelated reasons (HOA) But small look at the landlord situation. Landlord emailed us some legal documents earlier- which included an admission that he's been getting the rent checks (which he was previously claiming we weren't paying and citing as his grounds for eviction) - as well as documentation of two other instances of attempted extortion.... I've lost the plot completely at this point

[thekimspoblog]

"Better Call Saul" Season 2 Episode 4: "Gloves Off"

[arpov-blog-blog]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/

US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts

By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung

Amended: This is bad. This ruling makes it impossible to successfully prosecute Trump for any of his acts because the evidence of those acts while he was in office cannot be used. Thomas also wrote that he does not believe the 'Special Prosecutor' is not legitimate....."The U.S. Supreme Court for the first time on Monday recognized that ex-presidents have immunity from prosecution for certain actions taken in office, as it threw out a judicial decision rejecting Donald Trump's bid to shield himself from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss.

The court ruled 6-3 that while former presidents enjoy immunity for actions they take within their constitutional authority, they do not for actions taken in a private capacity. The ruling marked the first time since the nation's 18th century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the landmark ruling on behalf of the court's six-justice conserverative majority. The court's three liberal justices dissented.

The decision came in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling rejecting his immunity claim. The court decided the case on the last day of its term.

Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election in a rematch from four years ago. The court's slow handling of the blockbuster case already had helped Trump by making it unlikely that any trial on these charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith could be completed before the election.

Trump had argued that he is immune from prosecution because he was serving as president when he took the actions that led to the charges. Smith had opposed presidential immunity from prosecution based on the principle that no one is above the law.

During April 25 arguments in the case, Trump's legal team urged the justices to fully shield former presidents from criminal charges - "absolute immunity" - for official acts taken in office. Without immunity, Trump's lawyer said, sitting presidents would face "blackmail and extortion" by political rivals due to the threat of future prosecution.

The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed. Smith's election subversion charges embody one of the four criminal cases Trump has faced.

Trump, 78, is the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted as well as the first former president convicted of a crime.

[grison-in-space]

Has Biden actually done anything at all? There's evidence going around and I think it's compelling, the alternate to voting is instead doing actual social work and participating in protests and organizing political action, which is a good idea i think

1) Yes. Inarguably this has been the most effective progressive domestic administration since I have been alive, and I'm in my thirties. What in the fuck are you talking about? It's not perfect, but it's better than we've seen in fifty years: Obama tried, but Democratic Congressional organization was just not yet used to working with a completely obstructionist GOP Congress in the wake of the tea party.

Even in terms of foreign policy, this is also pretty much as good as US involvement gets. Sorry. Our foreign policy has been shaped by monsters for decades, and that's even without dealing with our huge and active branch of Christian doom cultists. There ain't a candidate in the world that could stop the entire accumulated momentum of geopolitics with a snap of the finger, and I'm not really willing to pretend that Biden is particularly notable for not managing to fix Israel/Palestine relations.

2) In your own words, anon, what precisely does organizing political action entail without participating in the political process? Do you think that abstaining from the part of the gig where you, the citizen, get to say which official gets the job somehow makes your opinions matter more to your elected public officials? Have you ever organized to get so much as a municipal one-time library project budget expanded? Are you perhaps only skilled at political argument with people who already agree with you on the Internet?

What is your leverage, and could it reasonably be described as "extortion" or "blackmail" or "political corruption?" Because those are pretty much the only things on the table that can work more effectively to drive an elected official than a disciplined coalition of political allies (who can be purchased with, you guessed it, votes) or a reliable bloc of voter support. Your vote matters less than the ones you bring with you, sure. Do you think that not voting yourself somehow helps people organize to drive more votes? Have you perhaps replaced your complex reasoning skills with a rapidly dying jellyfish?

3) Holy passive vagueness, Batman! "Evidence is going around." What a masterpiece of a sentence! How it suggests everything while providing nothing! What evidence? Who collected it? Who is talking about the evidence "going around?" Who is listening? How many of them are there? What did they think before? The more I think, the more questions I have, and damn if they ain't predisposing me to be even less charitable.

Like, this is so catastrophically poorly supported that I have to confess that I not only believe this is probably an ask in bad faith (i.e. by someone who is expecting to piss me off or otherwise engage with me adversarially, probably spammed to a whole host of blogs at once with no expectation of response) but I actively hope that it is. The alternative is to have to grapple with the reality that some people are so uncomfortable with the responsibility of moral agency that they're willing to release useful levers of legal and social power just so that they never do anything problematic with that power. Much better, of course, to wash one's hands of anything that might have the stink of responsibility clinging to it. Might fall from the membership of the Elect if you actually get yourself all muddy by doing things, I reckon.

I don't even believe that voting is the only lever we have when it comes to our elected officials or that votes are necessary to secure change, and I am certainly not talking about the presidential ticket alone when I talk voting. What I do believe is two things: one, that voting is a potential lever of power on the emergent chaos of the society in which we live. And two, that anyone telling me to leave a lever of power on the ground without a damn good reason is either incompetent, malicious, or both.

[ooooo-mcyt]

Since people love to say Scott was canonically Toxic toward Jimmy in Third Life, I'm basically gonna recount every argument they actually had in Third Life just to give an idea of what kind of relationship conflicts they actually had in canon.

(based on my notes from my last rewatch, i may have missed something so please feel free to add on in comments/tags if there are more conflicts i didn't write in my notes!)

They argued quite a bit over cows. Scott was annoyed when Jimmy decided to give away cows to BigB, Martyn, and Joel without telling him first. Jimmy felt like, since they already knew they had cows, it was best to just try to get in their good graces instead of pointlessly hiding it, but Scott was frustrated because he only wanted to keep the cows secret until they got an enchanting setup, but Jimmy just gave them away without talking about it. They dropped the argument when Jimmy went to work on the wall, and it never came up again.

