General You

This is the last page of the comic. Look at the couch, there's what looks like pink roseprints all over it. In the last images, it becomes an obvious floral print.

Cable's hand on this page also has a bunch of pink streaks on it.

Earlier, DP lost his legs below the knee.

Looks a lot like a rose. The closeups make it look a bit weird, but the original size is a clear impression of a rose.

And then we have this weird graffiti around Cable's kneepad....

B-shape-RA and what sure looks like an arrow pointing to said kneepad. Kneepads are bras, and so knees are metaphorically tits. A kneepad isn't just a bra, it's a PADDED bra. Cable stuffs his bra, lol. Given his physique, I'd also say he likes pushup bras. And he likes to wear his bras as outerwear, and/or likes to go topless. Perhaps superhero suits are metaphorically the birthday suit, and that's why they're often drawn like they're nude. Maaaaybe that means superhero "callsign" names are actually their callgirl stage names.

Those floral patterns on the couch are titprints. Losing his legs below the knee, revealing the rose, means Wade's tits out free-the-nipple topless. The pink streaks on Cable's metal hand mean he had his hands all over that. Cable himself is also pretty peachy pink.

@lymeandcoconut

#lmaooooo #my fave is that episode of white collar where neil is doing a theft #and the music they play over it is leporello's 'here's the list of all the hundreds of women my boss has fucked' aria from don giovanni #it's supposed to just sound grand and sophisticated but the guy is singing about how DG fucks tall women short women #fat women skinny women princesses and peasants he fucks them all! #and here's the numbers broken down by nationality! #he's fucked over 1000 women in spain you know!

I looked up the lyrics [1, 2] and watched some of the episode.

selected lyrics:

See: This book, not so small, Is completely full With the names of his women: Every village, every burg, every town Can testify his love affairs. Young lady, this is the catalogue Of the beautiful women loved by my master It is a catalogue I drafted myself Look, read with me. [...descriptions of varied women everywhere...] His main passion Is the young inexperienced. He doesn't care if she's rich If she's ugly, if she's beautiful: As long as she wears a skirt, You know what he does

[note: I have spelled characters' names in a few different ways on accident, it's obvious who I mean.]

Here's the episode synopsis for the bits I watched: Neil is being blackmailed to help a criminal named Three Timer avoid a criminal conviction. Mozzie is helping him do it despite having no stake in Neal's blackmail. The dance is meant to get into FBI evidence vaults so he can artificially age some papers to turn them to ash when touched, freeing Three Timer. Neil gets a new handler and a new case, involving a giant black market which Mozzie runs. Mozzie gets seen by Siegal (the new handler), but turns on the Giovani song as a distraction to escape. This is the first use of the song outside the opening scene, and because Mozzie gets away, it parallels the opening practice scene where Neal screws up the dance. The last use of the song is when Neal successfully gets into the FBI vault and destroys the evidence while Mozzie is acting as an impromptu midwife to Diana.

The episode opens with Neil "dancing" to the Giovanni aria while Mozzie keeps time and makes sure Neil does it correctly. The song and dance is used for getting the timing and steps correctly to avoid being seen by the FBI vault cameras. Neil misses steps, says he's closer than he was before, and Mozzie gets stressy while claiming his criticism is meant to improve Neil's anxiety about getting a new FBI handler.

So: Neil and Mozzie are both doing things wrong. Mozzie is making Neil feel worse, and thus making it harder to do things right. Doing things right means you aren't caught, aren't seen, there's no evidence. Neil and Mozzie discuss aging a document so that it looks too old to be admissible evidence in court: committing a crime aka "doing wrong things" so that both theirs and Three Timer's goes unacknowledged, unseen.

Neil then shows up late to a meeting (doing things wrong), and Peter (his original handler) says that the new guy is in the meeting. Neil takes a guess on what sort of guy the new handler is, stating he must be late middle age, surly, likes sports and not Masterpiece Theater. He then gets a big smile and asks "Did I nail it?". Peter shakes his head and says he'll let Neil figure it out, meaning he's not telling him whether he got it right (unseen) or did it wrong (caught).

That surly description is a description of Peter. Nailing is a term for sex, which fits with the Giovanni sex music. He may be asking Peter if the new handler knows that Neil and Peter are fucking on the side. Peter isn't answering, so I think he's letting Neil decide whether to tell the new guy about their side arrangement. That Neil showed up late to the meeting, and Peter waited for him, could also mean that Neil wants to be "caught", wants his relationship with Peter to be known. Peter did also shake his head as if laughing at Neil's description; the head shake means Peter is saying that the new guy does not know, and Peter is leaving the decision about whether they're caught in the act up to Neil.

Caught in the act, like being caught in the act of theft. Thievery is sex, dancing and doing it right are satisfying your partner properly. Getting caught means she wasn't satisfied. Since Neil was dancing for Mozzie's satisfaction as practice for the real thing, Neil may be courting Mozzie. Both of them were not satisfying each other--Neil getting caught on camera, Mozzie failing to soothe anxiety--and both of them were saying that the wrongness doesn't matter because it'll be done right when it matters. So then, perhaps every single theft of Neil's that he gets away with is actually the many many times he and Mozzie have fucked.

Masterpiece is part of American PBS, showing classic British films/adaptations of classic literature/etc. I think the use of Masterpiece Theater is referring back to the use of the Giovanni music which is a classic opera. Probably that means Peter likes to have it all done on camera, like sports are, and doesn't want to have it written in a foreign language ie kept discreet. Peter wants to get caught, he wants to come out, but he's very literally waiting for Neil to be comfortable with it. Peter explicitly says that he'll let Neil figure it out, meaning he's willing to wait for Neil to figure out what he wants. Since this is a handler change for Neil, maybe that means the new handler is "on camera" and Peter is still there for Neil offscreen.

