Spoke To A Gen Z Person The Other Night And Apparently The Young Folks Don't Know About The Very Legal

Fanart of the Queen herself. Angella, you deserved SO much better…

Totally going to make more art of her

people who act like batman isn't "judge jury and executioner" because he doesn't kill people are like. genuinely so funny to me because. they're very obviously thinking of "executioner" as like. the stereotypical guy with axe who chops people heads off, and not, yknow, the literal definition of the idiom itself, which is about someone who has the ability to judge and then subsequently punish someone unilaterally. which is quite literally what batman does.

he has the ability to decide what is a "crime" to him, he is the one who decides whether people are guilty of those crimes, and he is the one who executes their punishment. the severity of the punishment doesn't matter - he is unaccountable to anyone else, and indeed is allowed to commit as many crimes as needed to reach his arbitrary ideal of "justice."

the ideal of batman is this: a man who is so fundamentally changed by an act of senseless violence that he takes it upon himself to fight back against the rot and corruption in the world. he does this not through political activism, not through ridding himself of his wealth in favor of a greater good, not through community outreach, but through an individualistic fantasy of being a hero.

and you'll say: charlie, but he does do that !!! he donates his money all the time, he funds social programs, hospitals, orphanages, gets people jobs -

and i will say this: so why don't things get better?

because here's the base of it. gotham, at its core, can't get better. no matter what bruce wayne does, there will always be more crime, more villains, more death, more people for batman to beat up in back alleys. because that's what sells.

reoffending rates don't matter in gotham, prison reform doesn't matter in gotham, what actually causes crime doesn't matter in gotham because that doesn't sell books.

and so here it is; dc has unintentionally created a world where batman can't win, but can't be wrong, and where thousands of nameless, faceless, only-created-to-die civilians must be pushed into the meat grinder that is gotham, to fuel bruce wayne's angst and vindicate his constant, tireless, noble fight against the forces of evil.

and then: a new robin, who is poor and who's parents are dead or gone because of this cycle; who is happy go-lucky and hated by editors and fans for being robin, for not being dick grayson, for being poor.

and this robin is written, unintentionally or not, to be angry at the ways in which batman's (the narrative's) idea of justice is detached from its victims. bruce seems perfectly fine to allow countless unnamed women to be at risk from garzonas in his home country, yet robin is the one who is portrayed as irrational and violent.

this robin is not detached from gotham in the way bruce wayne is: this robin is a product of gotham.

(and here's the thing. you can't punch aids. you can't fight a disease with colorful fights and nifty gadgets. and how would robin dying from aids add to batman's story; it would call into question the systemic changes that haven't been made in gotham. how does a child get aids, in batman's city?)

so robin dies, and then bruce (the narrative) spends the next couple of decades blaming it on him. it is jason's fault; he was reckless, he just ran in, he thought it was all a game. if only bruce had seen what was coming, if only he could have known that jason wasn't rich enough or smart enough or liked enough to be robin.

batman gets a little more violent, a little more self destructive. he hurts people more and almost (!!) kills a couple guys. this is bad because it's self destructive and "not who he is." it is not bad because batman should not be able to just beat people up when he's angry.

and then he gets a shiny new robin - who is all the things jason "wasn't": rich and smart and rational and he doesn't put who batman is into question. batman and robin are partners, and jason is a grave and a cautionary tale, and (crucially here) never right.

the joker kills thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be killed.

batman beats up thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be criminals.

and then jason comes back, and nothing has changed. there is a batman and a (shiny! rich!) robin and the joker kills thousands. (because it sells)

and jason is angry - he has been left unavenged - his death has meant nothing, just as willis' had, just as catherine's had, just as gloria's had, just as -

thousands. ten of thousands. hundreds of thousands. written to be killed.

but one of them gets to come back.

and he is angry - not only at the joker, but at bruce (the narrative) - because why is the joker still alive (when thousands-)

here is the thing - jason todd is right. not because the death penalty is good, not because criminals deserve to die, not because of everything he says -

but because of what he calls into question. why is the joker alive?

because he sells books.

and dc has written a masterful character, through no fault of their own, because jason knows what is wrong, and he knows who is at fault - batman. (the narrative)

so the argument that bruce can't kill because he's not judge jury and executioner; the argument that jason is a cop or that jason is insane or that jason is in the wrong here; they hold no weight.

batman can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

and jason can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

so he will beg and plead and grovel - he will betray everything that is himself, he will forsake his family and his city and kill himself - just so that bruce (the narrative) will let the joker die.

he was condemned to death by an audience, and after he came back he has spent his whole life looking us in the eyes and screaming, asking, pleading; why is the joker still alive?

why are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands (the number doesn't matter, see, because they're just a number. not people. not real.) why are we expendable for his story? why did i have to die just for nothing to change?

and the answer is money. and the answer is the batman can never be wrong. and the answer is shitty writing. and the answer is -

nothing jason can ever change.

which is the worst of it all. he is a victim with no power, and no one else in the world can see it. he is raging and crying and screaming at his father and his writers and you - and it doesn't matter. jason doesn't matter. and he knows it.