Scar and Grian tried to use their enderman to extort Scott for diamonds by having it attack him and promising to stop it if Scott gave them diamonds. Scott killed the enderman, and Jimmy scolded Scott for it, apologizing for Scott to Scar and Grian, which frustrated Scott because they're the ones who tried to extort him, and Scott didn't feel like he had any reason to be sorry. They dropped the argument shortly after

Scott ended up cross with Jimmy when he died twice in one episode. Scott warned Jimmy not to play Dare To Flare, and Jimmy played anyway and died. Scott then told Jimmy how to safely disarm a tnt minecart, but Jimmy detonated it, killing himself and two other people. Scott was bitter about Jimmy getting hurt by disregarding his concern and advice. When Jimmy expressed how bad he felt about the minecart, though, Scott relented and expressed to Jimmy that it was Grian and Scar's fault, not his.

When Ren and Martyn come to threaten Jimmy and Scott, Jimmy tries to stand up for them, but Scott insists on Jimmy staying back and agrees when Martyn says Ren could beat Jimmy in a fight. Jimmy is upset about this and tells Scott to say something nice about him, feeling like Scott doesn't believe in him. Scott spends most of the interaction trying to appease and negotiate with Ren and Martyn, but Jimmy ends up making them enemies.

They have probably their most major argument after the interaction with Ren and Martyn. Jimmy is angry that Scott would give in so easily, implying he thinks Scott's being cowardly and/or naive. More than anything, though, Jimmy is worried about Scott, believing Dogwarts cannot be trusted and that they will hurt Scott if they get wrapped up with them. Scott, on the other hand, feels like Jimmy is being reckless (again!) and putting himself in danger by needlessly making enemies without taking Scott's feelings into consideration. In the end, though, Jimmy's already made an enemy out of Dogwarts, and Scott follows Jimmy into the battle that ends up killing Jimmy, and then proceeds to follow the war path against Dogwarts on his own out of grief after Jimmy's death.

[prettycottonmouthlamia]

The problem with small businesses / independent creators is that a lot of them will use their "no please I'm just a little baby I promise I don't hate you" to help their anti-consumer and anti-worker plans go down easier. This is basically the entire problem with the argument around Intellectual Property laws: no one actually has an idea how to keep them from being abused by larger corporations, but we can't get rid of them because small creators and companies need the ability to harass and extort other people too.

[carto0ncritter]

I wanted to address some of the points your previous asker made https://www.tumblr.com/carto0ncritter/766355644544696320/i-just-want-to-say-that-i-personally-disagree-with, but I kept getting bogged down in the quagmire of it all. In the end I gave up and just let it be long - apologies for the wall of text but I'm tired of seeing the fandom repeat talking points similar to IRL apologia whenever someone isn't a perfect enough victim for them.

1 A fixation on "if Blitzo could say no in this or that specific instance, that 'proves' every other yes was freely given"

This line of argumentations fixated on the idea that if Blitzo wasn't shaking with fear and unable to refuse Stolas every time, he must have felt safe and able to consent every time. But there's a wilful disregard for how the deal works - the basic arrangement is Blitzo gives Stolas the book on the full moon and then they have sex.

The times Blitzo feels able to say no either fall outside that arrangement (Ozzie's being a one-off night out where Blitzo STILL felt the need to apologize for not wanting sex which doesn't say much for how safe he feels to refuse, and dragged a hand over his face when Stolas started talking like he was dreading dealing with Stolas trying to make a move on him) or because Stolas himself gave Blitzo an out. Blitzo wasn't taking months off until Stolas gave him the option, because it's Stolas who holds all the power and what he says, goes. We don't see Blitzo demand a night off and Stolas hand it to him before then - Blitzo phrases it explicitly as Stolas giving him nights off from 'having to' (i.e. a mandatory chore he has to do when asked) sleep with him.

Likewise all the texts show this same dynamic - once s2 happens Stolas is trying to get Blitzo to want to voluntarily spend time with him but Blitzo explicitly says in one text 'It's ur night' because that's how it's worked until now and he had no reason to think otherwise; the deal hadn't ended yet so Blitzo believed the terms were still in effect.

Side note - there's a specific mention of a shot during All 2 U when Blitzo - according to OP - refuses to stay after sex, proving he can say no. First off, saying no only counts if it's before sex, not for cuddling. Again, cuddling falls outside the deal.

And more importantly, I'm wondering if this is the shot being referred to:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/306e7f801fff142d57bee633abdfa9c6/90d50e1d22f5b44b-e8/s400x600/c03e4f8a2f96de0cc9c7add6749cc1e367187d90.jpg

If so, it boggles my mind anyone would use this as 'evidence' that Blitzo could always say no.

Really look at this shot: Blitzo's eyes are narrowed to slits and he looks furious & degraded. It's hard to tell if Blitzo is angry because of the sex he was just forced to have, or he's angry because Stolas is trying to get more out of him while he's trying to leave. Either way I don't see how anyone can look at that expression and think 'there's a man who just had sex/was asked to have sex he's totally enthusiastic about!' Any other show, any other fandom, this would be universally understood as a depiction of the moment right after coerced sex i.e. rape. If there is a single instance of Blitzo not wanting to do it but feeling like he has to, then that is rape. Period. Kill shot. End of discussion. No amount of 'he said no one time/he enjoyed it one time' fixes that or 'proves' all of them were fine. Consent is a case by case basis.

2 Blitzo had other options besides the Grimoire

This feels unrelated tbh; it's edging into 'well Blitzo could have done something else so having sex extorted out of him is his fault!' But to respond quickly:

The crystals existing doesn't mean Blitzo understood 100% how they worked or if he'd be able to use one (he says 'a what now?' or something when Stolas gave him one) or if it was a succubi-only thing and he has no reason to assume Ozzie would just hand him one (especially not once he knows Fizz works with him). By comparison Stolas had a book about them in his library all along apparently, is a prince on friendly terms with Ozzie so in a way better position to ask and had more incentive not to want to risk his book. But he didn't because he knew he could use his book to get sex.