In the previous episode, Peter had said that he was giving Neil a new handler who would "see you as you are", said very gently and not accusingly. I think that means Peter is stepping back so that Neil can see someone who won't pressure him to come out. Neil flippantly replies to the "see you as you are" with "a criminal", which I think means Neil is saying he would "get caught" with Peter if that's what Peter wants. But Peter wants Neil to figure it out, which may mean that Peter isn't pressuring him and is saying Neil shouldn't do something just to make Peter happy.

Neil goes to the meeting, and asks a question that was answered earlier: who is getting arrested. When Neil showed up late and met Peter outside the meeting, Peter said some guy named "three time" something was just arrested; Neil asks why the cavalry was called in if the arrest already happened. Neil is the cavalry. Peter told Neil the arrested guy was Three Time, so Neil is pretending he doesn't know.

Cavalry is "the help", the people who save your ass. The episode title itself is "Out of the Frying Pan", and that idiom ends with "into the fire". The help gets you out of hot water. Calling in the cavalry is calling Neil, who's late, but Peter sent him to the meeting anyway: Neil is saying he's going to screw up the arrest and let Three Time go free.

So, when Peter said Three Timer was arrested, he's telling Neil that there is admissible evidence. Leaving things up to Neil, then, means he's allowing Neil to decide if Three Timer gets caught or not. Neil pretending he doesn't know who's been arrested is him asking if they'll let him make the decisions. He's the help, and he wants to do things his own way, like the preceeding argument he has with people in the meeting about whether consultants--cavalry--can "do things wrong" by setting their own hours and thus being late. Translation: is Neil calling the shots, and is everyone in the meeting okay with him making it clear that Timer is going free. So, on the meta level, Neil just told them all he has plans to destroy the evidence against Timer and they all said aye aye cap'n.

Three Timer is a pretty specific nickname, because of the Giovanni score:

The aria's two halves reverse the usual order of cavatina followed by cabaletta: in the first, a quick Allegro in 4/4, Leporello has a patter summarizing the number and occupations of Don Giovanni's lovers, while in the second, an Andante con moto in 3/4, in the style of a polonaise (with a melody similar to that of the Larghetto of Mozart's earlier Quintet for Piano and Winds), he describes his approaches and preferences, while Donna Elvira presumably listens in horror. The second half of "Madamina" is in triple time. The song actually shifts between two completely different time signatures as the music changes to fit the tone of the lyrics. First Section (Allegro): Time signature is common time (4/4). This is the fast-paced "patter" section where Leporello lists the sheer number and nationality of Don Giovanni's conquests. Second Section (Andante con moto): Time signature shifts to triple time (3/4). Written in the style of a polonaise, this slower, lyrical section features Leporello describing the specific types of women Don Giovanni prefers.

[copied from wiki and google ai summaries]

Sheer number of conquests all over the world. Like the black market CATALOGUE that they say has everything. It's run by Mozzie; those are all Neil's thefts. The FBI are saying that they know everything that Neil kept off the books. So then, a successful theft is an unacknowledged conquest. Neil is the sole provider for "perfect conquests".

Triple time, logically, ought to be "fast", not slow. The dance Neil was doing was slow, in time with Mozzie's slow tapping cane that IMO felt off-beat. The slow dance pairs with the kinds of women that Giovanni prefers; Neil does this dance by himself.

By himself, as Mozzie keeps time during practice, and by himself as Mozzie keeps FAST time for Diana by doing the breathing labor with her. Mozzie is getting stressy again.

Mozzie was keeping very slow time to Neil's Giovanni dance. I can't speak Italian and I am not great with music, so I can't say which portions of the song were playing in the scene, but I'm fairly sure Mozzie was doing it wrong since Neil accuses him of making his "new handler" anxiety worse. Notably, Neil was following Mozzie's slow lead in the dance and ignoring the actual music.

So, because Mozzie was doing it wrong and thus leading Neil to do it wrong, I think Mozzie wants Neil to dissatisfy the new handler and possibly fuck up the heist task they're practicing for. Neil kept time with Mozzie, so I take that as agreement between them. Neil argued that he got closer to getting the dance right, so perhaps that means Neil is trying to persuade Mozzie to do something "the right way".

After the birth and the evidence destruction, Neal walks in on Mozzie and Diana. Mozzie says "I'm a father", Diana says "not even close". She's saying he's doing things wrong, that she doesn't want him to admit it and "get caught": Mozzie is the father, and she's going to make sure he gets away scot free. Diana named the kid after the fake name Mozzie gave her, Theodore. Neal explicitly says that Mozzie's Theodore persona died but another one is born.

Don Giovanni has lots of sex and leaves the women broken hearted. But it's Mozzie who's the father, so it's Mozzie who's the ladies' man. Mozzie kept stressy fast time with Diana, the fast time that corresponds to the aria enumerating Giovanni's conquests. He's the real Giovanni, not slick pretty face Neil.

Neal always keeps slow time, dancing with no one, but watched by a stress inducing Mozzie from the sidelines. Since Neal is watched, Neal did not do the camera dance perfectly. That's why he bowed to his audience of No One: Mozzie went in afterwards and deleted the footage. Neal fucks things up because he's following Mozzie's lead even when he knows he could do better. Neil always fucks things up, and he deliberately does that because he knows Mozzie has his back even when he's not there, even when he's seemingly acting as a midwife and ignoring Neal. Ditto Neal having Mozzie's back. That ties into the opening with Peter saying he'll be on the sidelines while Neal "figures things out". Mozzie is Peter. Neal got himself caught, and Mozzie followed the leader to spring Neal by infiltrating the FBI itself.

