#feel free to drop me an ask!

[crabsnpersimmons]

I

I might explode if I get 100 followers before new years

[catsharky]

May I ask for some details about your Tav? What do you mean by hasnt really lived as a tiefling before? Like literally has never seen another tiefling? Seems like being abducted by the mindflayers introduced major life changes to your Tav

I'm sorry this took so long to answer, but I ended up doing a whole bunch of art to answer this!

Ember has a really extensive backstory that's kind of long, but the short version of it is: she was caught in the crossfire of a deal her parents made with a devil. They couldn't have a child of their own because her mother was too severely ill, so they made the deal in the hopes of returning her health and along with it the ability to bear children. Unfortunately devil deals being what they are, they ended up with Ember who the devil stole from her birth parents.

Her mom was a high elf and her dad a half-elf, and her mom's side of the family were quite vocally anti-Tiefling. Because of her mother's health problems, however, they couldn't just sever contact with her parents because they relied on their money to cover the cost of healers, expensive potion ingredients and the like. They couldn't be trusted not to be a threat to Ember though, so the decision was made to disguise her as their biological daughter throughout her childhood.

Here's an age chart!

As a result, Ember didn't even know she was a Tiefling until she was around 4 or 5, when she began to present as a sorcerer and accidentally undid the disguise spell (she ends up a bard thanks to her mom, but her control of magic comes from sorcery).

Before the events of the game, the most time she ever spent as a Tiefling was when she was 13- when her mom died and her dad disappeared, the disguise spell having relied on her mum's magic. She went through hell for a while after that and as soon as she could learn how to cast the spell herself, she jumped at the chance and went back to living as her old half-elf self. So when she gets taken by the Nautiloid, it's her being forced to actually live as her real self and as a Tiefling for the first time. As a result she doesn't have great control over her tail, because she's just straight up not used to having one.

She also spends a lot of Act 1 jumpscaring herself whenever she walks by a mirror lmao.

I do plan to do some comics that are set earlier in the game at some point, and those ones will explore more of her backstory. What I've done so far has just happened to be set in Act 3, after she's already sorted a lot of her shit out. I just have no idea when that'll actually be!

[starfiresky]

✨Happy Valentine’s Day from Naminé’s sketchbook journal 💕

[ao-xingyume1987]

(Huling) sayaw sa ilalim ng kalawakan

[the-way-astray]

The Keefe Sencen Infantilization Argument (because I've seen people say that saying he infantilizes Sophie is a bad-faith argument):

(Note: This post is a repost. I had my thoughts scattered out over a few posts, so I wanted to put them all together in one cohesive post. If you've already seen all the original posts, then aside from like two sentences being reworked and the format being better now, there's like nothing new here for you. Sorry.)

Examples of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and my explanations as to why this is infantilization and not okay:

Lodestar, chapter 4. What I originally said: “There you go, rocking the whole adorable-when-you’re-angry thing. I think that’s what I’ve missed about you the most.” Keefe infantilizes Sophie by saying she’s cute when she’s angry. She is trying to express her feelings, and all Keefe can do is be all Awwwwww. Isn’t that so cute? She’s angry! How adorable. It’s a form of invalidating someone’s feelings, by treating them like they’re just entertainment or by brushing them off like that. It’s some of the most manipulative behavior out there. It also saves Keefe from having to actually take Sophie’s feelings into account. His infantilization of her also shows up in his incessant need to protect her. It’s icky and gross, and authors should stop encouraging this behavior.

Sophie and Keefe are having a mental conversation and Keefe starts talking about Sophie's love triangle/square situation and Sophie doesn't want to talk about it. Not a fan of this, because Keefe butts into Sophie's personal business, then when she gets worked up, he heavily implies that he thinks it's cute. But this one isn't particularly bad compared to the others. Don't get me wrong, I still think this is infantilization, but the best I can say about it is it's not the worst example.

Lodestar, chapter 46. What I originally said: “You’re so cute when you worry, he told her.” More classic Keefe infantilization. He once again invalidates Sophie’s feelings by dumbing them down and acting like they’re this cute, quirky, inconsequential thing.