Likewise saying Blitzo could just do Hell assassinations ignores what little worldbuilding around the economy there is. It's well established assassins doing Hell-based missions are more common while offering to kill Earth targets is a USP that brings in a steady client base that helped Blitzo found a business and rent an office (both things it's repeatedly said imps don't normally do). Stolas was under no obligation to let him keep the book, of course, but no one was forcing him to make a favors for favors deal to get sex out of Blitzo (and s2 adding Asmodean Crystals makes the idea that he didn't want to hurt Blitzo's business look 100% false: his only motivation for quid-pro-quoing this is unambiguously to get sex; him framing it as 'supporting' Blitzo is self-aggrandizing narcisstic nonsense).

3 Blitzo is shown wanting sex and wanting Stolas back in Full Moon/Apology Tour

This is a thing the writers like doing - backfilling stuff that should have been shown way earlier in order to rewrite the story into anything they need it to be that second.

S1 Blitzo's attitude to Stolas alternates between repulsed, indifferent and enjoying the power he has over Stolas by being the dominant one. He straight up glares at him like he despises him after Stolas yanks on his face in Truth Seekers (not to mention the chain vision implies he feels trapped and degraded). S2 Blitzo just seems…idk, annoyed by him some of the time? They don't exactly get on better. Then Oops backfills Stolas is being a totally nice person on the phone now and Apology Tour tries to insert flashbacks to stuff we should've seen in the show - i.e. Blitzo actually enjoying his company. Inserting the good times after the two characters have a falling out is totally backwards - we need the actual care and attraction establishing beforehand, not after. Stolas laughing at some of Blitzo's jokes and Blitzo worrying Stolas can actually get hurt is such a bare minimum floor for a ship

As it is the change is so abrupt it's just as easy to argue Stolas has made Blitzo believe all he's good for is sex (and he's panicking because Stolas has cut him off twice now without attempting to talk things out or apologize for any of his demeaning, objectifying behavior, which would make anyone think they aren't even good enough to exploit anymore and that they deserve to be mistreated without explanation) or that Stolas ending the arrangement just set off his abandonment complex. That and trauma bonding is a thing that could definitely happen with a 'relationship' as toxic as this one. Putting it short, the writing is so poor that even though they obviously want us to think Blitzo actually likes Stolas it's kind of hard to tell what he even likes about him or when it started.

4 The closing point

So the original post ends on "it's pretty clear that Blitzo at no point felt coerced into having sex with Stolas, and the people that claim otherwise I have good grounds to believe aren't even watching the same show anymore."

On some level that's true, because Helluva isn't the same show anymore.

Season 1 opened with an episode where Blitzo couldn't give informed consent to Stolas' deal because his life was in danger and his business was being threatened, and Stolas knew all of that. He could see Blitzo was injured and hear the gunshots along with Blitzo whispering and telling him repeatedly to get to the point. He took a hurried 'fine, whatever!' as consent.

He ignored Blitzo telling him not to hit on him at Loo Loo Land (multiple times) - the fact Blitzo seemed legitimately worried Stolas would try to 'diddle his holes' while Stolas' daughter was there speaks volumes to just how safe he felt around Stolas. Harvest Moon has a similar arc - Blitzo takes Stolas' invite in good faith and in return gets demeaned in front of a crowd of imps. Once again he feels so disrespected by Stolas by the end of the episode he explicitly mentions the 'thirsty owl onstage' as the reason why he didn't go to the harvest moon ceremony and had Striker not hurt M&M, he probably could have persuaded Blitzo into joining him. He feels so safe around Stolas, apparently, that when Stolas asks for a reward after saving him he immediately assumes Stolas expects Blitzo to pay him with his body - something which Stolas immediately agrees to. All this culminates in the season finale where he uses Stolas to get into a club and is surprised when Stolas tries to talk to him like a person for once. He's never done that before.

But the damage is done by then. He drops Stolas off, looks desperate to be able to leave when he thinks Stolas is going to try and get sex out him (like always), then tells Stolas all he wants is for Blitzo to fuck him and he makes that really clear 'all the time'.

But what in a decent show would be a condemnation of Stolas' behavior because Blitzo did feel coerced into sex at several points (read: the whole first season, actully) was in fact the writers trying to make the viewers feel sorry for Stolas - a fact that's only come into sharper and more awful focus the more they double down on making Stolas the saddest prince to ever exist in s2 and throw everyone else under the bus to do it.

Finishing off, there's really only one thing I can say left to anyone still insisting the writers aren't trying to retcon the rape ship that they wrote. And that's this:

What Stolas has done to Blitzo is the definition of quid pro quo sexual coercion.

To quote from a source:

https://www.wmlawyers.com/oakland-sexual-harassment-attorneys/eeoc-definition/quid-pro-quo-harassment/

“Quid pro quo” literally means “this for that” in Latin. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when employment, pay, benefits, title, position or other opportunities for advancement or training are conditioned on the submission to unwelcome sexual advances. Whether the harassment is explicit or implicit, it is illegal.

Read that again - when employment is on the condition of submission to unwelcome sexual advances. That's literally what the deal is - Blitzo keeps his job if he sleeps with Stolas. And as we've seen in most of s1, the advances are unwelcome. Even if Blitzo had been more enthusiastic from the start, his job would still depend on keeping Stolas sexually gratified.

A dynamic like that is always going to be prone to abuse no matter how many 'but Blitzo enjoyed it this one time!!' caveats the writers stick on it, because if he had a day where he wasn't feeling into it he would feel obliged to hide his feelings and sleep with Stolas anyway because his livelihood literally depends on it. That isn't informed consent. And this rhetoric is pernicious and should go the way of the dodo

THIS

[welivetodream]

I have a headcanon that Kunikida ounce ran into Port Mafia Skk when he was in highschool. He saw them commit extortion or some illegal shit but he couldn't understand what they were trying to do (he thought they were doing a student film). And Dazai and Chuuya decided they can't let a witness roam free so they try to intimidate Kunikida.

Chuuya, holding bullets: where do you think you are going brat?

Dazai, pointing a gun at Kunikida: my my you look like you are in a hurry, not for long~

Kunikida, raises his hands: okay, this is getting too in character, I won't interrupt your shoot. Let me go.

Chuuya: what are you talking about? The only thing we will shoot is YOU

Kunikida: hey, hey....what is a little kid like you doing with bullets!

Chuuya: WHO THE FUCK YOU CALLED A LITTLE KID, BITCH?

