Have you seen Spider-Man: Brand New Day?
not yet. I hope to soon.
Have you? I heard it's pretty good.
Plus has a cameo of my favorite Sinister Foe: Boomerang!
I have. It's good, but I prefer the previous ones.
Monterey Bay Aquarium

titsay
ojovivo
Interview Vampire Daily
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
Fai_Ryy
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Noah Kahan

⣠Chile in a Photography ā£
One Nice Bug Per Day

if i look back, i am lost
macklin celebrini has autism
$LAYYYTER


tannertan36
KIROKAZE
art blog(derogatory)
Cosimo Galluzzi
h

seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia

seen from Canada

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Colombia

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Russia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
@thesuperiorfoe
Have you seen Spider-Man: Brand New Day?
not yet. I hope to soon.
Have you? I heard it's pretty good.
Plus has a cameo of my favorite Sinister Foe: Boomerang!
I have. It's good, but I prefer the previous ones.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Follow up on the Northern knights question. Would it have made sense for the North to have a layer of nobility that is effectively a knight without the religious significance?
I believe that's what masterly houses are - they're landed knights under a new name.
-SLAL
This is a really interesting question to me because being a knight isn't just being an armored, mounted lance; it confers legal and social privileges even without the land. The only reason Ser Duncan is able to insist on a trial by combat, for example, is because he is a knight and not just some common scum; knights have rights the commoners do not.
There's a lot of philosophy built around that, of course, and people believe it, but the ultimate practical reality of it is "this is a society ruled by the warrior aristocracy, who want being a member of said warrior aristocracy to convey special rights and privileges."
So in the absence of knighthood, the question of "how WOULD the north convey those special rights and privileges to the lower echelons of that class" is interesting.
Masterly Houses manage that for the middle ranks of the warrior aristocracy, people who hold land, but not for the lower ranks. In the south, if you are the household knight of a lord, or even a hedge knight, you still carry the rights and privileges of knighthood with you wherever you go without holding land. How would those privileges be conveyed to the equivalent of a household knight serving, say, House Karstark? You worship the Old Gods. You are not a knight and will never be one. But you have a horse and armor and a sword, and probably want special rights that the peasant scum laboring in the fields don't get. Your heavily armed and armored buddies also probably want that. In the south, you'd be a knight, and that's how you get those rights. What does the north provide for you instead?
Martin seems to sort of punt on this topic whenever it comes up. Rodrik Cassel, for example, isn't just some armed guy on retainer to the Starks; he is SER Rodrik Cassel, an anointed knight, like you'd have in the south.
Agreed. I would imagine the North would have had privileges that certain lords maintain as befits their rank, probably stemming from clan chieftains and their sworn companions in mead halls to the more formalized and structured feudal tenancy as the generations went on. They were probably structured into something very similar to southron knighthoods under the Jaehaerysian legal consolidation. But I'd imagine the knighthood name, with its Faith connotations, would not have the same name.
Actually, the North does have knights like the other kingdoms.
Ser Bartimus of White Harbor, for example, is lowly knight in charge of Manderly's jail, but he worships the Old Gods.
Screw the naysayers. The Mandalorian and Grogu is AWESOME!!!
So, any thoughts on the Kakistocrat running the US saying that he'll withdraw troops from Germany, Italy, and Spain?
Pulling 5,000 troops from Germany because of a statement Merz made, but is providing ABO for Iran, and thus treating them *worse* than Spain who is actively rejecting ABO is certainly a strategy. It's not enough to throw a temper tantrum in front of the whole world, but to actively do it so stupidly.
Seriously, this shit is just baffling.
Thanks for the question, CC.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
Well, Trump can't exactly pull 5,000 troops from Spain, since it's only got 3,700.
In order to make an equivalent penalty, he'd have to remove 500 troops, which is so ridiculously low it's not a penalty at all.
Daredevil: Born Again 02x04 - Gloves Off
We get a lot of Bullseye focus this episode, which is nice. Though the main plot is still being held back by bewildering story choices.
The arms thing is based on the Iran-Contra affair, where the American government very much didn't want the public to find out they were giving weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra, as that was outlawed by Congress.
I think it's going to turn out Fontaine is arming anti-Wakandan militias.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
I love it when Dex šÆ.
Jess has a daughter?!?!
Do you think Iran is right in its strategy or are they destined to fall?
I think it's an incredibly risky strategy likely to cost them more in the long run.
-SLAL
What long-term costs do you envision?
X-men Second coming? More like Logan terrorizing children the comic
And people say Logan acting like a jackass is āOuT oF cHaRaCtErā š
The Uncanny X-Men āManga Kidā joke that people melted down over is 100% something Logan would say
What Manga Kid joke?
Do you think your disdain of Trump and Hegseth is clouding your judgement over Iran? We seem to be able to take out their leaders with impunity and most of their military equipment is taken out that seems a success to me. I mean with their water problems and no economy how do they survive in the future?
I don't particularly think so, no. When it comes to analyzing Trump and Hegseth specifically, we have to look past tactical and operational craft and think strategically. These guys aren't planning approach vectors, they're leading the armed forces. These are the leaders who entered into this so we need to judge their strategic acumen. So we ask, what is their theory of victory, how do they achieve this aim, and the reverse is true for Iran - how does Iran define victory and what actions are Trump and Hegseth taking to deny it to them?