Sophie is obviously incredibly worried. Keefe clearly knows this. And his comment is to be like Yeah, but don't you know that makes you sooooo cute??? Like, sir.

Lodestar, chapter 65. What I originally said: “Is this going to be another one of those nights where you spend the whole time yelling at me to come home? Keefe asked, making her sit up straighter as his thoughts filled her head. Because as much as I love it when you get all feisty on me, now’s really not a good time.” God, Keefe is so subtly invalidating. He treats Sophie like she’s just his personal worry machine, not a person with valid concerns and ideas. The flippant way he talks about her worry for him makes me so mad. He takes her worry for granted and throws it back in her face, without a care for how it would affect her mental health. He brushes her off and invalidates her because he thinks he’s so much smarter than everyone else. Not to mention he calls her worry “feisty” and further infantilizes her feelings and ideas.

This one honestly stands alone. Context doesn't really do anything to it. The infantilization for all these quotes is in the quote itself, because it is invalidating to treat someone's outburst of negative emotions as entertainment. Keefe basically just says that he finds it cute when she insists he comes home because she's worried about him??? He's like, yeah, Sophie's worried about me, tearing up her mental health over me, but like. She gets feisty when that all becomes externalized and she begs me to come home! Again, it's just a way he's able to brush Sophie's feelings off and disregard her opinion entirely.

When I say Keefe acts like Sophie is his personal worry machine, I'm saying he acts like her worry only exists for his amusement. He doesn't see the deeper feelings behind that worry (or if he does, he certainly doesn't respect them), and only see it for what he sees it as: something cute and adorable.

Nightfall, chapter 24. What I originally said: “‘I know! Our little girl is growing up and getting so snarky!’ Keefe pretended to wipe his teary eyes. ‘I’ve never been so proud.’” “Our little girl” . . . that totally isn’t creepy or infantilizing at all. The way Keefe talks about Sophie here is genuinely so gross, even if it is a joke. 

This is a joke. 100%. But it's a joke that sat very poorly with me because of the way Keefe verbalizes this. The problem for me is in the quote itself, again, because I feel like saying these sorts of things constantly is just so weird.

Nightfall, chapter 32. Wouldn't say what I originally said adds anything new, so I'm just gonna move past that. The larger problem here is 100% the fact that Keefe is clearly trying to joke to deflect Sophie's anger away. My argument isn't about that. My argument is that saying that someone's anger is adorable is textbook infantilization. In context, Keefe uses it as a way to deflect or joke. But the simple act of saying that is a form of invalidation where Sophie's emotions are made out to be some silly, inconsequential thing.

Anyway, about this quote in particular. Sophie is obviously freaking out, and she is clearly and seriously trying to tell him that his joking behavior is unacceptable. Keefe responds, not by listening at all to what Sophie said or what she's feeling, but by instead saying this. This invalidates Sophie's very real feelings as well as saves Keefe from having to confront what Sophie's telling him. And yes, this is a product of his deflection, but my point here is that saying someone's anger or worry is adorable or cute when they are trying to be serious is textbook infantilization, because it treats that opinion they have as a silly, child-like tantrum. "Awwww, isn't that anger adorable???" is what you say about a tantrum-throwing toddler who just got their favorite toy taken away, not someone your age presenting a valid, serious opinion. My issue is with the statement "Your anger/worry is adorable/cute" itself, not how Keefe uses it to deflect. It also presents Keefe, subtle as it may be, as the only one with valid opinions on things because Sophie's adorable little feelings get in the way of her rationality.

And before you say Sophie calls him out on this, yes, but he doesn't change. I'm not going to talk about it at length here, but Keefe apologizes to Sophie in the Nightfall scene after his bed rest more out of a desire to make up with her than a desire to change his bad habits. You can see this because he continues to do it into Unlocked.

Nightfall, chapter 34. Again, I don't think what I originally said adds anything relevant, so I'll skip that here.