Dazai: calm down, Chuuya. He's not wrong

Chuuya: wipe that smug smile off your stupid face, Shithead

Dazai: I think you need a timeout Chuuya. You are being very naughty today!

*Kunikida watching them having arguments*

Kunikida: hey, guys. Please let me go. I have class in two minutes, it's my final year, I have entrance exams to study for

Chuuya: wait...you go to school?

Kunikida:....yes?

Dazai: how is it like?

Kunikida: it's good for me, since I am the student council president and the top student but for most people it's terrible

Dazai: I wonder what it's like, to go to a normal school...

Kunikida: who doesn't go to a school?

*Chuuya and Dazai have a discussion between themselves*

Chuuya: we are letting you go on one condition, you won't tell what happened here to any one.

Kunikida: I don't even know what's happening here but sure, I won't open my mouth. Can I go? I am late!

Dazai: enjoy the freedom my friend, as long as you can

Kunikida, on his way to school: what the fuck just happened

They all forget what happened that day because of more important things that came next. But one day Kunikida witnesses Dazai and Chuuya having an argument and he gets deja vu, as if he has heard those same things before......

(most of the characters didn't have a normal childhood and that will forever haunt me~)

[freakroth]

i saw your post saying that people who ship incest and headcanon dazai as liking that stuff are obviously going to be harrassed. I don't headcanon dazai as liking daddy kiddy stuff, but i want to ask how you think writing about that makes a person bad. because dazai has literally committed AT LEAST child abuse(akutagawa), 136 murders, 312 extortion cases, 625 cases of fraud and more. but if you think authors deserve to get harrassed for writing about sick crimes like incest because they support or like such things, then why aren't you harrassing asagiri for writing about all those things? and I've seen alot of people that act like sex crimes are somehow different from torture and murder. so I'd like to ask this. do you approve of cheating irl because you act like people who write about sexual related immorality are condoning it and then you say that you might write about cheating in your fic request rules. Also, If you're deep in the bsd community then you may have read no longer human, in which it is heavily heavily implied(to the point that there's literally no other explanation for what happened to her exept rape) that yozo's wife,yoshiko, was raped. do you believe that the irl dazai approved of rape?

I don't mean to come off as rude or argumentative, so sorry if i do, im genuinely curious.

I'm sorry but, are you stupid? you're asking why someone is a bad person for writing incest, pedophilia and rape content. OFC SOMEONE IS A BAD PERSON FOR WRITING THAT KIND OF STUFF. If someone writes it they normalize it, and normalzing disgusting shit like that is VERY harmful.

Its kinda dumb that you are compering Dazai, a fictional character to real people, Dazai is not a real person, so his actions don't effect real people, but people who make incest do effect real people. As someone who is a victim of sa, its very triggering to see incest, pedophilia, rape ect content being made of my favorite character. Making that type of content is normalizing it, and if we normalize kids being raped by someone they're close to, then its gonna end up making younger kids think that its okay if that happens to them.

"but if you think authors deserve to get harrassed for writing about sick crimes like incest because they support or like such things" i never said to harass the writers, i said that if they are gonna write that shit they need to be able to handle the hate, and yes they deserve hate for making it, and saying its for coping isn't a valid excuse, because they are hurting other victims at the same time.

"I've seen alot of people that act like sex crimes are somehow different from torture and murder" They are different, rape is done by the attacker so that they can feel sexual pleasure. And sadly in some cases, like junko furuta, people get raped, tortured and murdered for no reason. But still torture and rape are still different, and i don't know why you're bringing up torture and murder when this is about incest content.

"do you approve of cheating irl because you act like people who write about sexual related immorality are condoning it and then you say that you might write about cheating in your fic request rules." The answer is no, just because i said i MIGHT write for it doesn't mean i will, its meant as "in some cases i might write it" and even if you don't condone incest, rape and pedophilia irl, its stil very much wrong and disgusting and people who write it should really feel guilty about it, if you have thoughts about that stuff you need to seek help, not normalize and spread it around the interent. Also cheating and incest/rape content aren't comperable btw, one is a crime and the other one is breaking someones trust.

Now the book part, i have the book but i haven't read it, and bringing the real life dazai, into this is stupid, he lived over 70 years ago, people thought differently about rape back then so its hard to know. also the book is a fucking autobiography so ofc its gonna talk about stuff that happened in his life

Anyways please tell me if anything in here is wrong or if you wanna add anything to this

Btw saying "sorry if i come of as rude" after compering me to weirdos is something! 🥰

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A Nazi rally held in Madison Square Garden, February 20th 1939

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 21, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 22, 2024

On Saturday, September 7, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump predicted that his plan to deport 15 to 20 million people currently living in the United States would be “bloody.” He also promised to prosecute his political opponents, including, he wrote, lawyers, political operatives, donors, illegal voters, and election officials. Retired chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “a fascist to the core…the most dangerous person to this country.” 

On October 14, Trump told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that he thought enemies within the United States were more dangerous than foreign adversaries and that he thought the military should stop those “radical left lunatics” on Election Day. Since then, he has been talking a lot about “the enemy from within,” specifically naming Representative Adam Schiff and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats from California, as “bad people.” Schiff was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee that broke the 2019 story of Trump’s attempt to extort Volodymyr Zelensky that led to Trump’s first impeachment. 

Trump’s references to the “enemy from within” have become so frequent that former White House press secretary turned political analyst Jen Psaki has called them his closing argument for the 2024 election, and she warned that his construction of those who oppose him as “enemies” might sweep in virtually anyone he feels is a threat.

In a searing article today, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer of The Cycle explored exactly what that means in a piece titled “What (Really) Happens If Trump Wins?” Bitecofer outlined Adolf Hitler’s January 30, 1933, oath of office, in which he promised Germans he would uphold the constitution, and the three months he took to dismantle that constitution.

By March, she notes,  the concentration camp Dachau was open. Its first prisoners were not Jews, but rather Hitler’s prominent political opponents. By April, Jews had been purged from the civil service, and opposition political parties were illegal. By May, labor unions were banned and students were burning banned books. Within the year, public criticism of Hitler and the Nazis was illegal, and denouncing violators paid well for those who did it.

