brave chrom and tiki to accompany my other cyl6 designs

I think the Knight of Dawn being "a coward who is unable to stand up for what is right and does as he's ordered to" and "someone who cares deeply about his family and did everything he could so that Silver could live a happy and normal life in the future" are two statements that can coexist.

In my opinion, the reason the reunion scene was skipped was because the author couldn’t figure out a way to write it non-romantically and gave up after a while

honestly. i kinda agree with you nonnie.

it just. the set up to the scene is sooooo romantic. you have lloyd being absolutely devastated at the thought he's not going to see any of his loved ones ever again and that he's been dropped back into his terrible life, to the place he admitted he'd rather die than go back to,,, and then someone knocks at the door and when he opens it this is the sight that greets him:

his best friend, the person he's closest to, the one he's spent years with, the one he promised a peaceful life at his side, the one he wanted to grow old with, the one he sacrificed everything for, the one he effectively gave his life to save, the one he thought he'd never see again, standing at his door, having crossed literal dimensional barriers to get to him, a soft and teary smile on his face as he tells him "i missed you"

like. c'mon.

i'm all for platonic interpretations, i'm aroace, i love me a good best friendship as much as the next guy, but,,,, isn't this,,, like,,, really fucking romantic??? extremely so??? am i??? reading too much into it?? because it feels really, really romantic to me.

and like you say. where do you go from there. what response could lloyd give that doesn't involve throwing himself at javier and clinging to him with all of his strength. what conversation could these two have that doesn't involve them seeing how truly devoted they are to each other. what resolution does their arc together have that isn't them spending the rest of their lives together, at each other's side, like they so dearly wanted to.

but. alas. that wasn't the story bk moon wanted to tell. and that's very much his right. i just think that if he didn't want me to assume there's no in-character and narratively satisfying version of that conversation that doesn't end with them kissing he should've at least tried to give us something. and not completely skipped it lol

but that's just my opinion too :]

every time i see someone shit on the xianzhou story quest on twitter i die a little bit inside.

There is exactly one criticism that I agree with my, very anti-Jedi, cousin on and that's the Jedi were TERRIBLE Generals. Generals may TRY to make sure their men mostly come back. But useless sacrifices are not only acceptable, but expected, the men are mostly expandable in war. The Jedi did not consider sacrifices like that acceptable or expected. Sure it did happen. It was WAR. But they tried their best to make sure it DIDN'T. The Jedi were terrible Generals. But they were the teachers and Leaders the CLONES NEEDED.

I'm not sure I'd ENTIRELY agree with that. I think I'd be willing to agree that the Jedi were perhaps less CONVENTIONAL Generals, and they definitely do seem to at least TRY to place the lives of their men above just tossing them away for an easy victory, but you can just as easily claim that keeping the men alive to keep fighting is a good strategy in and of itself.

The biggest piece of evidence I'd point to that the Jedi were actually perfectly good Generals is the Citadel arc and Tarkin's criticisms. The one real criticism he makes of the Jedi as military leaders is that they're occasionally too soft and will abandon a mission if it looks impossible to win without near total casualties (on either side). But he's generally fairly positive about the Jedi and if they were truly awful at their jobs, I don't think TARKIN of all people would hold back on saying so, even to the Jedi's faces.

And we DO see the Jedi willing to make sacrifices and accepting that this is a necessary part of war. The Citadel arc is, again, a perfectly good example of this. Obi-Wan and Anakin go in with like 3-4 men each I think and they come back with a grand total of 3 (Rex, Cody, and Fives). A LOT of clones die on this mission that they all KNEW was basically a suicide mission because the Jedi themselves decided that getting the information about the hyperspace lanes was vital enough to the war that it was worth losing multiple lives over (including their own).