The famous scene. I do admit that Sophie calls Keefe out this time. However, as I've already said, this doesn't stick, so it hardly matter. Keefe continues with this behavior through the series and into Unlocked, where he doesn't necessarily say these things out loud, but you can see he still thinks them.

Nightfall, chapter 70. What I originally said: “‘Much as I’m enjoying this sudden overflow of adorable Foster-rage—it’s not worth it.’” Ah, more of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and invalidating her feelings. If someone finds your anger or worry ��adorable” and acts like it’s this cute little quirk, then that’s never a good thing. Especially if they enjoy it. Someone who cares about you should never enjoy seeing you angry or worried.

Sophie's having a serious, key word here is serious, discussion (we'll call it a discussion, even though that's not particularly correct) with Cassius, and even though her rage isn't aimed at him this time, Keefe telling Sophie her rage is adorable when she's being serious is still dumbing down her emotions to that of a toddler throwing a tantrum, not a grown-up (at least relative to Keefe) having a very valid reason to be angry. Just because he agrees with her anger, doesn't mean he can't still infantilize her.

Flashback, chapter 1, page 12. I think what I said in my original post just about sums it up: “‘You’re so adorable when you worry. I’ve told you that, right?’” (12) Yes, you have, and saying it more doesn’t make it any less icky and gross and infantilizing. It’s like he’s dumbing Sophie down to this object who only exists to entertain him with her adowabuw wittle feewings, instead of a person with very real, very complex emotions.

Keefe fans the air, so we have physical evidence he knows exactly how worried Sophie is. And his response is to be like, so cute! So adorable! Once again, this is serious, and Keefe is acting like Sophie's worry exists only to amuse or entertain him. I don't know else to communicate that that isn't a good thing. Someone being worried usually means they have something they're worrying about, worry doesn't just manifest out of thin air for entertainment's sake. Sophie also responds poorly to his writing her off, with what and the glare and all.

(Side note: When I was looking for that quote, I found a quote where Fitz says the exact same thing, I'm talking word-for-word "adorable when you worry" stuff. Like I mentioned in my disclaimers, I'm not saying he's more right for this and I'm not letting him off the hook. It's icky when Keefe does it and it's icky when Fitz does it. But I'm solely focused on Keefe, which is why I'm not bringing that up. It's also worth it to note that Fitz doesn't say this over and over again, the way Keefe does.)

Flashback, chapter 17, page 304. I think I'm just going to copy-paste exactly what I said in my original post because it's exactly what I'm trying to say: “‘Hear that, Ro?’ he interrupted. ‘She’s giving me her serious voice.’” (304) Another example of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and dumbing her feelings down for the sake of a joke. Awwww, isn’t her serious voice so cute? She only does that when she thinks she has something important to say to us grown-ups! Awwwwwww. 

Apparently, people don't get why this is a bad thing, so: acting like someone isn't being serious when you can literally feel their emotions and know they're being serious just because you don't like what they're saying is not just invalidation, but infantilization, because you are dumbing their emotions and the complexities behind them down to that of a child attempting to be serious.

I'd also argue that this shows Keefe's true colors: he only really listens to her opinions and respects them when he agrees with them. Disagreeing with someone is all fine and good, but you can still respect the other person's opinion and not dumb it down and act like it's lesser than your own. If Keefe said "Sophie, I hear you, but I think you're wrong" (in Keefe jokester language, obviously, not word-for-word what I wrote) then I wouldn't call this infantilization, I'd call it respect. My problems arise from when Keefe acts like Sophie's opinions are stupid because Sophie is the one saying them with that adorable little pouty voice.

Flashback, chapter 21, page 355. What I originally said: “It’s always fun when you get feisty.” (355) I’ve said this about a gajillion times, but Keefe’s infantilization of Sophie is so horrific, it’s like he doesn’t care about her at all. He just sees her emotions as amusement for himself.