Bitecofer writes that Trump has promised mass deportations “that he cannot deliver unless he violates both the Constitution and federal law.” To enable that policy, Trump will need to dismantle the merit-based civil service and put into office those loyal to him rather than the Constitution. And then he will purge his political opponents, for once those who would stand against him are purged, Trump can act as he wishes against immigrants, for example, and others.

Ninety years ago, as American reporter Dorothy Thompson ate breakfast at her hotel in Berlin on August 25, 1934, a young man from Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, “politely handed me a letter and requested a signed receipt.” She thought nothing of it, she said, “But what a surprise was in store for me!” The letter informed her that, “in light of your numerous anti-German publications,” she was being expelled from Germany.

She was the first American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany, and that expulsion was no small thing. Thompson had moved to London in 1920 to become a foreign correspondent and began to spend time in Berlin. In 1924 she moved to the city to head the Central European Bureau for the New York Evening Post and the Philadelphia Public Ledger. From there, she reported on the rise of Adolf Hitler. She left her Berlin post in 1928 to marry novelist Sinclair Lewis, and the two settled in Vermont.

When the couple traveled to Sweden in 1930 for Lewis to accept the Nobel Prize in Literature, Thompson visited Germany, where she saw the growing strength of the fascists and the apparent inability of the Nazi’s opponents to come together to stand against them. She continued to visit the country in the following years, reporting on the rise of fascism there, and elsewhere. 

In 1931, Thompson interviewed Hitler and declared that, rather than “the future dictator of Germany” she had expected to meet, he was a man of “startling insignificance.” She asked him if he would “abolish the constitution of the German Republic.” He answered: “I will get into power legally” and, once in power, abolish the parliament and the constitution and “found an authority-state, from the lowest cell to the highest instance; everywhere there will be responsibility and authority above, discipline and obedience below.” She did not believe he could succeed: “Imagine a would-be dictator setting out to persuade a sovereign people to vote away their rights,” she wrote in apparent astonishment.

Thompson was back in Berlin in summer 1934 as a representative of the Saturday Evening Post when she received the news that she had 24 hours to leave the country. The other foreign correspondents in Berlin saw her off at the railway station with “great sheaves of American Beauty roses.” 

Safely in Paris, Thompson mused that in her first years in Germany she had gotten to know many of the officials of the German republic, and that when she had left to marry Lewis, they offered “many expressions of friendship and gratitude.” But times had changed. “I thought of them sadly as my train pulled out,” she said, “carrying me away from Berlin. Some of those officials still are in the service of the German Government, some of them are émigrés and some of them are dead.” 

Thompson came home to a nation where many of the same dark impulses were simmering, her fame after her expulsion from Germany following her. She lectured against fascism across the country in 1935, then began a radio program that reached tens of millions of listeners. Hired in 1936 to write a regular column three days a week for the New York Herald Tribune, she became a leading voice in print, too, warning that what was happening in Germany could also happen in America. 

In an echo of Lewis’s bestselling 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, she wrote in a 1937 column: “No people ever recognize their dictator in advance…. He always represents himself as the instrument for expressing the Incorporated National Will. When Americans think of dictators they always think of some foreign model. If anyone turned up here in a fur hat, boots and a grim look he would be recognized and shunned…. But when our dictator turns up, you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.” 

In less than two years, the circulation of her column had grown to reach between seven and eight million people. In 1939 a reporter wrote: “She is read, believed and quoted by millions of women who used to get their political opinions from their husbands, who got them from [political commentator] Walter Lippmann.” The reporter likened Thompson to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, saying they were the two “most influential women in the U.S.”

When 22,000 American Nazis held a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden in honor of President George Washington’s birthday on February 20, 1939, Thompson sat in the front row of the press box, where she laughed loudly during the speeches and yelled “Bunk!” at the stage, illustrating that she would not be muzzled by Nazis. After being escorted out, she returned to her seat, where stormtroopers surrounded her. She later told a reporter: “I was amazed to see a duplicate of what I saw seven years ago in Germany. Tonight I listened to words taken out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler.” 

Two years later, In 1941, Thompson returned to the issue she had raised when she mused about those government officials who had gone from thanking her to expelling her. In a piece for Harper’s Magazine titled “Who Goes Nazi?” she wrote: “It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi,” she wrote. “By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.”

Examining a number of types of Americans, she wrote that the line between democracy and fascism was not wealth, or education, or race, or age, or nationality. “Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi,” she wrote. They were secure enough to be good natured and open to new ideas, and they believed so completely in the promise of American democracy that they would defend it with their lives, even if they seemed too easygoing to join a struggle. “But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis,” she wrote. “Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi.”

In Paris following her expulsion from Berlin, Thompson told a reporter for the Associated Press that the reason she had been attacked was the same reason that Hitler’s power was growing. “Chancellor Hitler is no longer a man, he is a religion,” she said.

Suggesting her expulsion was because of her old article disparaging Hitler, in her own article about her expulsion she noted: “My offense was to think that Hitler is just an ordinary man, after all. That is a crime against the reigning cult in Germany, which says Mr. Hitler is a Messiah sent by God to save the German people…. To question this mystic mission is so heinous that, if you are a German, you can be sent to jail. I, fortunately, am an American, so I merely was sent to Paris. Worse things can happen….” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[holylulusworld]

Between a rock and a hard place (1)

Summary: You are in big trouble and in need of money. Two wolves are more than willing to help you. For a price…

Pairing: Mobster!Walter Marshall x fem!Reader x Mobster!August Walker

Warnings: angst, language, power imbalance, debts, scared reader, extortion, mentions of character's death, mentions of a cheating husband, degrading, groping, implied mentions of prostitution

Between a rock and a hard place masterlist

They look like kings sitting on their plush chairs as you tremble in front of them.

In reality, they are wolves, with sharp teeth and claws ready to rip you apart.

One of them with thick and luscious curls and a thick beard, and the other one shares the same features with neatly styled hair and a mustache.

Walter Marshall and August Walker.

Both are equally pretty and deadly at the same time. Gods amongst mere humans. 