So it's not that the Jedi don't understand that sacrifices are necessary in war or even that they avoid it entirely, they just avoid what they see as UNNECESSARY sacrifice for what might amount to a fairly minor victory. Keeping more of their men alive might, in the long run, be a better strategic choice than losing all of them on one campaign, especially if it's over like one uninhabited moon or something like that. There's nothing to say that the losses the Jedi deem acceptable are things that would've changed the entire tide of the war had they chosen to push forward instead.

The other good evidence that the Jedi acting this way would've been the WORSE choice is the Umbara arc. We are told and then see that Krell IS the kind of General who is willing to lose a lot of clones in order to gain victories in battle, and the clones do recognize that he has a lot of victories under his belt. But never once do they discuss whether those victories really MEANT anything or had a large impact on the war effort. It certainly never seems that the Republic is majorly pushing back the Separatists because of Krell's victories, nobody ever mentions that Krell gained them a major advantage with those victories or took out anyone of any consequence on the Separatist side with his strategies. And by the time he gets to Umbara, he's explicitly using this strategy to WEAKEN the Republic side and cause a loss. Several of his strategies WOULD'VE meant the Republic lost on Umbara and it's only the clones utilizing different strategies that put fewer of them at risk that they actually end up continuing to HAVE victories at all.

I'll also point out that the Jedi continuously getting their men killed en masse would've bankrupted the Republic a LOT earlier because they'd have to be paying for more clones a LOT more often than they did in canon and I can't imagine anyone would've considered that a particularly sound strategy and at some point I'm sure the Senate would've felt obligated to put a stop to it anyway and insisted on strategies that kept more clones alive for longer. So I'm not sure it's fair to claim the Jedi were utilizing BAD strategy by not just exclusively using tactics that meant most of their men were killed for every single victory.

So the ONLY criticism we EVER see of the Jedi's ability as military leaders is Tarkin claiming they're "too soft" and Tarkin is the kind of person who would likely say that until the Jedi started carpet bombing entire Separatist planets. Would it give them a victory? Yeah, sure, maybe, but that's the exact same strategy the Separatists are using and look how well that works out for THEM. Everything else we ever see seems to showcase that the Jedi are in fact perfectly good Generals, not just in that they're kind to the clones and are unwilling to carpet bomb Separatist planets, but also because they're just... good at this. They CAN be strategic, they CAN run wars if they want to. And I think that's the whole point of the Jedi in some ways is that yes, they CAN make war when they need to, they just actively choose NOT TO every time they can. THIS is why Qui-Gon tells Padme that he and Obi-Wan are there to protect her but that they can't win this war for her and they end up going off to fight off a Sith while Padme has to actually win the war with her own people and the Gungans instead. The Jedi don't WANT to be in the position of doing nothing but fighting, but they're absolutely capable of this kind of work.

That's the tragedy of the war in some ways, the Jedi ARE good at this no matter how much they wish they weren't sometimes. But being good at it means they can actually protect the Republic, their own men, and even the Separatist civilians better, so they're not going to just sit there and do things that will screw over a bunch of people. Yes, they're going to fight the war in such a way that they reduce casualties as much as possible, but reducing casualties also requires doing enough to not LOSE the damn war, too. It's a delicate balance they're trying to hold on to and I'd argue they manage it better than anybody else would've ever done in their position.

Do you ever think about how Arya being left-handed most likely had an impact on her needlework and other tasks? And how she needed special attention not only because she wasn't as naturally gifted as her sister but because the way she was being taught fundamentally didn't work for her? And how instead of being given the attention she needed she was instead held to an unfair standard by her teacher and used as a measure for bad behavior? And how this all impacted her self-esteem and her views on being a Lady?

reminder as easter approaches to not give rabbits or ducks as gifts

both are animals that require special care (no, not all animals are just different shapes of cats or dogs) and can live up to 10 years if well cared for

they're not toys, they're living creatures that require love, care, special diets, time, and modifications to your home to keep them safe

they are also not creatures that can just be released into the countryside and be expected to survive. They're domestic animals and will not survive. Please don't impulse buy any animal as a gift, but at least have the basic humanity to rehome them or surrender them to a shelter/rescue and not leave them on the side of the road or in a box in a dumpster

Kind of like Christmas time, there's an influx of impulse/gift adoptions around Easter time that are then immediately surrendered or abandoned within a month. Consider finding a local rescue in your area and donating money, supplies, or your time via volunteering to help! Many also run foster programs, or need help with driving the animals in their care to vet appointments and so on.

k PSA over thanks ✌🐇🦆

What do you think would have happened if (somehow, idk how but somehow) Machete rose to the rank of pope?

