Okay, but following Obi-Wan’s apparent return from the dead after the Crisis on Naboo arc, I like to believe that younglings and padawans across the Temple were just like, “Yeah, death had a near-Obi-Wan Kenobi experience,” and then rolled with it.
“Obi-Wan Kenobi doesn’t cheat death. He wins fair and square.”
“General Grievous checks his closet every night for Obi-Wan Kenobi.”
“Obi-Wan Kenobi once played Corellian roulette with a fully-loaded sniper rifle and won.”
“Obi-Wan Kenobi was once bitten by a acklay and after five days of excruciating pain, the acklay died.”
Then somehow the clones heard about it and it went downhill from there.
Rules For A Gunfight by Drill Instructor Joe B. Fricks, USMC
1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammunition is cheap – life is expensive. If you shoot inside, buckshot is your friend. A new wall is cheap – funerals are expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker and go to cover. Distance is your friend. (Bulletproof cover and diagonal or lateral movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a semi or full-automatic long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. Yell “Fire!” Why “Fire”? Cops will come with the Fire Department, sirens often scare off the bad guys, or at least cause then to lose concentration and will…. and who is going to summon help if you yell ”Intruder,” “Glock” or “Winchester?”
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work. “No battle plan ever survives 10 seconds past first contact with an enemy.”
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible, but remember, sheetrock walls and the like stop nothing but your pulse when bullets tear through them.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. Practice reloading one-handed and off-hand shooting. That’s how you live if hit in your “good” side.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. Smiles, frowns and other facial expressions don’t (In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.
22. Be courteous to everyone, overly friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than ”4″.
25. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.” At a practice session, throw your gun into the mud, then make sure it still works. You can clean it later.
26. Practice shooting in the dark, with someone shouting at you, when out of breath, etc.
27. Regardless of whether justified or not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature.
28. The only thing you EVER say afterwards is, “He said he was going to kill me. I believed him. I’m sorry, Officer, but I’m very upset now. I can’t say anything more. Please speak with my attorney.”
Finally, Drill Instructor Frick’s Rules For Un-armed Combat.
You want to hear me swoon over your progress and growth to boost your ego. However, I’d like to inform you that I’ve surpassed you. I have grown into a person that you’ll never have the privilege of knowing. And dear, that curse was of your own indirect choosing.
a/n: this was meant to be up yesterday, but of course the weather disagreed. My WiFi was out and my dumb laptop wouldn’t cooperate! I refuse to post long imagines from mobile, anyways! I have something pretty great coming up sometime tomorrow, so be ready for that! xx
prompt: A day off for the Avengers can be extremely exciting… or very, very lazy… or both.
pairing: Bucky Barnes x Reader
warnings: language (?), a very grumpy Bucky, fluff, and awful puns. I swear, I shouldn’t be allowed to write. *not my gif*
You Know what? Fuck anyone who thinks we've cheated. I've straight out ignored everything else to vote for the boys, I ain't taking that cheating Shit. We're just working our asses off and making sure our boys get what they deserve. Bye.
Sing roleswap au! These drawing are not to proper scale for character heights/sizes. A behemoth of a project that i put lots of love into! I thought it might be fun to switch around the roles for that characters, and hey- I was right! Full character rundowns beneath the cut since it’s a lot
forget the fake dating plots, give me the fake engagement plots because it’s a hundred times more angst i mean?
when muse a has been telling their parents they’ve been seeing somebody and finally say they’re engaged to get them off their back, and then surprise!! the whole family ships out to meet the lucky person and they gotta suddenly scramble for a fake fiance/fiancee
when the person they ask is their friend and muse b has been secretly hiding that they actually have feelings but say yes just to get close to muse a and hopefully get rid of the feelings but god knows that doesn’t work
the moving in together and having to get used to sleepy faces and sleeping in the same room and awkwardly brushing their teeth in the morning but it eventually becomes very familiar and natural
meeting the family!!! listening to embarrassing stories and cute naked baby pics while muse a sits around moping bc “mooomm why are you showing these i asked you to burn these”
having to practice being affectionate so it looks real
“what do you mean kiss? right now? in front of the whole family?”