So, Neil wants to come out of the closet with Peter/Mozzie. He wants Mozzie to "come clean", and Neil did in fact deliberately get caught by the FBI, and Mozzie let it happen. Probably as a way to say the FBI know nothing, prove that they can keep up this ruse right under the biggest nose of the law, if only Mozzie would follow Neal's lead. That's why Neal bowed to a nonexistent audience, he was the conductor coordinating everything the whole time. Neal is the mastermind.

Neal dances with No One, with Mozzie, exclusively. He's in love with Mozzie, and he wants Mozzie to "make it official", get caught red handed: get married. Maybe that's why at the end of the whole White Collar series, Neal slips his leash and runs away to a life of crime with No One following him, with Mozzie hand in hand. Neal's been asking Mozzie to marry him, and Mozzie finally said yes. Be gay, do crime, never get caught.

Mozzie is the one who always gets away, even though he leaves things (a baby, a mini-me) behind that he shouldn't. Except like Peter on the sidelines for Neil, he's not actually leaving them. Mozzie could easily get caught, but the ladies he woos help him get away with it. I wonder if that means Neal, who claims he doesn't get caught, deliberately took the fall for one of Mozzie's identities.

At the end, Neal says that Mozzie has no cover identities left, that he's truly "no one". They do everything together. So, I was right: Neal is a pretty face for Mozzie, and that's why Mozzie takes so damn long to say yes. Neal is "just" a pretty face, but he's the one face Mozzie can't walk away from. Giovanni most likes making conquests of the young and inexperienced. Approaches and preferences for Three Timer are slow and erotic, talking about what and how he's going to do everything. So, planning a crime and solving a crime are foreplay.

Maybe that means it's Neal who's the true No One, wearing a cover identity, and so "Caffrey doesn't get caught" because that's not Neal Caffrey serving time as an FBI informant. He's No One, and the FBI caught Nobody.

But that would mean Neal was the father to Diana's baby. I don't think that's a contradiction because Neal and Mozzie are "the same person": MARRIED. They trade roles, each stepping in for the other. Like the sketches of Mozzie that Neal shows to Siegal: it was two similar faces, but Neal isn't telling anyone else that the sketch he turned in wasn't the one of Mozzie that he showed to Siegal.

If Caffrey is No One, and Mozzie's baby with Diana was named Theodore Winters, then Mozzie's real name is Neal Caffrey who never gets caught. Neal's real name is Mozzie of the many faces.

When Neil runs off at the end of the series and is followed by no one while Peter watches, they're done with the foreplay of the how to get away with it and what they're going to steal (everything). They're off to do the real thing, tutorial finished.

I looked up the line, it's on page ~133 of the first Bridgerton book.

Break for length, I copied a bunch of text.

@lymeandcoconut

#lmaooooo #my fave is that episode of white collar where neil is doing a theft #and the music they play over it is leporello's 'here's the list of all the hundreds of women my boss has fucked' aria from don giovanni #it's supposed to just sound grand and sophisticated but the guy is singing about how DG fucks tall women short women #fat women skinny women princesses and peasants he fucks them all! #and here's the numbers broken down by nationality! #he's fucked over 1000 women in spain you know!

I looked up the lyrics [1, 2] and watched some of the episode.

selected lyrics:

See: This book, not so small, Is completely full With the names of his women: Every village, every burg, every town Can testify his love affairs. Young lady, this is the catalogue Of the beautiful women loved by my master It is a catalogue I drafted myself Look, read with me. [...descriptions of varied women everywhere...] His main passion Is the young inexperienced. He doesn't care if she's rich If she's ugly, if she's beautiful: As long as she wears a skirt, You know what he does

[note: I have spelled characters' names in a few different ways on accident, it's obvious who I mean.]

Here's the episode synopsis for the bits I watched: Neil is being blackmailed to help a criminal named Three Timer avoid a criminal conviction. Mozzie is helping him do it despite having no stake in Neal's blackmail. The dance is meant to get into FBI evidence vaults so he can artificially age some papers to turn them to ash when touched, freeing Three Timer. Neil gets a new handler and a new case, involving a giant black market which Mozzie runs. Mozzie gets seen by Siegal (the new handler), but turns on the Giovani song as a distraction to escape. This is the first use of the song outside the opening scene, and because Mozzie gets away, it parallels the opening practice scene where Neal screws up the dance. The last use of the song is when Neal successfully gets into the FBI vault and destroys the evidence while Mozzie is acting as an impromptu midwife to Diana.

The episode opens with Neil "dancing" to the Giovanni aria while Mozzie keeps time and makes sure Neil does it correctly. The song and dance is used for getting the timing and steps correctly to avoid being seen by the FBI vault cameras. Neil misses steps, says he's closer than he was before, and Mozzie gets stressy while claiming his criticism is meant to improve Neil's anxiety about getting a new FBI handler.

So: Neil and Mozzie are both doing things wrong. Mozzie is making Neil feel worse, and thus making it harder to do things right. Doing things right means you aren't caught, aren't seen, there's no evidence. Neil and Mozzie discuss aging a document so that it looks too old to be admissible evidence in court: committing a crime aka "doing wrong things" so that both theirs and Three Timer's goes unacknowledged, unseen.

Neil then shows up late to a meeting (doing things wrong), and Peter (his original handler) says that the new guy is in the meeting. Neil takes a guess on what sort of guy the new handler is, stating he must be late middle age, surly, likes sports and not Masterpiece Theater. He then gets a big smile and asks "Did I nail it?". Peter shakes his head and says he'll let Neil figure it out, meaning he's not telling him whether he got it right (unseen) or did it wrong (caught).