Their blue eyes sparkle as you try to find your voice. 

You’re a pitiful sight to them. A broke woman, with no hope, or money left.

All thanks to your useless and unfaithful husband. 

He recently passed away and left more than a hole in your heart. Six digits of debt are now yours to pay.

“I-“You drop your gaze and swallow thickly. You wring your hands, wincing as you miss your wedding band and engagement ring. “I sold my rings and all the jewelry I own.”

“How much do you have for us, mouse?” One of the wolves gets up to stand in front of you. He roughly wraps his large hand around your throat, thumb brushing over your windpipe. “I could easily break you.” He smirks, as your eyes widen in fear. “Maybe I will.”

“August,” the other wolf slowly gets up to place his hand on his brother’s shoulder. “We talked about impulse control, brother.”

“Ha! Do you want to tell me something about impulse control? Brother, you are the incarnation of impatience and easily loose control.”

You shrink into yourself. Crowded by both of them you feel even smaller and vulnerable. Your legs are about to give in, and you wince anytime their eyes land on you.

“I sold the car and his golf clubs,” you whisper, not daring to speak louder. “The house…I couldn’t sell it. The bank will take it.”

“You will learn that I hate repeating myself,” August flashes you a devilish grin. “So, how much do you have for us?”

“Eight thousand and fifty dollars,” you sniff. “I know it’s not much, but I’ll pay every buck he owes you back.” Your fingers tremble when you get the envelope with the money out of your pocket.

“Aw, look at her,” Walter coos to mock you. “She’s already trembling for me, brother.” He lifts your chin with his index finger. “Look at me, lamb.” He leaves no room for arguments when he intensely stares at you. “Good girl.” Walter praises when you hold his gaze for a few seconds.

“I wonder what else she has to offer.” While Walter cups your chin to tilt your head, August circles you like prey. “Tell me, mouse.” He whispers in your ear. “Is this cunt tight?”

“What?” You splutter, while tears well up to your eyes. You struggle to breathe. These men treat you like a piece of meat, not a person. All they have in mind is getting their money back. And they don’t care how you pay them back.

“We have a club,” August slaps your ass hard enough to bring more tears to your eyes. “Maybe you can work a dick to pay us back our money.”

“Brother, I don’t think this pussy is worth five-hundred thousand bucks,” Walter tuts, but his eyes drop to your chest. “Maybe she can ride my dick and I give her fifty bucks every time she swallows me.”

“Mouse, what do you say?” August places his hand on your shoulder. “I let you ride dick at my club, and you pay me back my money this way. Or do you want to ride his dick for the rest of your pitiful life?”

“No…” You shake your head. “You can kill me, but I won’t work at your club.” You have a little self-respect left. Even if these beautiful monsters hold your life in their hands, you won’t stoop even lower and sell your body to random men. 

“She’s got some fight left, August,” Walter smirks darkly at your predicament. You try to put a brave face on, but he can see the fear in your eyes. “So, lamb. How do you wanna pay us back our money if you don’t work his customers dicks?”

“I don’t know,” you sniff. “I’ll find a way. Even if it’s not my fault you lend money to my deceased husband. I didn’t know about any of this. He never told me about his problems or that he ate some other bitch’s pussy.”

“Walter, I think we got a cocky mouse,” August wraps his hand around your throat from behind to tilt your head. He forces you to look at him, making you wince in pain. “If I tell you to ride dick, you ask which hole my customer wants to fill.”

“August,” Walter tuts. “I think she’s too mousy for your club.”

You hear August sigh deeply behind you. “I like me some shy mouse. They are best at sucking dick.”

“She owes us both, not only you.”

“If she works at the club we will never get it back!” Walter grunts. “If you give her to me, I’ll have a nice kitten to play with.” His features darken and he wraps his hand around his brother’s wrist. “We both know she’ll never be able to pay us back.”

“I’ll pay back every buck,” you croak. “Please…” You start to cry. “It’s not my fault he died and left me nothing but trouble and debts. I would’ve sold the house to give you the money.”

August huffs. He’s not in the mood to waste more time on you. “Have her for tonight. I want her at the club tomorrow!”

Walter glances at your quivering lips. He’s mesmerized by the sight of your fear. In his line of business, people mostly fear him. But he was never enchanted by one of the faceless people he tormented in the past. “No.”

“No?” August cracks his neck and gets ready for another fight with his brother. “Please enlighten me, Walter. How do you intend on getting the money back if you keep her?”

“I was looking for someone to share my lonely nights with,” Walter grins down at you. “She’s not too bad to look at and knows how to shut her mouth. I don’t like the mouthy bitches you wanted to share lately. All they have in mind are clothes, social media, and money.”

“Oh,” August drops his hand from your neck. He pinches your ass, making you jump. “You want to share the mouse?”

“I bet, she will look pretty stuffed with two big cocks,” Walter dips his head to glance at his brother. “Do you remember the cute little thing in Dublin? The one we found at the pub?”

“She squeaked like a mouse when we punched her pussy with our cocks,” August groans deeply. “She was tight but lacked endurance. I bet this one won’t pass out on us when we use her all night long.”

“Right, lamb?” Walter cups your chin again, “You will be a good girl for us. Did you ever cum on two cocks at the same time?”

Your eyes widen, and you feel an icy shiver run down your spine. These men see nothing but a body they can use in you.

You are trapped with them in their territory and scared shitless. Still, your panties dampen at the thought of them using you to their liking.

“She just pressed her legs together.” Walter drops his hand from your chin and steps away. He admires your trembling form for a moment, drinking every micro-expression in. “I bet she’s a little brainless slut.”

Part 2

Tags in reblog.

[phantomonabudget]

We need to talk, Pham. Stop shaming Christine Daaé.

I have seen this behavior consistently for the 30+ years I have been a Phan. What's worse is that I see A LOT of it from grown women. I see posts calling her foolish for leaving Erik. Slut shaming her or calling her a gold digger. Calling her stupid, weak, or unworthy because a "real woman" (presumably the women posting these absurd notions 🙄) would have loved him better and been worthy of his awesome talent and capacity for love. 😳🤮

It's disturbing, disheartening, and disgusting. And it needs to stop.