Already we're off to a bad start, because Trump does not bother to articulate one that lasts from day to day. Is it regime change? Stopping Iran from exporting terror to the greater Middle East? Getting a pliable Ayatollah in charge? Stopping the nuclear program? He's given these reasons, and he's also denied these reasons. So what are we looking at when it comes to an actual end-state? This is, in no uncertain terms, a strategic failure by Trump. If you can't even define victory, then how are you going to achieve it? We decapitated the leadership - alright but that didn't get us a pliable Ayatollah in charge. Instead, the IRGC are galvanized and Khameni's failson is in charge. Domestic uprisings haven't manifested, ethnic separatism hasn't manifested (the Kurds aren't falling for it again), and the IRGC is still poised to gun down more Iranians. Unless Trump has a plan to kill most of the IRGC.
The threat of an attack against the Straits of Hormuz has effectively bottled up a lot of oil, oil that Asia in particular has high demand for. The threat of a Hormuz closure has been known to wargamers and Iran foreign policy experts for years - heck, the Tanker War was only forty years ago, this was evident to all. How this was not accounted for in planning? To ignore such a known factor is a strategic failure.
And what's worse, Trump had no plan for how to deal with this. Since oil prices were going to skyrocket, Trump could have tapped the strategic petroleum reserve and had ships already ready to send to our allies in Asia that need it, especially Japan. That could have been a windfall that could have offset some of the cost of this war. Instead, he didn't prepare for anything and the SPR is only at 60% capacity (Trump said he was going to fill it - doesn't seem likely now). Hegseth says we have "unlimited ammunition," yet promises of increased production haven't noticeably increased our production rates for interceptors. Instead, Hegseth wants to give speeches about "no quarter" (just FYI, it's against Army regs to announce "no quarter" even facetiously in statements, let alone to actually do it), because he's not trying to set our Armed Forces up for victory, he's a tabless trying to LARP as an operator.
We actually have a better idea of Iran's strategy. In the absence of conventional military power that could feasibly threaten the United States, they're using an asymmetric military strategy to wait out the US until domestic political and economic pressure forces a retreat. Trump, with his "trigger the libs" persona, would be hard-pressed in any case to secure enough national unity to secure support for his war, but it's obvious that a lot of people don't like this war on both sides of the aisle. While he was able to stave off a War Powers resolution, domestic discontent is already going to grow. Trump is not doing things he needs to prevent Iran from achieving their strategic end-state (survival and an American retreat).
So tell me, am I truly blinded by my disdain? Or am I seeing the issue that tactical victory does not equal strategic victory?
Thanks for the question, Anon.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
It seems doubtful that Mojtaba will be willing to make the deal that the Trump admin wants, so where do we go from here? It just continues until Trump gets bored? But Israel will likely still want to put pressure even if the Americans are unwilling
This is the problem when you don't think of second-order and third-order effects to your actions - you end up in a situation worse than you think with no clear end-state in sight. The Trump administration has no idea how to get to a desirable end-state, just as the US struggled with in Afghanistan a while back. With US air and sea power, striking an identified target is easy, but while that can be the desirable end-state for eliminating a particularly charismatic and effective terror group leader (these groups typically suffer from a lack of efficacy when talented leaders die and sometimes splinter and fight amongst themselves), that doesn't necessarily mean that taking out the leader of a rogue state topples the rest of the state. This is doubly true when the regime knows that in the event of an overthrow, every single member of the regime will undoubtedly face a firing squad due to their decades of repression, as is the case with Iran.
If the Trump administration actually wanted to credibly deter the shooting of protesters, a proportionate response to the shooting of protesters, such as the destruction of an IRGC command center that participated in those actions might have worked (probably not though, if we're being honest). An actual overthrow would have required liaising with the opposition, arming them, and ensuring elite defections from less hardliners institutions (reformist leaders and the actual army as opposed to IRGC and Basij). But that's a long and laborious process and Trump has the attention span of an eight-year-old not taking his Ritalin. So we're left with a big, clumsy, loud mess that does not accomplish our strategic goals.
Mining the Straits of Hormuz was something that every planner knew was going to happen (though it looks like Iran is using drones to threaten tankers rather than fully mine the Straits). Worse, Iran is still offloading oil and sending it to China, so we get the worst of both worlds (not to mention Russia gets sanctions relief right when their economy looks wobbly).
This is what happens when people who don't know strategy ignore the people in the room who do.
Thanks for the question, Anon.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Question-
Now that we know Laura was editorially mandated to join the Academy X kidsā¦. (which WAS a good call honestly! I donāt think her character would be HALF as successful as she is without an āEvo like X-Men groupā to play off of and she probably would have just ended up like Daken or Jimmy Hudson. š)ā¦
Which kids would have been selected? (they were supposed to focus on 12)
My guess is most of the āNew Mutantsā would have survived⦠along with Kevin because of the Garrison plotline⦠with maybe Josh going BAD!
They also said the Hellions would be in the book since they were working on the mini at the timeā¦
X-23/Laura Kinney
Elixir/Josh Foley
Wither/Kevin Foley
Wallflower/Laurie Collins