That surly description is a description of Peter. Nailing is a term for sex, which fits with the Giovanni sex music. He may be asking Peter if the new handler knows that Neil and Peter are fucking on the side. Peter isn't answering, so I think he's letting Neil decide whether to tell the new guy about their side arrangement. That Neil showed up late to the meeting, and Peter waited for him, could also mean that Neil wants to be "caught", wants his relationship with Peter to be known. Peter did also shake his head as if laughing at Neil's description; the head shake means Peter is saying that the new guy does not know, and Peter is leaving the decision about whether they're caught in the act up to Neil.

Caught in the act, like being caught in the act of theft. Thievery is sex, dancing and doing it right are satisfying your partner properly. Getting caught means she wasn't satisfied. Since Neil was dancing for Mozzie's satisfaction as practice for the real thing, Neil may be courting Mozzie. Both of them were not satisfying each other--Neil getting caught on camera, Mozzie failing to soothe anxiety--and both of them were saying that the wrongness doesn't matter because it'll be done right when it matters. So then, perhaps every single theft of Neil's that he gets away with is actually the many many times he and Mozzie have fucked.

Masterpiece is part of American PBS, showing classic British films/adaptations of classic literature/etc. I think the use of Masterpiece Theater is referring back to the use of the Giovanni music which is a classic opera. Probably that means Peter likes to have it all done on camera, like sports are, and doesn't want to have it written in a foreign language ie kept discreet. Peter wants to get caught, he wants to come out, but he's very literally waiting for Neil to be comfortable with it. Peter explicitly says that he'll let Neil figure it out, meaning he's willing to wait for Neil to figure out what he wants. Since this is a handler change for Neil, maybe that means the new handler is "on camera" and Peter is still there for Neil offscreen.

In the previous episode, Peter had said that he was giving Neil a new handler who would "see you as you are", said very gently and not accusingly. I think that means Peter is stepping back so that Neil can see someone who won't pressure him to come out. Neil flippantly replies to the "see you as you are" with "a criminal", which I think means Neil is saying he would "get caught" with Peter if that's what Peter wants. But Peter wants Neil to figure it out, which may mean that Peter isn't pressuring him and is saying Neil shouldn't do something just to make Peter happy.

Neil goes to the meeting, and asks a question that was answered earlier: who is getting arrested. When Neil showed up late and met Peter outside the meeting, Peter said some guy named "three time" something was just arrested; Neil asks why the cavalry was called in if the arrest already happened. Neil is the cavalry. Peter told Neil the arrested guy was Three Time, so Neil is pretending he doesn't know.

Cavalry is "the help", the people who save your ass. The episode title itself is "Out of the Frying Pan", and that idiom ends with "into the fire". The help gets you out of hot water. Calling in the cavalry is calling Neil, who's late, but Peter sent him to the meeting anyway: Neil is saying he's going to screw up the arrest and let Three Time go free.

So, when Peter said Three Timer was arrested, he's telling Neil that there is admissible evidence. Leaving things up to Neil, then, means he's allowing Neil to decide if Three Timer gets caught or not. Neil pretending he doesn't know who's been arrested is him asking if they'll let him make the decisions. He's the help, and he wants to do things his own way, like the preceeding argument he has with people in the meeting about whether consultants--cavalry--can "do things wrong" by setting their own hours and thus being late. Translation: is Neil calling the shots, and is everyone in the meeting okay with him making it clear that Timer is going free. So, on the meta level, Neil just told them all he has plans to destroy the evidence against Timer and they all said aye aye cap'n.

Three Timer is a pretty specific nickname, because of the Giovanni score:

The aria's two halves reverse the usual order of cavatina followed by cabaletta: in the first, a quick Allegro in 4/4, Leporello has a patter summarizing the number and occupations of Don Giovanni's lovers, while in the second, an Andante con moto in 3/4, in the style of a polonaise (with a melody similar to that of the Larghetto of Mozart's earlier Quintet for Piano and Winds), he describes his approaches and preferences, while Donna Elvira presumably listens in horror. The second half of "Madamina" is in triple time. The song actually shifts between two completely different time signatures as the music changes to fit the tone of the lyrics. First Section (Allegro): Time signature is common time (4/4). This is the fast-paced "patter" section where Leporello lists the sheer number and nationality of Don Giovanni's conquests. Second Section (Andante con moto): Time signature shifts to triple time (3/4). Written in the style of a polonaise, this slower, lyrical section features Leporello describing the specific types of women Don Giovanni prefers.

[copied from wiki and google ai summaries]

Sheer number of conquests all over the world. Like the black market CATALOGUE that they say has everything. It's run by Mozzie; those are all Neil's thefts. The FBI are saying that they know everything that Neil kept off the books. So then, a successful theft is an unacknowledged conquest. Neil is the sole provider for "perfect conquests".

Triple time, logically, ought to be "fast", not slow. The dance Neil was doing was slow, in time with Mozzie's slow tapping cane that IMO felt off-beat. The slow dance pairs with the kinds of women that Giovanni prefers; Neil does this dance by himself.

By himself, as Mozzie keeps time during practice, and by himself as Mozzie keeps FAST time for Diana by doing the breathing labor with her. Mozzie is getting stressy again.

Mozzie was keeping very slow time to Neil's Giovanni dance. I can't speak Italian and I am not great with music, so I can't say which portions of the song were playing in the scene, but I'm fairly sure Mozzie was doing it wrong since Neil accuses him of making his "new handler" anxiety worse. Notably, Neil was following Mozzie's slow lead in the dance and ignoring the actual music.

So, because Mozzie was doing it wrong and thus leading Neil to do it wrong, I think Mozzie wants Neil to dissatisfy the new handler and possibly fuck up the heist task they're practicing for. Neil kept time with Mozzie, so I take that as agreement between them. Neil argued that he got closer to getting the dance right, so perhaps that means Neil is trying to persuade Mozzie to do something "the right way".