This is a sad scene, and Keefe has every right to be emotionally . . . off in this scene. But it still doesn't change the fact that he calls Sophie's anger "feistiness" and then says it's fun when she gets angry. You could say that's not exactly what he said, but it's likely that's what he meant given the past few quotes I've shown. Keefe has demonstrated a pattern of thinking Sophie's anger is amusing or adorable or fun. Anger is a negative emotion. When Sophie feels anger she doesn't feel good. And Keefe is like, yeah, but it's cute! Do you see how that's not the greatest thing to say? It says a lot about his internalized beliefs about Sophie, and is essentially confirmed by Unlocked. And even if that didn't represent the way he saw Sophie inside, that's still a really shitty thing to say because it still carries the invalidation.

Legacy, chapter 3, page 70. What I originally said: “‘Tell me why you have that cute little crease between your eyebrows.’” (70) You already know what I’m going to say. Keefe finding Sophie’s worry cute is textbook infantilization. But also, if he finds her worry and anger so adorable, what’s he gonna do when the Neverseen are defeated and Sophie doesn’t have as many things worrying her?

So, the crease between the eyebrows is obviously because of worry. So by saying he finds it cute, Keefe indirectly says he finds Sophie's worry cute, though I'm sure I don't have to spell that out because he's already flat out admitted he finds Sophie's worry cute several times. I'm going to sound like a broken record if I repeat what I've been saying this entire post about why this is infantilization, so instead I wanna talk about that last paragraph there. Keefe literally knows how queasy Sophie's worry can make her sometimes, and he has expressed this before, as well. So he knows exactly what Sophie's going through when she worries. And still, he acts like her worry is amusing, funny, cute, or otherwise a quirky little thing. I don't understand how Keefe can be so invalidating, having had firsthand experience with Sophie's emotions.

��But I was only half listening because she gets this cute little crinkle between her eyebrows when she’s trying to be serious, and it makes me want to reach up and smooth her forehead with my fingertip—and I’m betting she’d think I was super weird if I did that, since it’s not like she’s my . . . ” (Unlocked, very first paragraph of Keefe's diary entry, 481)

Don't have an e-book of Unlocked, unfortunately (boooooooo). So the context is that Keefe is giving us (or himself???) an intro to what he's doing here, which is writing about his drawings. He explains that Sophie gave him the idea and gives a general overview of what she said to convince him. Then he says this quote.

Here's what I said, which I stand by: I hate the way Keefe talks about Sophie. She’s just this soft, kind of ditzy, child-like sort of figure in his head. He admits that he doesn’t care what she has to say, he just cares about how adorable she looks while she says it. This is a textbook sign of a toxic relationship. You should care about what your partner/crush says, because that shows that you see them as a person, not as your personal cover model. Also “trying to be serious” paints Sophie as this impudent little child who’s trying to get the attention of the older, more experienced adults and it very much implies that Sophie is not serious, but awwww, look how cute she looks trying to be serious, isn’t it adorable? Except Keefe and Sophie are the same age. So this is another case of textbook infantilization.

Personally, I think I made it fairly clear why I think this is infantilization. Keefe did not listen to the latter half of what Sophie said because he was too busy imagining how adorable she must've looked as she said it. I don't know how to make it more clear that Keefe does not respect or care about Sophie's opinions. He did what she asked, sure, but he did not actually listen to her. Again, implying Sophie was not being serious when she was is infantilization. It takes away the weight of what Sophie is saying and makes it out to be a thing of like, Oh well, Sophie told me to, so I guess I'll humor her adorable little wishes and give it a shot, but let's get back to what's more important here, which is how cute she probably looks! I don't know how else to explain that that's not an attitude you want in someone who claims to listen to you and respect you.

Addressing some other things (Keefe calling Sophie herself cute [1], Keefe's deflection [2], Keefe praising Sophie's prowess [3], Sophie not seeming bothered [4], and The Real Problem [5]):

I don't think Keefe calling Sophie herself cute or adorable by itself is infantilization. That's just a cute, fluffy teenage crush. 100% cool with that. My problem is with Keefe dumbing Sophie's negative emotions that have complexities behind them down to something cute or inconsequential by calling them adorable. There's a quote in the diary entries where Keefe describes Sophie's blush as adorable and proceeds to describe it in vivid detail. I don't like it for personal taste reasons, but I would never argue that this is infantilization. Because. It's not. There is no dumbing down of emotions here, no shrugging off experience or maturity. There's just a kid with a crush.