I’d like to clear up some common misconceptions about the Attack on Titan Tower, aka when Jason infiltrated it to attack Tim

If you want to read this for yourself, here are some links: readallcomics - I have the best luck with this site on destop zipcomic readcomicsonline - this site can be temperamental

1) Jason did not go there to attempt to kill Tim

Jason seems to have 3 separate goals for this: - size up the new kid. - make sure he knows Bruce just sees him as another soldier - prove to Tim just how dangerous the job is (heavily implied, in my opinion, especially after Tim tried telling Jason he was wrong about how Bruce saw him) He also voiced his anger over being forgotten by everyone. Depending on your interpretation of Jason and his character, this could also be a reason. To me, this feels more like an afterthought because they moved to the Hall of Fallen Heroes before he said this, and Jason likes to be dramatic.

Side note on this. Jason never says anything about being replaced.

2) none of Tim’s injuries were life threatening

Once again, Jason was not attempting to kill him. He beat him up pretty badly, but it was designed to prove a point

3) Jason did NOT cut Tim’s throat.

That happened during Hush which predates both Under the Red Hood and Titan’s Tower. Jason was pretending to be Hush, put a knife to Tim’s throat, and put enough pressure to make him bleed (it was not an actual slice) to get Bruce to react to him. That injury was not life threatening either

Edit: I’ve seen some comments about the ‘not life threatening’ statement. Yes, it needed stitches, but it wasn’t spurting blood, therefore not life threatening. Just because you’re bleeding from a neck injury, it doesn’t mean you’re at an immediate risk of dying (spoken from experience). It’s if the carotid artery or jugular vein are cut that it’s a problem, and you’ll know if that happens because of SO MUCH BLOOD. You will bleed out within minutes.

The way it’s portrayed, it’s not a life threatening injury

4) Jason developed a respect and a bit of envy for Tim after fighting him

At the end of the issue while he’s leaving (while outside the tower), Jason acknowledges Tim’s skill. Jason also wonders if he could have had a life more similar to his, where he had friends and a better support system, if he could have had a different life.

5) Tim was NOT a damsel in distress during the fight, and he did NOT develop a fear of Jason.

Tim was making quips and dissing Jason the entire fight. Tim was not afraid of him nor did he bat an eye at being attacked by Jason. He also vocalized just how much he had to work for his cape because of how Jason's death affected Bruce

Also, the next time Tim saw Jason after this, he made sure to kick Jason in the groin

6) Jason wrote "Jason Todd was here" and signed it with a hand print on the wall.

It looks like it could be in blood, but Tim's not injured enough for there to be that much... and blood darkens after a while. There's a bit of time between Tim getting knocked out and the rest of the Titans finding him and the writing so it's probably paint. Again, Jason likes to be dramatic

7) more Robin!Jason slander by Raven

Once again, we get the mention that Jason was "aggressive". I swear, this is the only thing writers remember from Death in the Family and not the point that that behavior was out of the ordinary for Jason. This is a personal pet peeve of mine in the comics.

8) almost forgot to add the most important part, Jason made a homemade Robin costume and wore it under his Red Hood outfit because he could

Again, Jason is a dramatic bitch.

Out of the many issues DC has with its own writing, how they use dialogue and convenient narration to manipulate audience perspective is the one that makes me question why I keep reading these comics. Obviously, this isn't limited to DC, but it is one of the worst cases I've seen.

Let's take Batman and Red Hood, for example. Comics from Jason's perspective often portray the Dark Knight as being a distant, controlling, emotionally neglectful and even physically abusive as a Father/mentor-- And before any Batman stans come for me, he isn't the only one writers do this with. Bear with me and you'll see why this is a problem.

DC almost always purposely uses this as drama at the cost of inconsistent character writing. Most have agreed that the way Bruce gets written when any of his kids are in the picture is messed up. Read enough of them and you'll notice a pattern: He does something borderline abusive, the plot progresses, and you can practically feel the writers realize this might make their cash cow Bat look bad (God Forbid.) But instead of the comics calling him out or changing his behavior, they shift dialogue to try and manipulate the narrative as if Batman was correct the whole time, and anyone not doing things his way is just wrong.