After the birth and the evidence destruction, Neal walks in on Mozzie and Diana. Mozzie says "I'm a father", Diana says "not even close". She's saying he's doing things wrong, that she doesn't want him to admit it and "get caught": Mozzie is the father, and she's going to make sure he gets away scot free. Diana named the kid after the fake name Mozzie gave her, Theodore. Neal explicitly says that Mozzie's Theodore persona died but another one is born.

Don Giovanni has lots of sex and leaves the women broken hearted. But it's Mozzie who's the father, so it's Mozzie who's the ladies' man. Mozzie kept stressy fast time with Diana, the fast time that corresponds to the aria enumerating Giovanni's conquests. He's the real Giovanni, not slick pretty face Neil.

Neal always keeps slow time, dancing with no one, but watched by a stress inducing Mozzie from the sidelines. Since Neal is watched, Neal did not do the camera dance perfectly. That's why he bowed to his audience of No One: Mozzie went in afterwards and deleted the footage. Neal fucks things up because he's following Mozzie's lead even when he knows he could do better. Neil always fucks things up, and he deliberately does that because he knows Mozzie has his back even when he's not there, even when he's seemingly acting as a midwife and ignoring Neal. Ditto Neal having Mozzie's back. That ties into the opening with Peter saying he'll be on the sidelines while Neal "figures things out". Mozzie is Peter. Neal got himself caught, and Mozzie followed the leader to spring Neal by infiltrating the FBI itself.

So, Neil wants to come out of the closet with Peter/Mozzie. He wants Mozzie to "come clean", and Neil did in fact deliberately get caught by the FBI, and Mozzie let it happen. Probably as a way to say the FBI know nothing, prove that they can keep up this ruse right under the biggest nose of the law, if only Mozzie would follow Neal's lead. That's why Neal bowed to a nonexistent audience, he was the conductor coordinating everything the whole time. Neal is the mastermind.

Neal dances with No One, with Mozzie, exclusively. He's in love with Mozzie, and he wants Mozzie to "make it official", get caught red handed: get married. Maybe that's why at the end of the whole White Collar series, Neal slips his leash and runs away to a life of crime with No One following him, with Mozzie hand in hand. Neal's been asking Mozzie to marry him, and Mozzie finally said yes. Be gay, do crime, never get caught.

Mozzie is the one who always gets away, even though he leaves things (a baby, a mini-me) behind that he shouldn't. Except like Peter on the sidelines for Neil, he's not actually leaving them. Mozzie could easily get caught, but the ladies he woos help him get away with it. I wonder if that means Neal, who claims he doesn't get caught, deliberately took the fall for one of Mozzie's identities.

At the end, Neal says that Mozzie has no cover identities left, that he's truly "no one". They do everything together. So, I was right: Neal is a pretty face for Mozzie, and that's why Mozzie takes so damn long to say yes. Neal is "just" a pretty face, but he's the one face Mozzie can't walk away from. Giovanni most likes making conquests of the young and inexperienced. Approaches and preferences for Three Timer are slow and erotic, talking about what and how he's going to do everything. So, planning a crime and solving a crime are foreplay.

Maybe that means it's Neal who's the true No One, wearing a cover identity, and so "Caffrey doesn't get caught" because that's not Neal Caffrey serving time as an FBI informant. He's No One, and the FBI caught Nobody.

But that would mean Neal was the father to Diana's baby. I don't think that's a contradiction because Neal and Mozzie are "the same person": MARRIED. They trade roles, each stepping in for the other. Like the sketches of Mozzie that Neal shows to Siegal: it was two similar faces, but Neal isn't telling anyone else that the sketch he turned in wasn't the one of Mozzie that he showed to Siegal.

If Caffrey is No One, and Mozzie's baby with Diana was named Theodore Winters, then Mozzie's real name is Neal Caffrey who never gets caught. Neal's real name is Mozzie of the many faces.

When Neil runs off at the end of the series and is followed by no one while Peter watches, they're done with the foreplay of the how to get away with it and what they're going to steal (everything). They're off to do the real thing, tutorial finished.

I hope they bring Nicky back one day.

Devil Nicky is riding a rocket, and the bicep muscles are shaped to echo that rocket, in a way that surely surely surely isn't meant to look like a dick at all. how many totally accidental dick shapes can fit in one panel?

seven! seven dick shapes in one panel! ah-ha-ha!

"I'm always heavily armed", he says. guy's got jokes.

where have i seen that rocket rider before?

why, it's despicable deadpool, when wade was trying to kill cable after stealing his arm and saying "what's been inside me becomes mine" because stryfe wanted cable's heart.

.....wade got cable's arm, which was previously inside him, and his heart, which logically must have been inside him too, and gave the heart away to stryfe because stryfe wanted cable's heart for cloning. as if stryfe wasn't a clone of cable.

so therefore cable's heart and arm belonged to wade, and cable's heart also belonged to stryfe.

if the metal arm and heart were inside wade at one point, i don't think that's just a romantic making love euphemism. i think wade is made of metal. he's the techno-organic virus. that's his healing factor, just like cable's metal arm heals itself.

in this panel though, they hadn't murdered Old Man Cable to take the heart yet, so what on marvel's fucked up earth was happening that had belle riding a rocket?

kiss kiss, hold the bang bang. wade's hands are literally tied here, but his mask is pulled up. in the previous scene, cable blew the TOP of wade's head off after ripping the metal arm off him. wade could not have pulled out a replacement mask, let alone rolled up just the kissy part, while dead and while his arms are tied. CABLE replaced the mask, CABLE rolled up the kissy part.

anyway!

i haven't read cable reloaded, but it sure seems like the "battle ai" is a sex toy, and cable deliberately screwed up whatever mission that was because he likes getting all worked up and making things hard for hisself.

get yoself a human who acts like pets do?