As for Keefe's habit of deflecting stuff through jokes, yes, it's a flaw and yes, some of the times Keefe infantilizes Sophie, he's using it as a joke to deflect. Yes, that's the larger issue. But the point still stands that the way in which he thinks of Sophie's worry and anger is infantilization.

There are moments where Keefe talks nonstop (sometimes in a very unnatural way, in my opinion) about how powerful and amazing and brilliant and talented and spectacular Sophie is and how he respects her choices and whatnot. I don't see this as particularly contradictory to his infantilization. Keefe can dumb Sophie's emotions down to cute, inconsequential little playthings while also insisting that he thinks she's amazing and powerful. I do think he does think that she's incredibly talented, but he also invalidates or disrespects her choices because he sees her emotions as adorable and unserious. Sophie is objectively powerful and talented and smart, I'm not really sure how saying those clear facts out loud changes the fact that Keefe still sees Sophie as very juvenile in his head. He can respect her prowess and capacity for talent while still disrespecting her opinions and emotions. The two can coexist. This is why I say Keefe pedestalizes and infantilizes Sophie simultaneously.

As for saying this doesn't bother Sophie (except in that one instance where she glares at him), I'd hardly say it matters. People can be the object of toxic behavior without realizing it. Sophie doesn't really seem to care past a handful of seconds when Keefe reads her emotions without her permission (on purpose, with intention), but I think most of us would agree that that doesn't make it acceptable. And Keefe's infantile views of Sophie say more about him than they do Sophie, which is the argument I'm trying to make. My point is that Keefe sees Sophie's emotions as inconsequential little things that don't need to be taken into account. This is all mapped into how he sees her internally. Again, just because Sophie doesn't seem bothered by Keefe's comments, doesn't mean they're acceptable, especially considering it gives us a view into the way he truly sees Sophie. And if Keefe thinks of Sophie is such an invalidating way, how are we supposed to believe he'll respect her when she argues with him, instead of just writing it off as "that adorable rage"?

And last but not least (as this is literally the reason people are annoyed with Keefe, regardless of what flaw you're talking about): the infantilization isn't the problem. Not really. What the problem is is that it is never called out by the narrative and when it is, it lasts two seconds, doesn't stick, and Keefe continues with it having not learned a thing. He doesn't change, and I can give you a thousand explanations for why Keefe may be so prone to infantilizing Sophie based on his childhood, trauma, and everything else, but none of that is an excuse. And I'm certainly not a fan of the way we're constantly told that Keefe respects Sophie when he's clearly so ready to undermine her emotions or dumb them down. If you're going to have him say things like this, it should be understandable that it's not a good thing.

I think it all comes down to this: Imagine you were trying to get a very serious point across to someone or otherwise feeling very emotional over something and then you look over and the other person's reaction is like, Aw, you're so cute when you're all worked up trying to be serious! Anger so adorable! Worry so cute! I love it when you get feisty! Wouldn't you feel like they don't respect what you're saying? Is that not incredibly icky and weird?

Here is the definition of infantilization. I think it's very difficult to make an argument that Keefe is not doing this to Sophie. And if you think that's bad, oh boy, is it so. Much. Worse. In the actual Unlocked novella. It's very difficult to deny that Keefe only sees Sophie as an adorable little cute thing that amuses him when you read it. But I'll get there . . .

Anyway I'm leaving it off with this because these are the vibes I get from Keefe every time he makes an infantilizing comment about Sophie (minus the yelling, Keefe doesn't really yell):

[stardustdiver]

aroace hate in the ace tag (aro poster), very cool very awesome, love that for you bud, have a wonderful day

this exact behaviour is what drove me away from r/aaaaaaaarrrrro and then r/aaaaaaacccccccce, very nice to see it persist onto tumblr dot com

all this behaviour does is splits up the community, we should be connected and together, not infighting bc aroallos and alloaces and aroaces exist, what does aspec mean, remind me?

edit: we defeated the evil

[eurekq]

VETTED FUNDRAISERS

Here are the requests for aid that I received in my inbox. I checked the vetted status of all of them and to the best of my knowledge all of them are legitimate. Please consider donating if you can!! I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to share the families' messages. Highlighted in red are campaigns that are particularly low on donations.