Wind Dancer/ Sofia Mantega
Prodigy/ David Alleyne
Surge/Noriko Ashida
Icarus/ Jay Gutherie
Hellion/Julian Keller
Mercury/ Cessily Kincaid
Dust/Sooyara Qadir
???
I actually wish we had gotten DeFilippis/Weirās take- I would have been interested to see what they did with Laura and them continuing their created characters!
I definitely donāt think the āLaura/Hellionā relationship would have happened- Iāve always said that I think if Sofia had stayed, Julian would have remained fixated on her.
I definitely think there would have been more Laurie/Josh/Kevin/Cess drama! (And Wallflower wouldnāt have been fridged! š«¤)
I also wonder if Prodigy and Surge would have stayed together? Icarus and Dust??
Damn! I really wish Marvel would bring the writers back! Thereās enough nostalgia to sell and it would be interesting to see what they would do!
This probably sounds a bit Wag the Dog, but do you think that there is anything to the idea that Trump attacking Iran is to distract people from the Epstein files? Especially as there doesn't seem a coherent plan outside of make lots of noise.
No, I don't think so. We should not mistake "a lack of strategic planning and clarity" with "a need to distract from the Epstein files." If the goal was to distract from the Epstein files, there's much easier things to do than attack Iran.
I think the decision has more to do with the successful Maduro operation emboldening further military action (and the not-necessarily true belief that any operation can be over very swiftly) and Iran's previous attempt to assassinate Trump.
Thanks for the question, Classicist.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
.... Okay I am willing to be called a stupid fool for this but just to let you know I actually despise this people, that being said is Rubio and Hegseth actually being competent with the Iran strikes? I really hope not and I am really wishing it is our armed forces who are the ones getting things done but I have to be intellectually consistent, and that includes giving credit when credit is do.
Cabinet-level officials are typically not involved in actual operational planning, so I wouldn't really attribute success of any particular operations to Hegseth. And Rubio's the SecState, he has no influence over the DoD.
One of the US military's success is that we train a whole lot. We run through scenarios all the time, specifically to make these operations familiar and ensure that our troops can perform their best, even under the stresses of actual combat. Doing training like this costs a lot of money and sucks a whole lot. But there's an asset to it, the difference between countries that perform their training and those that don't is very obvious when you observe, for example, Russian military performance in Ukraine to US military performance. So if you want to credit anyone for a well-executed op, it's the troops that drill day-in, day-out. It's the NCO's who can keep their squads working like a cohesive, functional unit. It's everyone from the operations officer that draws up the training plan to the NCO's who ensure it gets done to the individual soldiers who know their role and carry it out with great expertise.
Where leadership can get credit is organizational expertise, which Hegseth doesn't really show much competence, and in imparting strategic vision. This current conflict suffers from a lack of a clear strategic endstate, and that's a failure of the civilian leadership.
Thanks for the question, Anon.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
Respectfully why do you think the Iranian regime is going to hang on? It's clear that they can't defend their own leaders, their economy is in shambles, they are about to run out of water and everybody in the region hates them. And after the high levels of violence and violation of the protesters why wouldn't the rest of population rise up if they smell blood in the water?
Fair question. The problem that the protesters have is that they're outgunned and don't have an effective C2 structure in place to sustain ground pressure to take captives and force surrender. The IRGC and the hardliners know that in the event that the protesters take power, they're unlikely to be merciful and incorporate the entity that killed thousands of them in the past few months alone. So the protesters are going to need to fight for the chance to establish a free country.
This is why I made mention of high-level defections being a game-changer. If the army or significant political figures announced their support to the protesters, the game changes. But that hasn't happened yet. Until it does, or a ground army from a protester-friendly country moves in to provide them with firepower, I don't see the IRGC voluntarily relinquishing power or the protesters having the ability to force a change in affairs.
Thanks for the question, Anon.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
In Dunkās trial at Ashford; the kings guard are forbidden from doing anything more than defending themselves against Baelor.
First, is that true? Donāt KGs joust against royals?
Second, if so That⦠seems pretty impractical, for a trial by combat doesnāt it?
Yes, Rhaegar won in the joust at the Tourney at Harrenhal including against half the Kingsguard, so the Kingsguard definitely joust against princes of the blood - and I'm not a believer in the "KG always throw jousts against the princes" theory. Jousting is different from actually fighting in a trial by combat. In a joust, the goal is to unhorse the other opponent, in a trial by combat, the goal is explicitly and specifically to kill the other combatant. Jousting can be dangerous (just ask Robyn Rhysling or Henry VIII) but it's altogether different from a trial by combat.
Thanks for the question, Dayne.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
On the other hand, the KG explicitly say that they don't joust against royals in THK, to Dunk's relief.
The seven champions of the Kingsguard were the most puissant warriors in all the Seven Kingdoms, saving only perhaps the crown prince, Baelor Breakspear himself. "Have you come to enter the lists?" Dunk asked anxiously.
"It would not be fitting for us to ride against those we are sworn to protect," answered Ser Donnel, red of hair and beard.
"Prince Valarr has the honor to be one of Lady Ashford's champions," explained Ser Roland, "and two of his cousins mean to challenge. The rest of us have come only to watch."