People are going to come up with new & different interpretations of your story regardless of whether you reveal yours! You're withholding information that might add depth to the experience for no actual reason.

Even for people who do the "connect the dots" thing, it sort of kills the joy to have The Answer. Like, when you find your keys, you stop looking; if you have The Answer then it kills curiosity.

The main reason that artists do this, IMO, is because using literary devices like allegory and metaphor means a single theme can be about many many different things. Is a given metaphor about queer issues, disability issues, disenfranchisement, or about lacking access due to poor economic/government services infrastructure? The answer is "yes", even when different interpretations conflict with each other. Stating "it's about this" means that all other possibilities are gone.

the st universe is very very big on quality of life. there was a voyager episode about the sanctity of life vs quality of life, when the Q shoved into a comet for lifetimes demanded and won a right to suicide.

this is star trek, and it loves philosophical questions like data's trial in The Measure of a Man and the doctor's trial in Author Author. (Voyager EMH never got a name, or gave himself one, which is interesting in the context of a fight for human rights. does he not consider himself an individual? the title "author, author" itself feels like a play on the "doctor, doctor" trope.) ditto una's trial for being an augment in snw.

so, if we're talking in-universe, and we're ignoring any metalytical meanings, why didn't bashir un-augment himself? it's only superior enhancement that's banned, not all genetic therapy, not all genetic modification. he could have treated himself. why didn't he do it, given he said emphatically that his parents killed the person he used to be? why not resurrect himself?

is it about quality of life, like the q in the comet? does he know he was so disabled that going back to who he used to be isn't worth it? how is that different from preventing Q, or anyone, from committing suicide because "it gets better" and "you just have to hang on" and blah blah blah platitudes designed to comfort the people violating someone else's autonomy? was bashir as a kid constantly hurting himself, constantly attempting to kill himself, constantly hurting other people, not out of malice but because he plain did not understand what he was doing? like a rescued borg would, unable to understand what it's doing, unable to think for itself, unable to have any quality of life unless its augmentations are removed? what's the difference?

But fine, okay, you want to talk? Let me tell you a story about a girl named Sam.

She's my age. We were in kindergarten together, before she was moved to full-time special education classes. My area had an excellent sped program, so she was in the same buildings as me all the way through high school. Sam is severely intellectually disabled. She's physically disabled, too, has ticks she can't control. She needs full-time care, wears a diaper, will never be able to live on her own. Sam is the happiest person I have ever met. Everyone who ever met her said it. She would walk down the halls with her para, grinning and singing, and people would stop to talk to her. They had a hard time understanding what she said, a lot of the time. That didn't matter. She was so happy, it brightened their days regardless.

Now, I'm not saying every intellectually disabled person is Sam, but I do have to ask you: when you say "quality of life," whose life, exactly, are you referring to? Is it truly the child's happiness that you're looking for? Or is it the parents'? Can you really, truly tell me that the one you're most worried about is the child? Or do you only care about the parents' feelings, the parents' broken dreams?

There's a lot more I could say in response to you - about how cancer is the growth of mutated cells and getting rid of the diseased cells isn't "genetic modification" in a true "altering the genome" sense, about how SNW severely mishandled Una's enhancements by comparing them to queer issues, about my thoughts on Bashir - but it's all very much beside the point. The point is: eugenics is fucking bad. You talk about "violating autonomy" in response to preventing a Q from suicide - but you don't think forcibly genetically engineering someone who can't consent is an extreme violation of autonomy? Why is it not a violation of autonomy to decide for someone else that they don't get to live as they are?

Who the hell are you to decide that people's lives aren't good enough? Who are you to decide their lives aren't worth living?

active star trek fan? ✓

interested in the philosophical and moral implications of fiction? ✓

willing to discuss that, even when you believe most of the fandom disagrees? ✓

am i sorry for thinking you are a decent person? TBD

>COMING ONTO IT

i was chatting up the post, not hitting on it. i guess i did pick it up, take it out, and make an advance by reblogging? i didn't proposition it, but apparently you think i got inappropriate with it. i COULD try my luck, but you just tried to run the bases without establishing a safe word and my little black book doesn't read that as safe or sane or consensual.

>"WELL, MAYBE SOME EUGENICS IS OKAY, ACTUALLY,

not what i said in any form. you're the one who keeps saying that, a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y. i explicitly posed multiple very different questions TO YOU without sharing my own thoughts, due to the aforementioned "thinking you're a decent person". i also explicitly grounded all questions in the fictional star trek universe, and did not once bring up anything IRL. fictionally, you can murder an entire universe because it's your kink, and that means nothing about your IRL moral character; IRL, murder one person for any reason and it's like you fucked a goat.

I'm sorry to be dismissive, since I'm not unsympathetic to what it means to have a lifestyle that's taboo throughout most of society and is completely unrecognized by law, but this is one of the most ridiculous-on-its-face asks I've ever received in my inbox.

So, one way of doing marriage (monogamy) is very much the default, and somehow it follows that a non-monogamous person or someone otherwise opposed to its default status is totally justified in claiming that the "average" people who participate in it forbid their partners from ever speaking to someone else of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives. Because this is obviously what "monogamy" "upholds" (like the concept itself, which refers to a relationship style rather than an ideology, can believe in anything), "even if they don't believe it" -- I guess you're saying that even if straight people in monogamous relationships don't think they're issuing a lifelong ban against their partners ever speaking to another member of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives, they want to in spirit or something.

IMO no fault divorce being a very recent thing, but sexual cheating has always been a reason for divorce [after divorce was invented], and historically if you never sexually consummated a marriage then you could always get it annulled, means the legal definition of monogamy does have "outrageous" rules which are treated as something you'd expect any civilized person to abide by.