“kiss me right now in front of the whole family”
what becomes normal hand holding and touching even when they’re not in public
mom/grandmother bringing their old wedding dress and insisting muse b trying it on and it’s huge on her but the mom/grandmother is crying and muse a comes in and the dress is literally falling off muse b and their family members are crying in the corner
the family throwing a bridal shower and the couple casually cheating to win the newlywed game
actual bridal dress shopping!!! when muse b tries on ‘the dress’ and everybody is like omg…and muse a is like “shit shit these are real feelings ABORT MISSION ABORT MISSION”
when the family leaves and the two try and go back to normal but deny there are any real feelings :(
when muse a starts dating somebody else and their family is like “they’re okay but i liked muse b better”
do you think Mabel and Dipper fit the messiah/machiavel trope? cuz I do, and it makes me cry
Okay, I’ve never heard of this trope before so I had to do a bit of research. What I’ve gathered is that the trope is a type of teamwork, usually in the political sense: the shining charismatic leader and the vicious, cunning enforcer who supports the leader and/or their cause. The Messiah is the light and the Machieval is the shadow behind that light. The Messiah usually adheres to morality (like Jesus whom the term originates from); the Machieval favors expediency over morality (like Machiavelli whom the term originates from). Which all does sound like the kind of dynamic Dipper and Mabel have. Outside of the dynamic, I’d even say the individual titles, Machieval and Messiah, fit their characters too.
The Messiah in a narrative context is usually “the visionary, the leader, the savior, the person who may be literally god touched, or just god touched in the sense of the charisma, depth, and power of their vision or capacity to lead/embody that movement.”
Mabel is a natural born leader, there’s no doubt. Its easy for her to reach out and connect with others on an emotional level, and even inspire others to change for the better. She’s incredibly charismatic and charming, and her power even at 12 years old is enough to attract the attention of Gravity Falls’ villains, the gnomes and Gideon, who are insistent on making her their Queen. Seemingly effortlessly she can inspire others to help make her visions (trying out her idealistic version of management running the Mystery Shack, creating and constructing an entire sock opera in a week, etc.) a reality. All qualities of a good leader.
But a Messiah is more than a leader; they’re a savior. Mabel is also capable of seeing the good in others and offering forgiveness even if there’s no real evidence of this being true. She deems Pacifica and Robbie worthy of redemption. In NWHS she looks into Stan’s eyes, the windows to his soul, and judges him to be a good person worthy of being trusted and forgiven, despite all the bad things he’s done. After hearing Ford’s story in AToTS, Mabel basically instantly forgives the man and starts seeing him as another Grunkle she loves dearly, and wants nothing more than for Stan and Ford to forgive each other as she has forgiven them. When Dipper wants to rush into adulthood and becomes blinded by the supernatural, Mabel keeps him a child and reminds him of what’s truly important.
And like a Messiah, Mabel strives to be a good person. Yes, she’s flawed because she’s human. She can be aggressive and self-centered and impulsive. She can be blinded by her infatuations. She avoids emotional confrontation and would prefer to live in optimistic denial when she’s scared and life gets hard. But Mabel wants and tries to be a good, kind person. She goes out of her way to compliment others or brighten their days. She tries to do the right thing in any given situation, often playing morality police to Stan and Dipper. And when she’s wrong, she usually acknowledges that and apologizes. Mabel truly genuinely cares about other people and doing the right thing, and that’s more than most people can say.
Symbolically, Mabel takes on a Messiah-esque pose when she lets go of the button and essentially allows the universe to decide her, and everyone else’s, fates. In Weirdmaggadon she is literally seen as an icon of hope, inspiration, and guidance for Dipper and Gideon, and possibly Wendy and Soos as well. Her being alive and representing doing good, striving to be a good person despite her flaws, and having the ability to defeat Bill on her own (who is basically the “Devil” in this story) is what motivates them all to help find her and save her during the apocalypse and thus save the universe. So, yes, I think we can all agree that Mabel fits the Messiah trope quite well.
The Machiavel is a “term given to people who function in pragmatic, vicious, cunning ways. This is the person who holds the knife to the throat or the guns under the table. The one who blackmails, bribes, and does all the things that should never have to be done but must be done for the things they love.”