@samerpal

kr92,549 SEK raised of kr450,000 target

@mohammedalanqer

€46,164 raised of €58,000 target

@salem-baker

€27 raised of €38,000 goal

@ahmedabuomar

€243 raised of €30,000 goal

@ahmedharara

$50,000 goal <- NO DONATIONS AS OF YET

@mahaibrahim12

kr44,867 NOK raised of kr1,067,200 goal

@alhabil

€16,005 raised of €50,000 goal

@ranensblog

€1,386 raised of €80,000 goal

[amelia-yap]

Hi, how is college fairing?

it's been a little frustrating but otherwise mostly alright, thanks for asking! hope you're having a nice dayyy

[palewolfcheesecake-blog]

Tier List of How Likely I Think the 2024 F1 Grid Are to Pole Dance, Or Something

(now that i think about it, charles might belong in the upper column, and daniel might belong in that one too, but whatever, i don't wanna change it now)

[joyfuladorable]

Something Something Cinematic Parallels

[theswedishpajas]

Magma art dump of random gay Stanley things (Featuring me! Go figure!)

Anything that isn’t in some kind of blue or yellow is by one of my friends

[featherymainffins]

Me when the narrator is an external entity with its own motivations and agendas and the script it makes you follow is not the one you are confined to but be well aware that all folly has its limits and all relationships might sour

[pmd-etu]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon Exploration Team Ultra [PMD ETU, a PMD fan-comic!] Pages 38-47!

[thatdeadaquarius]

"all we really know about this one is it's some kind of insult" Alhaithem gestured to the stone in the case "The first words of the beginning line should translate to 'your parent', with the second one saying 'you take that'. We can only assume it to be of insulting nature, unless you say otherwise...?" He looks toward you, curiously.

"...buys you megablocks instead of legos" you mumble unconsciously, holding in laughter because he wasn't wrong.

"What?" He leaned in to hear you better.

"Nothing, you're right but it's not an insult that really makes sense here" You swiftly move along to the next showcase, after reading it things become clear that these are from about the 2010's. "Alhaithem we should probably move on, most of these are obscure references to... plays, and jokes. Like this one" you point at the case "is Fre shavaca do".

"Fre...shaca do?"

"It's um, a joke about someone mis-writing a sign"

10/10 i cant believe this has been sitting here like the gem it is ToT

im so glad im posting all these at the same time tho bc i love confusing/bullying Alhaitham, call me a Kaveh kinnie ig

ANYWAY SORRY FOR NOT SHARING UR GREAT WRITING WITH THE WORLD BEFORE NOW THIS IS HILARIOUS

this kinda reminds me of my most recent post abt, but 10x more frustrated Alhaitham LMAO

You, constantly: "nah u wouldnt get it bro, u had to be there"

Alhaitham: "But I AM here, I would "get it", ahem, honorable sibling Lord??"

btw here's my lowkey bullying Alhaitham post, hehe

☆

Safe Travels Anon,

💀♒

(not tagging beloveds bc i be harassing them this week with short posts rip)

[mad-c1oud]

ALRIGHT we all know why I like starcicle and why they make me ill, but what’s the draw for you guys? What’s the appeal? The interest? Is there any?

Have thoughts and feels? Let me know!

Not a serious question!! Im just curious why others like this duo/ship :)

[corrupted-creatures]

Ugh okay I need to talk about Swatch and Spamton again because they make me insane. Long post under the cut

Been thinking about how Spamton and Swatch talk about each other (specifically in Swatch's in-game dialogue and the Q&A from the Spamton Sweepstakes) and how it reflects their thoughts and feelings on Spamton's downfall and eviction, the NEO body situation, and each other. I am absolutely reading too much into this but I think about them a lot and their dynamic fascinates me.