This doesn't just happen to Red Hood, but staying on him as an example, there will be a turning point in the plot where every other character involved is suddenly adamant that Jason is being immature, stupid, reckless, etc, and whatever trouble he's in was his fault to begin with, even when he's been doing things Batman's way. Heroes, neutral parties, and even villains start mocking and condescending to him, sometimes for doing the exact same thing that Bruce gets praised for. However reversibly, Batman does something just as bad (or even worse) and the narrative is that it was completely justified or the outcome is retconned/changed in his favor. Yet when this hypocrisy does get called out in comic, Bruce gives his usual edgy "Exactly, I don't want you to be like me." As if the writers are trying to look directly at the audience and say "See? He's just a flawed character! He's relatable!"

This leads to people hyper-defending every action of Batman instead of criticizing the writing behind it. "Bruce respects his kids! He says so in issue #467889999--" Just because the writers put the words in Batman's mouth doesn't mean anything when his actions don't back it up.

There's a reason why Show, don't tell is such a crucial writing rule. Portraying Batman as controlling and abusive, only to twist the narrative that he was "right all along," by

- changing the rules last minute

-having everyone verbally discredit his opponent

- emphasize how "badass and right Batman was" in every goddamn exchange

is lazy and poor writing. "I respect Nightwing," means nothing when Batman undermines him, insults him, criticizes his choices or punches him for the sake of ✨️the drama.✨️

It would be like telling the story of Snow White, where everything is exactly the same except she regularly kicks small animals, and bullies the dwarves. But the magic mirror, the Hunter and the dwarves still all emphasize what "kind and gentle Princess" she is without ever addressing her actions. Inconsistent character writing means the drama loses its effect. If your character can just sidestep their convictions for the sake of the plot, especially in a character driven story, then there is no character. A game with no rules, roles or directive isn't a game. That's why DC fanon is usually more popular, because somehow an entire fandom has managed to create more consistency than a team of writers.

some fucking resources for all ur writing fuckin needs

* body language masterlist

* a translator that doesn’t eat ass like google translate does

* a reverse dictionary for when ur brain freezes

* 550 words to say instead of fuckin said

* 638 character traits for when ur brain freezes again

* some more body language help

(hope this helps some ppl)

…You know what could’ve been cool? If Vassago had ACTUALLY looked like a pirate, and if he were Octavia’s mentor.

Like, for a character who supposedly should look like one, Vassago does NOT look like a pirate. Which is disappointing, Viv really could have gone all in and made that guy a pirate stereotype. Like, where’s the peg leg, the eyepatch? Where’s the frilly cravat? Where’s the pirate hook? Where’s the oversized captain’s coat and pirate hat with long, elaborate feathers? Heck, you could have made one of those feathers be from Andrealphus, and Vassago put it in his hat because he LOATHES Andrealphus, and beat his a** once. And he makes sure to wear it because Andrealphus HATES it.

Actually, why is Vassago a red macaw? Why not a green parrot, I feel like when you think ‘pirate’ you picture a parrot, especially a green one. I don’t know, sounds like a missed opportunity. And hey, you still could have put stars on his outfit.

As for being Octavia’s mentor, maybe Vassago could have taken pity on the fact that until recently, she’s never had formal lessons in her potential duties regarding astrology. And yeah, Vassago might not occupy the exact same space, but it is said that he can divine and tell summoners of past and future events apparently. And you can use the stars to do the latter, so he could at least reach her something in that.

Really, if we’re going with the Goetias being nobility, Octavia SHOULD have a couple private tutors to guide her in potential duties and proper etiquette. Since she’s the spare and all, honestly now that I think about it did either Stolas or Stella get her something like an etiquette teacher? She’s going to need one since she’s slated to take over Stolas’ position in (assumedly) less than a year. I think Stolas started recently teaching her through the book (she probably should have started a couple years ago), but he can’t do that anymore, so…

Anyway, like I said, could be cool if Vassago took pity on the girl (since Vassago is apparently good-natured) and started overviewing her lessons on her duties in astrology. Or maybe, she’s having trouble navigating through the Goetia social expectations and stuff and he decides to not leave her to the sharks. Idk, might have been better than just having him be a Stolas hype man, despite the fact that Stolas not having any friends other than Blitzø that one time is supposed to be important. And yet here’s a guy who definitely seems to like him somewhat, could Stolas not have been friends with him?

Wether people want to admit it or not(they never do,out of a moral superiority complex),they view unpalpability in female characters as reasons they're bad and unpalpability in male characters as reasons they're attractive.If a girl in media is angry and snarky and selfish and volatile,she is dubbed an irredemable monster who must be punished or the writers are 'abuse apologists' and she's 'the bitch','the cheating whore','the faker' and so forth.If a boy in media is angry and snarky and selfish and volatile,he is good deep down all along and never meant all the things he did and he was raised in a way it was inevatable and he's the protagonist true soulmate they just misunderstood and something something if villain bad why sexy