Dipper is not at all afraid to get his hands dirty to get what he wants and usually won’t hesitate to do what (he feels) must be done in a situation, even if that’s an immoral action. He’s a guile hero, ambitious, relying mostly on his wits, cunning and pragmatic with a grayscale sense of justice, all qualities that are very Machiavellian in nature. There are many, many examples of Dipper favoring expediency over morality shown in canon.
Like in Fight Fighters (lying and cheating to win a fight), Boss Mabel (ripping people off for money), The Golf War (cheating and sabotaging his sister’s competitor by manipulating others into doing what he wants) Sock Opera (making a literal deal with a demon to get what he wants), Society of the Blind Eye (using a memory erasing gun to erase the society member’s memories to prevent them from erasing anyone in town’s memories again, essentially committing the action he’s condemning the society for), A Tale of Two Stans (coming up with the idea to use the same gun on gov agents despite knowing the potential consequences the memory erasure could have on the agents’ sanities), the Stanchurian Candidate (mind-controlling his great uncle for political reasons, an action that’s literally compared to that of a villain in the show), etc.
In Headhunters, Mabel remarks that Dipper is her sidekick, and this is sort of true. Dipper usually plays more of the supporter/enforcer role than the visionary like Mabel, which is an interesting perspective for a main protagonist and narrator of a story to have. Mabel generally has the ideas, and Dipper generally helps make them happen. He’s usually the one that constructs a plan to make sure Mabel’s idea is a success in situations where they work together like that. He’s strategizing and cheering her on behind-the-scenes when she’s up front in the spotlight working her magic. And he’s planning to tear down anyone who gets in their way. The episode I believe that embodies this dynamic best is Golf War.
Mabel wants to beat Pacifica at golf. Dipper supports Mabel and her goal. He decides manipulating the lilliputtins and cheating is the best course of action for Mabel to win the match. Mabel disagrees at first, trying to play morality police to Dipper, pointing out cheating is wrong, but Dipper convinces her to trust him against her better judgment. They go through with his plan. It backfires. Mabel says that rivalries are stupid and offers Pacifica friendship, and so forgiveness. Dipper does not apologize to anyone, nor acknowledges that what he did was wrong. Throughout this whole episode, you have Mabel as the leader, the public figure, the one playing the match, and later the savior as she deems Pacifica worthy of forgiveness, and Dipper as the enforcer, the planner, the one standing off to the side, the one ensuring Mabel wins and doing whatever he feels is necessary to achieve that. The Messiah and the Machiavel.
And in fact, their physical positions on the castle emphasize this dynamic as well. Mabel is in the center like the King (or Queen), addressing the lilliputtins after being told Dipper’s plan, and Dipper is standing a little behind and beside her, closer to where the knight’s stationed (even borrowing the knight’s trumpet to garner everyone’s attention to Mabel).
Dipper and Mabel balance each other out, which I’m not sure is something that plays into the Messiah/Machiavel trope exactly, but is a large part of the twins’ dynamic. Mabel lets Dipper know when he’s taking things too far, and Dipper lets Mabel know when niceness isn’t gonna cut it, when someone doesn’t deserve her kindness. That’s not to say that the two are flat out opposites, however. The Messiah, like I said earlier, is still human. They have moments of selfishness and cruelty as Mabel does. And likewise, the Machiavel has moments of selflessness and kindness as Dipper does. Neither is one extreme or the other. Mabel may have a bigger heart than Dipper, but that doesn’t mean Dipper doesn’t have a heart at all. He does. He’s just more cynical and pragmatic (and arguably angrier) than Mabel is.
Nor is it true that Mabel is always in the light and Dipper is always in the shadows. Generally you see them more in this way, but Mabel is capable of stepping back and happily supporting Dipper when he has an idea too or wants to take the lead, which is part of what makes them a good team. Mabel isn’t as ruthless as Dipper and Dipper isn’t as big-hearted as Mabel, so they can’t take on each other’s tropes in a reverse dynamic where Dipper is the leader and Mabel the supporter. But they’re both human, and they both try to help each other make the best choices.
So, yeah, I guess Mabel and Dipper fit the Messiah/Machiavel trope for the most part. This wicked fanart from Boss Mabel really shows that kind of dynamic between them too, with Mabel in the boss chair (the throne of sorts) and Dipper standing a little behind and beside her again like a bodyguard or second in command, whispering in her ear.
at this point in the story how does yurio feel abt yuuri? does he still look up to him? does he hate him??