Tangentially:

>#but not legally recognizing something as marriage#isn't the same as decreeing that such relationships are not allowed

I'm not sure if you're making a different point, but by that logic gay people could always have their gay relationships even though they were socially demonized and legally criminalized. That's a different philosophical statement though, in that "do these people have the same rights as others" vs "can you feel gay love/have gay sex" are very different conversations. Could gay people do things like have sex and own a house and live together? Sure could. Could gay people do things like be the legally recognized and equal parents of a child, did they have hospital visitation rights for each other, upon death can the survivor easily and automatically inherit the estate? No.

Like, you sure can murder people even though it's illegal. Technically the murderer will only have trouble if they're caught, so logically, they can live just as freely as anyone else. Philosophically, yes that's true and legal status of murderer-rights doesn't matter. In all other ways, murder being illegal very much does matter if you murder somebody.

I think that's the same difference anon is talking about. Polyamory is not legally recognized, and they do not have those same rights that gay people fight for. So, can poly people live together and adopt kids? Probably; there's lots of housing regulations that designate buildings as single family homes, so you can't have other people on the deed plus other restrictions. But the legal nonrecognition means they don't automatically get custody of a child they're not the biological parent for when one of their partners dies. Ditto inheriting an estate and hospital rights, the ability to make decisions for a child whom you are not on the birth certificate for, etc.

Like, straight people don't have to get married either, but if they don't, they lack all these same rights and have all these same problems. Marriage is functionally a legal power to act as a collective unit. Lacking marriage rights is functionally crippling.

Regarding the first part of your reblog: you're talking about all kinds of ridiculous laws concerning marriage which haven't been around since sometime before we (and the great majority of people on Tumblr viewing or participating in this discussion) were even born, so I don't see it as being of very strong relevance to mono vs. poly discussions happening today. (It's not like discussing racism today by bringing up slavery or Jim Crow, which of course did have severe multi-generational impact even if they haven't actually been around for more than half a century.)

And (less epistemic confidence here) the restrictions you bring up involving "marriage = sex" could be just as validly viewed within the framework of all the ways marriage itself has historically been treated in silly ways, rather than how monogamy (or the philosophy or the spirit behind monogamy) has been treated in silly ways. I mean, for instance, we could have had a society where it's possible to get multiple marriages at the same time (or for a man to have polygamous marriages) but any one of them could be annulled on the grounds of one's spouse refusing to have sex with you or one's spouse having sex with someone else outside of any of their marriages.

As for the part where I put in tags something to the effect of "not legally recognizing some type of relationship as marriage isn't the same as disallowing such relationships from happening", there's a reason I put it in brief phrases in the tags, and that's because I wasn't up for being any more than vague and sloppy about the idea. I'm not even sure I remember, now, weeks later, precisely what I was trying to get at. I think you engaged with it pretty well, and I agree that the legal benefits that come along with the right to marry someone are important and are part of what made same-sex marriage rights important. But I would point out that there is just a difference in degree between banning legal recognition of marriage between X people (and allowing the particular legal rights that go with it to be inaccessible to X people) and wanting to live in a world where all X-ish relationships are disallowed privately. Back in the day before gay marriage was legal outside of a couple of states, twenty years ago or more, I certainly knew people who were fine with letting people do what they wanted in their private lives (even if they had an "ugh gross" gut feeling about homosexuality) and might even respect their partner turning out to be gay and pursuing a same-sex relationship (of course breaking off their straight one), but were not okay with putting same-sex relationships on an equal society-recognized status as opposite-sex relationships by allowing them to ever be called "marriage". Therefore, I would very tentatively disagree with statements such as, for instance, "The average opponent of gay marriage wants to forbid their friends from ever being in any kind of same-sex relationship", with the "very tentatively" being because the stauncher opponents of gay marriage clearly really do oppose homosexuality in general and probably distance themselves from friends who begin to engage in it.

in the usa, no-fault divorce isn't a federal law, it's state by state. ny was the last to legalize it, in 2010. prior to that, every state but SD and NY had made it legal. that's just the usa; the uk didn't have it until 2022. four years ago. sans no-fault, people had to prove things like abandonment, cruelty, or sexual infidelity. wikipedia says that lots of couples would fake the husband's infidelity, where it would be planned that he would "hook up" with a stranger and a photographer would suddenly pop up to document it.

which doesn't change the original topic of whether "all" or even a majority or commonly would straight couples literally ban each other from talking to anyone of the opposite sex without a chaperone. it's just another point of "wtf" in the history of marriage.

>there is just a difference in degree between banning legal recognition of marriage between X people (and allowing the particular legal rights that go with it to be inaccessible to X people) and wanting to live in a world where all X-ish relationships are disallowed privately

Hbomberguy's post came before she said anything about being underpaid for her music. She was annoyed about being "ghosted", and he claimed that she drove people away by posting radioactively controversial stuff. Using the lolicon thing as an example.

Then she pointed out that he paid her poorly for a video soundtrack, though she qualified it by saying "it was my first job and probably the first time he made a big commission for creative work, so we both thought it was ok at the time".

Publicly mocking her and tying her to lolicon art* seems pretty straightforwardly malicious given all the other options that were available to him and I am very suspicious of it.

This sort of thing is, apparently, the main reason he didn't really want to tie himself to her. Despite being a fan of her work.

He deleted the post after ten minutes, I'm told, presumably for that very reason. Unfortunately he had already been screenshotted and shared. The real villain here is online fame in general, I think.

I've made some unkind comments and regretted them ten minutes later. I think most people have. Fortunately I'm not famous, and none of the people I made them to were currently being Kiwifarmed.

Let's follow this hypothetical for a moment. You just said it's not right to do a callout over drawings. If there was a kiwifarms mob trying to drive you to suicide for saying that then wouldn't it be harming you if I then went on to mockingly blame your own comments for the situation in front of all my followers? Doesn't that seem like victim blaming to you in the context of the whole ongoing harassment campaign?