So during the Spamton Sweepstakes Q&A, Spamton says this in response to a question regarding Swatch:

I'm specifically referring to the second paragraph here. Spamton claims that Swatch only pretended to be his friend (and a close one at that, what with the "shoulder to cry on" statement), and that they only listened to Queen in the end. It is clear just in this statement that Spamton holds some degree of anger towards Swatch.

Personally, while I don't subscribe to the Acid Theory myself, I do think that Swatch may have been at least somewhat involved in Spamton's eviction (beings that they're a high-ranking employee of Queen and all). Perhaps they were the one to deliver the news to Spamton, perhaps they helped gather his things in preparation, I'm not sure. Regardless, they didn't do anything to stop it (that Spamton knew of, at least) and Spamton likely felt betrayed by this. After all, someone he viewed as a close friend (or if your a swatchton enjoyer like me, romantic interest/crush) wasn't there when he needed them most. With how catastrophically his life was falling apart, who could blame him for being upset?

Then there's the issue of the NEO body. We know that it's a very closely guarded secret that nobody is to mess with, and I wouldn't doubt if Swatch or the Swatchlings thwarted at least a few of Spamton's attempts to reach it. To Spamton, though, that is his one ticket to freedom/Heaven, and he needs it. Being denied that ticket in favor of upholding Queen's orders undoubtedly hurt Spamton and led to the anger we see, however justified you may believe it to be. His past experiences with the Addisons certainly don't help. From Spamton's perspective, I can see how he might think that Swatch only pretended to be his friend, though I don't think he fully believes that himself personally.

On the other side of the coin, we have Swatch. In their shop dialogue, they refer to Spamton with far more impersonal terms than Spamton uses to refer to them (see: "valued customer"). While it's easy to conclude that they simply didn't view Spamton as a particularly close friend based on their language, I don't believe that to be the case.

We know that Swatch has a personal connection to the NEO body. They helped turn the Lighter's hopes and dreams into a reality in creating it, after all, which is something they speak of quite fondly. We also know that it is powerful, dangerous, and most importantly, corrupted data. It is locked away in the basement due to the risk it could pose if it fell into the wrong hands. All of this to say that Spamton's repeated attempts to break into the basement to steal the NEO body, even going as far as impersonating Swatch to do so, was almost certainly a massive breach of Swatch's trust. The fact it wasn't a one-time offence would only further worsen their perception of Spamton (which is what I believe contributed to the vitriolic tone Swatch has when you talk to them after defeating Spamton NEO).

I don't think that a major betrayal of trust is the only reason for Swatch's total disconnect when talking about Spamton, though. If we are to believe that Swatch was genuinely close with Spamton (which I do), then it would make sense that they hold a lot of guilt regarding his situation.

For as high up in Queen's mansion as they are, Swatch could not prevent Spamton's eviction, nor could they disobey Queen's orders no matter how much they may wish to (something I would like to get into in another post). They did not- could not- stop any of the terrible things that happened to Spamton. Then they had to kick him out of the mansion over and over again, denying Spamton what he sought because of a desperation Swatch did not understand. And then, when Spamton finally succeeded in acquiring the NEO body and was quickly defeated by Kris after, Swatch had to grapple with that guilt as well. I think they feel like they failed Spamton above all else.

Both Swatch and Spamton feel the other has betrayed them. At the same time, though, they both care so deeply about the other that these betrayals (perceived or otherwise) have wounded them in terrible ways. There is a lot of guilt there, too, mainly on Swatch's end. Spamton's downfall, and especially the NEO body, have torn such a massive rift between the two that repairing it would take a lot of time and patience. I do, however, feel that it's not only possible, but feasible that they could as they certainly still hold the other close to their hearts in their own ways (and I've seen some fics that explore that mending beautifully).

Anyways yeah that's my thoughts about a couple of simple lines of dialogue said by characters I think about way too much. If you want to know more of my thoughts on these two, be it individually, in a ship sense, or otherwise, feel free to drop me an ask! I would love to share more of my thoughts about Swatch and Spam <3 Thanks for reading!!

EDIT: Reworded a couple of things for clarity