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
I weep no tears for Maduro. Fuck that guy. But was that legal under international law?
Law enforcement actions relating to drug or weapons smuggling are not typically considered sufficient reasons to authorize military force. Typically, when the US captured and extradites these types of targets, it's usually cleared via private backchannels with local authorities (and local authorities are usually happy for someone to rid them of a powerful criminal baron). Unlike the 1989 invasion of Panama and capture of Noriega, the US hasn't recognized a legitimate opposition leader to justify the action via electoral fraud (which is also not considered justified). The self-defense argument, which was also used in Panama, is hampered because unlike Panama, US citizens were not killed and in statements, no one has articulated that argument. Further complicating matters is Trump's own statements regarding oil, but frankly, Trump will say anything to make himself feel like a big shot so I chalk this up to just more verbal nonsense.
Practically speaking, however, this has never really done much. The Soviet Union and Russia regularly flouted these exact provisions and was met with a ho-hum from international bodies. Heck, the UN was only allowed to form because the Soviet Union demanded the right to ignore it whenever it needed, which was essential for its planned 1948 coup in Czechoslovakia. No international body will stop a great power doing whatever it wants to do. Typically, these actions are only stopped by another great power intervening: key examples being the Suez Crisis or Desert Storm. Neither Russia nor China are willing to go to bat for Venezuela, and Cuba lacks the capacity to do anything.
Thanks for the question, Anon.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
The New Mutants gen 2, hurts to think that they found a way to kill every single one of them... Nori survived for soooo long tho