Saying things on the internet actually is "to blame" for being harassed. That's cause, effect. It's not victim blaming, though it sure can "seem" like victim blaming.

VB has to have an element of "you deserve this", and/or "the only person who's done any wrong here is you, the victim, and so you're performing victimhood to get sympathy for your shitty criminal behavior and that's DARVO", and/or "this is just natural consequences, you should have known better" etc variations on the theme. It is not victim blaming to point out that fame on the internet generates harassment, or that saying controversial things or wading into controversial topics creates harassment. That is pure cause/effect and it is correct to point out. Pure cause/effect can be a form of stealth VB, plausible deniability, but philosophically a line drawn from A to B in showing "why" bad things are happening to someone is not mean. The meanness is in "THEREFORE you deserve it".

And as the other poster said these harassment mobs form over the most trivial things if you are receiving sufficient attention. You can summon them just for advocating standard progressive policies, or even just for being vaguely "cringe".

It is true that, historically, black skin obligatorily meant you were a slave. Ought they have given up all rights to autonomy, to freedom, just because of that cause+effect? I'd hope not.

That's the difference between VB and fact.

Fact: people are shitty and will do ugly things for any reason while calling it moral. Fact: people have different skin colors.

Cause: somebody said something and it got passed around to the point that enough assholes whipped up the necessary fervor for a sustained harassment campaign. Cause: slavery was based on skin color.

Effect: somebody gets harassed. Effect: black people were enslaved.

Factually you could say it's probably to be expected that pro-Palestine posts can get you deported from the US or that making fun of Charlie Kirk can get you fired. You could even say that kind of thing is to be expected in the current political landscape.

But that doesn't mean it's wrong to criticize that behavior or reference victim blaming if someone goes "well what did you expect when you were posting controversial things online?" You said yourself that this can be a form of stealthy victim blaming, but draw the line at explicitly saying "therefore you deserve it", but in practice you can leave that part as a mere unspoken implication and people will draw that conclusion on their own even if there is a proven malicious actor involved.

>"well, sorry to say but that's pure cause and effect for not covering your body enough"

Also if you're going to go into how disability might go into an analogy about victim blaming you don't even need to invent such a tortured comparison? There's already plenty of people who believe if you're disabled or have a health problem you must have done something to cause it. It happens very obviously with things like diabetes, for example.

Hbomberguy's post came before she said anything about being underpaid for her music. She was annoyed about being "ghosted", and he claimed that she drove people away by posting radioactively controversial stuff. Using the lolicon thing as an example.

Then she pointed out that he paid her poorly for a video soundtrack, though she qualified it by saying "it was my first job and probably the first time he made a big commission for creative work, so we both thought it was ok at the time".

Publicly mocking her and tying her to lolicon art* seems pretty straightforwardly malicious given all the other options that were available to him and I am very suspicious of it.

This sort of thing is, apparently, the main reason he didn't really want to tie himself to her. Despite being a fan of her work.

He deleted the post after ten minutes, I'm told, presumably for that very reason. Unfortunately he had already been screenshotted and shared. The real villain here is online fame in general, I think.

I've made some unkind comments and regretted them ten minutes later. I think most people have. Fortunately I'm not famous, and none of the people I made them to were currently being Kiwifarmed.

Let's follow this hypothetical for a moment. You just said it's not right to do a callout over drawings. If there was a kiwifarms mob trying to drive you to suicide for saying that then wouldn't it be harming you if I then went on to mockingly blame your own comments for the situation in front of all my followers? Doesn't that seem like victim blaming to you in the context of the whole ongoing harassment campaign?

Saying things on the internet actually is "to blame" for being harassed. That's cause, effect. It's not victim blaming, though it sure can "seem" like victim blaming.

VB has to have an element of "you deserve this", and/or "the only person who's done any wrong here is you, the victim, and so you're performing victimhood to get sympathy for your shitty criminal behavior and that's DARVO", and/or "this is just natural consequences, you should have known better" etc variations on the theme. It is not victim blaming to point out that fame on the internet generates harassment, or that saying controversial things or wading into controversial topics creates harassment. That is pure cause/effect and it is correct to point out. Pure cause/effect can be a form of stealth VB, plausible deniability, but philosophically a line drawn from A to B in showing "why" bad things are happening to someone is not mean. The meanness is in "THEREFORE you deserve it".

And as the other poster said these harassment mobs form over the most trivial things if you are receiving sufficient attention. You can summon them just for advocating standard progressive policies, or even just for being vaguely "cringe".

It is true that, historically, black skin obligatorily meant you were a slave. Ought they have given up all rights to autonomy, to freedom, just because of that cause+effect? I'd hope not.

That's the difference between VB and fact.

Fact: people are shitty and will do ugly things for any reason while calling it moral. Fact: people have different skin colors.

Cause: somebody said something and it got passed around to the point that enough assholes whipped up the necessary fervor for a sustained harassment campaign. Cause: slavery was based on skin color.

Effect: somebody gets harassed. Effect: black people were enslaved.

Factually you could say it's probably to be expected that pro-Palestine posts can get you deported from the US or that making fun of Charlie Kirk can get you fired. You could even say that kind of thing is to be expected in the current political landscape.

But that doesn't mean it's wrong to criticize that behavior or reference victim blaming if someone goes "well what did you expect when you were posting controversial things online?" You said yourself that this can be a form of stealthy victim blaming, but draw the line at explicitly saying "therefore you deserve it", but in practice you can leave that part as a mere unspoken implication and people will draw that conclusion on their own even if there is a proven malicious actor involved.

>"well, sorry to say but that's pure cause and effect for not covering your body enough"