To be perfectly honest? I think most realistically he would've ruled maybe six months at best and then keeled over from stress and exhaustion.

set out to create a serious, canonesque drawing with which to say "feel free to go in my lackadaisy tag and help me mystery speculate" but only got going when i made it bowling and the rarepair agenda

that post that's like "learning social skills helps with social anxiety" applies to dating also btw

THE BROTHERS PAOLO AND VITELLOZZO VITELLI

man. the fucking. cycles of violence going on here. war, condottieri brothers, the execution of paolo vitelli (but the on the matter of guilt: questionable! no proof besides the absence of potential violence, but what conspiracy-betrayal wants to leave behind proof? torture and execute him anyway. maybe machiavelli has a point! unfortunately you left a surviving brother), the congiura della magione, all of it coming together at the strage di senigallia. just blood and gore and war all the way down, never stopping for a breather, already on to it's next battlefield. also malaria is there!

in other news! it turns out if you want to draw a comic about the strage di senigallia, you have to figure out designs for all the people in the room, but if you draw vitellozzo, you also have to draw his brother because he's like. there. in a dead way. something something vitellozzo's desire to avenge his brother manifesting in his desire to brutalize florence for their role in his brother's death.

that said, I did not want to draw military armor for an illustration that was partially designed to test out some splatter brushes. in the future though….I will have to revisit that visual…..

there is something very sad about Peg just wanting to tell BJ about her day to day life, the mundane things in the house that need to be fixed and the funny things that happen to her, all things he would've enjoyed hearing about or would've handled with her if he'd been there, and having absolutely no idea what effect these letters actually have on him

am i the only one who sensed some jilted lover vibes from jensen? 

Already reblogged a post with this, but I wanted to make a separate post with my thoughts on the Williams situation right now.

I need James Vowles to explain his thought process because this decision seems more like it's sending them straight into a lose-lose situation.

If Alex performs poorly, he's effectively taken a race unnecessarily away from his teammate who realistically needs as many races possible for a chance to prove he belongs in this sport.

It also just doesn't look well from a PR standpoint to crash your car, take your teammate's, and then not do well.

Obviously, I'm not saying Alex is the one responsible for this decision, because the reality is that he probably had no say and this came from above both him and Logan, but he's going to be the one to get the backlash for it because that's just how this sport works.

All the pressure is now being put on him to perform well enough to justify this very, in my opinion, controversial decision.

On the other hand, if Alex does well (or even if he doesn't, knowing how poorly F1 fans tend to treat Logan) people are going to see it as further proof that Logan does not deserve the seat he has, especially if he "gives it up for another driver."

It'll look like Williams, and perhaps Logan, are self-aware of his skill level in a way that almost implies he exists as a backup to Alex, in which case people will latch onto that and use it as further justification to continue the very nasty behavior I've seen questioning his belonging.

Even still, the most unfortunate thing is that Alex could finish anywhere above P20, and people are going to make jokes about how he "drives Sargeant's car better than Sargeant does." He could finish dead last, and people will probably make a joke about how Logan "probably would've crashed out anyway."

While I understand and can sympathize with the fact that Formula One is a team sport and drivers have to make sacrifices for the sake of the team and getting points for the team, this decision just seems incredibly unfair to both drivers, but especially to Logan and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Alex is the one who crashed out, but it just seems as if Logan is the one being punished for it.