First off, none of these characters are real, so perhaps let's take things a little less seriously in general. It's a fictional story. I get it: we all love it, and probably love the Phantom's character. That's fine....I've made a 20+ year career dressing as the dude, for crying out loud. 🤣 Maybe we all identify with Erik/The Phantom to some degree. Regardless of the version of the story, if the actors or authors do their job well, we *should* feel pity and compassion for him. But feeling compassion and completely ignoring the character's dangerous and abusive behavior are two very different things. It has the potential for some severe consequences in the real world.

By shaming Christine for leaving Erik at the end, you are potentially telling young people that staying in abusive relationships is the right thing. You make them think that if their significant other is talented, misunderstood, been abused themselves etc, then they should stay and love them into a healthy relationship. That if they just love their abusive SO harder, sacrifice themselves a little more or for a little longer, or keep putting that person's needs above their own, that the relationship will suddenly become this wonderful, euphoric experience. It won't. As a survivor of longtime abusive myself, I can tell you from experience: it doesn't happen that way.

Celebrate healthy relationships and enforcing healthy boundaries. Stop shaming Christine for fighting for and winning her life and saving the man she loves.

And please stop calling this a romance. It's the antithesis of romance.

I am sick of members of this Phandom completely ignoring Erik/The Phantom's behavior to justify their blind adoration. Erik is an abusive and dangerous character, and extremely toxic. He lies to and manipulates Christine using her trauma from her deceased father. He kidnaps her, multiple times. Threatens her and her colleagues. He extorts hundreds of thousands from the business managers. He endangers dozens of people with the chandelier crash, and effectively holds hundreds hostage for months or years at a time with his reign of terror at the Opera.

Then there are the murders. Several of them. Probably been at that for awhile so we can assume it's far more than the two we see in the show. We don't know his actual body count, but we do know he's adept and comfortable taking human life.

And yet, I see some mature phans out here completely ignoring all those things and still shaming Christine for leaving him. Why? Because he's "sexy" (author's note: PLEASE go re-read Leroux. Please). And he's talented. And has so much love to give. And is misunderstood. And society was terrible to him...so it's all fine. 😳🤮 She should have just stayed and loved him like he deserves to be loved. 🙄

Recently I saw a post shaming Christine and the justification was that Raoul was so much worse. He isn't. Is he a perfect character? No, not at all. Does he make mistakes and try to use Christine? In some versions, yes. Does he run around extorting, manipulating, threatening, and killing others? Also no.

Pleasw don't ever use LND!Raoul's character assassination as some kind of justification, because he's still the most sane, normal human being in that show, and Erik is still 1,000 times worse than Raoul in LND. Also, using LND as justification for anything makes for a very weak and uninformed argument.

"Hurt people hurt people." Ever heard that phrase? Abused people sometimes abuse others, especially if they haven't done the work to heal themselves. Their previous abuse does NOT entitle them to abuse others. That is always a deliberate choice and those choices have consequences. The dangerous, disgusting rhetoric I see in the Phantom community basically excuses toxic behavior because Erik was previously abused and nothing is his fault. That is simply not true. Those that abused me were previously abused. Didn't make my abuse hurt any less. And I made the choice to do the work so that the abuse stopped with me. Previous trauma is a reason for the behavior, but it is NEVER, ever an excuse.

And don't let the fact the dude can sing or that he's a snappy dresser blind you to his toxicity.

We can all enjoy the Phantom character's complexity and love him, while still acknowledging his flaws and holding him accountable for his deeply inappropriate choices.

We talk a lot more these days about trauma, toxicity, and self care. And yet, as a community, we still shame the character of Christine Daaé for doing the healthy, correct thing. The ONLY thing. And in doing so, we set a disturbing precedent for our young or vulnerable Phans who now might think that staying in toxic relationships in the real world is okay.

Please do better, Phandom.

[insidemyrottenbrain]

Henry, meus cupitus - TSH

TW: gore, toxicity

Where do I even begin? I should start by mentioning that this little piece was inspired by multiple books including but not limited to: "The Meek One" by Dostoyevsky, "Lolita" by Nabokov, "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis and "The Iliad" by the one and only Homer.

This is the toned-down version. I felt that the original was much too explicit to post, but nevertheless it will continue to live in my drafts. Keep in mind, that this version may still be incredibly violent for a part of the audience. Read at your own risk.

Henry, meus cupitus, the last season of the year. My sin, my soul. Henry Winter marching down the banks with his umbrella and books.

He was Henry when we spent our weekends at Francis’ country house, rowing on the lake, finding out about the moon landing. Henry Winter was him, spreading around campus like a dark November mist or in Julian’s attentive green eyes. But he was and still is Henry Marchbanks Winter ever since my ears listened to the convoluted story of the scar; ever since he started forgetting the Latin diary in my sight; ever since our ἕνωσις.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what right have you to judge me? No one should speak of love in the third person, for it is intangible, running so differently through our bones, that it mimics our soul’s very rhythm and so drowns each of us with unique scents, extorted from the desire for which we spill blood. And yet, here it is, my poor heart standing trial for its depth. Little lords and gentlewomen of the jury, I urge you to be magnanimous and instead ask yourself: how will I ever stay behind all on my own? 

We met at Hampden. Our fates intertwined unexpectedly, gloriously, under the pressure of Julian’s classes and consequently under his guiding gaze. We were each other’s equal, neither of us possessing the ability to surpass the other. Though our views on matters weren’t, generally speaking, that different we still somehow managed to find little details so insignificant that the vast majority forget. What I believed in he stood against. What he stated I debated. A continuous chase between cat and mouse, except neither of us hid in walls. Oh, please, listen, how beautifully we were at each other’s throat with winged words whispered by Pallas Athene herself! With every class, my desire to stomp on his toes, to cut out his tongue and compare it to mine, to reduce him to absolute submission grew. As I’m sure did his. My only wish, which Zeus who drives the storm clouds later granted me, was to have him under my despotism. It was sickly divine and it consumed my insides raw. 