Prince Zuko was a teenage terrorist because he wanted his dad to love him and ignored his sister psychosis enabled by their father's grooming to beat her ass and said so much misogynistic shit someone was able to do a whole fancam and called the tibetan buddhist genocide survivor his direct ancestors cleansed 'Guru Goody Goody' and did the quivalent of breaking up with his girlfriend through a text message and if you act like he's not just an awkward turtleduck you get people screeching until their mouths start bleeding over how you hate abuse survivors and men who're perfect for every feminist woman and Katara was a teenage anarchist brown native girl who kicked off the series by bringing back the protagonist to save the world by going off at her older brother for sexism and spent the rest of the series an activist too and literally has the same sense of humor and attitude and even powers 2000s darling Percy Jackson does and she gets called a concervative basic white girl who talks about her mom she saw murdered by colonizers in her toddler years too much and should never speak out of turn lest she hurt men's feelings and a mary sue and her antis demand you never speak positively of her without reminding us she's not a perfect precious sharkangel who did nothing wrong ever(she is one and didn't)

Y'all be like the Rodrick meme but instead it's 'say sorry women'

Not the 51st State: A Canadian Reflection on Tariffs, Trust, and the State of the Press

Not the 51st State: A Canadian Reflection on Tariffs, Trust, and the State of the Press

By Duncan Fraser for Winding-Roads.ca

On March 3rd, 2025, President Donald Trump made a false claim that huge amounts of drugs were being imported into the United States from Canada.

He used that claim to justify the opening salvo in what has since escalated into a trade war—one that now threatens workers, businesses, and entire industries across borders. The U.S. Senate has since rejected that justification, confirming what many of us already knew: it was a political stunt with no factual basis.

That same day, I began a project to archive and analyze the front pages of major news outlets around the world. I wanted to document how this crisis is being reported, whose voices are being heard—or silenced—and how different media ecosystems interpret the same moment in time.

So far, I’ve digitized the front pages from the BBC, CBC, New York Times, Globe and Mail, and occasionally, the Vancouver Sun, which has been notably quiet on the gravity of the trade war.

I will include the Vancouver Sun a Postmedia publication before concluding the project on April 30th after Canada’s federal election on April 28th and the announcement of global tariffs on April 2nd.

My goal is not only to capture facts but to trace how the framing of truth differs depending on who owns the press.

And ownership matters. It matters when Postmedia, Canada’s largest newspaper chain, is two-thirds owned by Chatham Asset Management, a U.S.-based firm with deep ties to the Republican Party.

It matters when senior editorial figures within Postmedia call their own network “insufficiently conservative” and restructure reporting to ensure more ideologically aligned coverage.

When a foreign-owned media conglomerate influences the political narrative of a sovereign nation during an election and a trade war, we must ask: what’s the difference between that and foreign interference?

April 4th, 2025 – A Snapshot of the Press: What Did They Choose to Tell Us?

The two most pressing issues facing Canadians:

A rapidly escalating Trade War with the United States, triggered by misinformation and now entering global territory.

An upcoming Federal Election on April 28th, with the central question: Which leader can best stand up for Canada on the global stage, particularly against Donald Trump?

On this day, I captured the front pages of:

BBC (UK)

CBC (Canada)

The New York Times (USA)

The Toronto Star

The Globe and Mail

The Vancouver Sun

This visual comparison highlights not just what's being reported—but what's being left out. And in that silence, we can see the shape of influence.

In Vancouver, a city with global connections, economic vulnerability to U.S. trade policy, and a long history of activism and press independence, The Vancouver Sun’s decision to underreport or soft-pedal the trade war raises questions. Is this an editorial oversight—or an outcome of Postmedia’s central direction toward a “reliably conservative” voice?

As a Canadian by choice and a Scot by birth, I take this personally. I was born in a country that fought tyranny, and I chose to live in one that believes in fairness, decency, and the rule of law. Canadians stood with Britain and the United States in both World Wars. The blood of our youth still stains the beaches and fields of France. So when Donald Trump casually refers to us as the “51st State,” I don’t just hear arrogance—I hear the erasure of a friendship forged in sacrifice.

I love the United States. I’ve travelled extensively in that remarkable country and have deep respect for its people. But this attack on America’s closest ally—on its best friend—will take a long time to heal. And it won’t just hurt Canadians. It will devastate millions of hardworking Americans, too, along with families and businesses across the globe.

We’ve seen what trade wars can do. The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s triggered a spiral that helped turn a financial crash into a global depression. We don’t need to repeat that mistake. Not now. Not again.

So I continue to watch, and archive, and reflect—not because I expect to change the minds of politicians, but because history deserves a witness. Because truth, however fragile, must be protected. And because maybe, just maybe, someone will listen before it’s too late.

Edited with the help of ChatGPT.

Source: Not the 51st State: A Canadian Reflection on Tariffs, Trust, and the State of the Press

Original comic by Rasenth

NORMAL GIRLS