Luffy vs. Zoro at Whiskey Peak

Unpopular opinion maybe, but the Luffy vs. Zoro clash in Whiskey Peak made sense for their characters. You could even argue that it was bound to happen, given their personalities.

Luffy likes the people who feed him. In the the face of their suffering, no matter who's responsible, he's too angry to concern himself with the reasons behind it. Zoro, on the other hand, prefers to handle things independently without saying much about it, especially if it means his crew gets to enjoy themselves a little longer

So it's not really surprising that Luffy would be blindsided by finding their hosts cut up by his swordsman, and that this would send him flying into a fit of rage. If he's never paused to listen to context or backstories before now, why would he start here? And of course, Zoro is not the type to back down from a challenge. He will match Luffy's energy and respond in kind

"But if Luffy were a good captain, he would have stopped to listen to Zoro's side of the story." Vivi tells him he's a bad captain two arcs later, precisely because of this kind of behavior. It clearly leaves an impression on Luffy, and we see he's grown into a better leader by the time he reaches Amazon Lily. (Almost as if Oda set all this development up on purpose with Whiskey Peak. HMM...)

"But Luffy refused to believe that Nami had killed Usopp in Arlong Park." This argument is like comparing apples to oranges. Nami did not actually do the murder that Johnny and Yosaku claim they saw, nor is she capable of killing people in cold blood. Of course Luffy isn't going to believe Nami killed Usopp based on hearsay. But in Whiskey Peak, Zoro did cut those bounty hunters. Luffy sees the evidence for himself, and he knows the carnage Zoro is capable of inflicting once he puts his mind to it. There is no denying what happened. Nothing other than Zoro saying "someone else did this" (or Nami knocking the soul out of him) was going to stop Luffy from going ballistic

"Why would Luffy fight so hard to recruit Zoro into his crew, firmly believing that he wasn't a bad person, only to later attack him because he believed Zoro was capable of harming 'innocent' people?" Because the fight was never about whether their hosts were "innocent" or not, not really. Their fight was about what Zoro did (assaulting the ones who fed them), and how those actions made Luffy feel (mad as hell, because these people FED THEM) For Luffy, context did not actually matter at that moment in time because, for him, "they fed me" unequivocally means "they're my friend", full stop This is even shown again in Mocktown! Both when Luffy unquestioningly eats an apple from Doc Q, and when Bellamy buys Luffy a drink in Mocktown. In the first case, Luffy only lived because he was lucky. And in the second case, he assumes Bellamy is a good person despite all evidence to the contrary, only to have his face brutally smashed into the bartop by Bellamy. Luffy is shockingly bad at reading people who try to feed him.

Luffy has interpersonal conflicts with all the core members from East Blue at different times. The fight with Zoro is the only one instigated by Luffy. But surprisingly, their fight highlights their similarities instead of their differences. They still fight equally and work together against BW agents who try to interfere with their fight.

I think that's what Oda wanted to showcase with this scene.

In short, Luffy's initial anger stemmed from his protectiveness towards those who have fed him, while Zoro's actions were driven by his dedication to the crew and subsequent refusal to back down from Luffy's challenge. It was a clash resulting from miscommunication and misunderstanding, something that is not typically a problem for them — until it suddenly becomes one When all is said and done, they're both quick to forgive and forget. This, too, is fitting for both their characters. From that point onward, Zoro continues to demonstrate that Luffy's trust is not misplaced. And Luffy never, ever doubts Zoro again after this

Random thought because I'm sick and half-aware today

I love Rook but why with that ugly ass medieval haircut

He calls himself the chaser of love and like bitch the only reason you have to chase love is because when you walk into a town square people start running when you get within ten yards.

Mothers tell their children about him to make them behave.

Cults fear him.

He doesn't walk into a party, parties walk into him

His color palette was done entirely with the basic 24 pack of crayola crayons

And to slather all of that hot mess with the name 'rook', how the fuck did he get into the beauty dorm.

The only thing that saves him is that hideous hat, but I guess the ugliness cancels each other out.