Fate is funny in its own sadistic way. And so, despite everything, despite every warning that I’m sure his precious guts gave him, he fell in stride with me. Dangerous, obsessive me. Slowly, with every argument we lost ourselves in the other’s carefully crafted web, our souls moving to do their twisted dance. We couldn’t stop and certainly, we did not want to stop mixing that which made us two. The knot of selves was but a mere preamble to the waltz of unification we performed under the influence of all the gods above. 

Now, most esteemed jury, that you understand the extent of our strange relationship, I can begin to narrate the following events: his demise (and the attempt of mine). I’ll tell it as I myself see fit and understand. That’s the horror of it for me, that I understand everything.

On October 11th of a certain year which I fail to recall, we were sitting against each other on the couch in his apartment, talking, quietly laughing, wasting our minds with wine as one does during the exam period. Take note, that Henry is reserved while his usual self, however, alcohol slightly enables the more emotive side of him. Through our conversation, he grew serious. I didn’t have to ask I knew he was going to tell me.

“You ruin me. You must know since you keep doing it.” Henry mumbled under his breath.  “You lurk through the darkest depths of my mind,” I looked at him, his expression a mirror of mine “I wander dazed, like Hades’ dead undead, unable to form a single coherent thought.” He scoffed. “You are my worst nightmare.” 

I remember closing my eyes for a moment. Knowing he was suffering because of me filled me with bliss. I could see that he was terribly irritated with his emotions, but I wasn’t going to soften anything. Oh no, on the contrary, seeing him in such a state made me deliberately want to intensify it. And then I opened my eyes only to find him, him, holding a knife to my throat.

“This has to stop.” He said solemnly, yet my gaze fell on his shaky hand. “I don’t want to plague my rationality further with you.”

I knew that all he had was his mind. And so, when I felt the sharp metal press against my neck; when I saw his determined, icy gaze I knew I had to twirl around him again. To prove to him that we are far from equals, that I am the sublime.

“You don’t have to love me.” I started out almost desperately, though it was only a trick, I assure you.  “Don’t answer me anything, don’t take any notice of me at all, and only let me look at you from the corner, turn me into your thing, into your little dog..” I whispered.

With his thumb, he wiped away the wetness falling from my eyes (not tears). He was distracted and so I gripped his arm turning it away from my throat and towards his chest. He reacted and used his force to push it in my face. I stopped it with my free hand just before the tempting edge deflated my round eye and all the liquid from it spilled on my face. However, doing so, Henry did severe my ring finger. It ripped from the last jagged skin and juicy flesh that held it tied to my stained hand, fell on the sofa and rolled down onto Henry’s oriental rug with a barely audible thump, all while leaving dark red stains behind. I got up and used my body to push him to the ground. I step on my lost finger. It lets out a crack. He drops the knife due to the force and I get my greedy hands on it. He hurried to get up but I straddled his hips and kissed him, pushing my wet tongue into his warm mouth. I lost myself in it and I only snapped out of my daze when I felt his thick blood staining my skin. Drip, drop, little ladybugs everywhere. 

I opened my eyes only to find his, or rather my, icy eyes still staring at me. What was left of my finger I dipped in blood and licked it. The glorious taste of his fluids mixed with mine exploded on my tongue and a voice whispered. And I believed it blindly, madly, terribly.

You all whom you believe yourself above me, pitiless hermaphrodites, inquire endlessly about the location of his body. It is not good manners to insist. Settle down, brutes, I’ll give you a clue just so you’ll leave me alone to mourn.

I listened to the voice that sang so sweetly in my ear. That is where his body is, in eternity with me.

Pass judgment on me, for that is why you’re here. However, you all are witnesses to my ‘crimes’, so judge yourself too, with the guidance of the Gods, for every accusation that leaves your wretched lips is a cast of your own dark depths. Answer if you are without sin: is it wrong to prove yourself to the one you love?

[mcsm-confessions]

honestly the argument between who should(n’t) be redeemed more with Cassie & Romeo is so interesting to me, because honestly I don't even know.

you don't have a choice to save Cassie in that endermite pit so I assume that means Jesse doesn't want to (not can’t, because they still had an ender pearl left) because she deserves her supposed fate.

you DO have the choice to save Romeo, so clearly Jesse sees that he has potential to be redeemed but also shouldn't get off easy. this, however, seems inconsistent with Jesse's character, as it assumes that he deserves redemption more than her.

Cassie:

murdered three people, all of whom she pretended to be friends with, and had no real connection with them.

...more attempted murder

Romeo:

murdered one person, his best friend (or both depending on choices but we all know we don't accept that as canon).

falsely imprisoned his best friend (and multiple others for unknown reasons)

trapped an entire civilization below bedrock

indirectly killed two named people and multiple others from his challenge thing in the Underneath.

destruction of Jesse's town

borderline brainwashing and extortion

identity theft (twice)

took over Jesse's town

uhhhhhh

yeah so like, Cassie has the motive of wanting to escape the world she's been trapped in, and couldn't trust anyone to help her. while she's a victim of sorts, she didn't hide her sadism when killing people and taunting Jesse. dare I say she could get a pass because of her extreme paranoia, but I don't blame Jesse for leaving her at all. she doesn't seem to express much guilt for her actions. there would be a LOT for her to make up for if she had been saved (and it still probably wouldn't be enough).

Romeo's motive is... being lonely and wanting a friend? okay sure. doesn’t excuse his collapsible list of crimes. it may also be a "power corrupts" sort of thing, but it's really hard to justify this man after the stuff he's done for centuries. only after he is de-powered he instantly feels guilt. that is either a product of "oh no I got caught!" or bad writing.

So basically my stance on this is, if Cassie can't be redeemed then neither should Romeo. if Cassie can be redeemed, then so should Romeo. it doesn't make sense to be on opposite sides.

(however I am intrigued by the idea of Cassie reluctantly "joining" the team for future eps and meeting the Old Builders again)

also, I just realized they're both kinda sadistic redheads. wow what did Telltale mean by this

im not even gonna include Aiden in this cuz he's just a jealous dumbass who got too ambitious. also doesn't even have a kill count. loser

~~~