He has very mixed feelings about him now. On one hand, everyone knows that there must be a reason for Yuuri sleeping with Viktor despite hating him and the most commonly accepted one is that Yuuri is manipulating him, so that’s the view that Yuri is surrounded with. And if Yuuri is doing that, he’s cheating and has completely broken all of Yuri’s respect and kind of (not that he will ever admit it) hero worship of him. Yuri respected Yuuri for his skating and hard work and how he clawed his way up from the underdog to the top from sheer force of will and Yuuri manipulating Viktor to win undermines all of that respect. And even if Yuuri isn’t cheating to win, he’s still hurting Viktor in a way with what he’s doing, even if it’s Viktor’s choice to continue.
On the other hand, Yuri doesn’t want to believe that of Yuuri. He respects him and the accusations are there but Viktor denies them and there is no solid proof. So Yuuri might actually still be the skater Yuri thought he was and everyone else is wrong. But Yuuri must still have an ulterior motive for doing what he’s doing. Either he’s looking to gain something from Viktor by sleeping with him or it’s the other option that everyone else dismissed. He’s not hurting Viktor on purpose and it might actually be affection, or even love that keeps bringing him back.
So Yuri is completely stuck, either his idol is a manipulative cheat and just using Viktor like everyone thinks, or he actually care about, maybe even loves, Viktor but for some reason still jerking him around. Which brings Yuri onto his first confrontation with Yuuri.
“Hey asshole.” - You’re still a dick even if you are in love because you’ve been hurting Viktor
“Yes, I’m talking to you asshole.” - see above
“Don’t think I don’t know who you are or what you do.” - I know you’re sleeping with Viktor and I know you’re hurting him (but I don’t know if that’s intentional or not).
“The way I see it, this goes one of two ways. Either you actually do care about Viktor, even a little bit in that stupid fucked up head of yours, or you’re using him just like everyone thinks. So I’m giving you a choice. If you do feel something for him, you tell him and stop fucking him around. And if you don’t, you stay the hell away from him. Got it? - either you’re manipulating him like everyone in the Russian rink thinks or you care about him even though you’re still hurting him. If you do care then stop hurting him and tell him so that people know they were wrong about you. If you don’t then you’re a cheat and I’ve lost all respect for you and I will try and keep you away from Viktor like everyone else.
“I hope you love him.” - If you love him, I was right and everyone else was wrong. You’re not a cheat, you’re still the person I thought you were (and admired) and maybe you didn’t realize you were hurting him. If you love him, you can still be a good person and I didn’t grow up idolizing someone only to have that admiration broken.
So Yuri currently still has very mixed feelings about Yuuri and those wont change until it becomes clear to everyone that Yuuri was actually very much in love with Viktor and never, ever intended to hurt him
I feel like you're the only person I actually trust with characters these days- so how do you think the new DuckTales show should handle Gladstone?
Woah that’s a big compliment, also a big question! I’m sure I’ll be happy with what happens (I mean shucks I’m just glad it is happening), and besides I am just me I’m no writing expert. Having said that there are some hit/miss things I feel could easily happen with Gladstone, so I guess here’s my perspective;
Best case scenario: Accepting and embracing Gladstone as morally grey and using the benefits of a ‘wild card’ character. Now, it’s to be noted that I’m not expecting any character development or exploration for him, at least not in the first season. This show is probably going to be introducing him as a brand new character, as a lot of people (in the USA at least) have never heard of him, so most likely he’ll be introduced and set up simply as a rival to Donald. So far so good and fair enough, but what I’d love to see is the show taking advantage of this rare gift of an unusual character who is a power of self-interest. Gladstone can swing to either side of the good/bad spectrum depending on circumstances, but ultimately wouldn’t do anything to seriously jeopardise his family, or anyone else for that matter. There’s also the joy that ‘fairness’ plays into what happens to him and Donald; when Donald cheats, Gladstone wins outright. When Donald is honest and works hard, even if Gladstone wins the race or wins the prize, there is something that happens to makes it clear Donald actually came out a lot better than Gladstone did. Ideally, for me, the show would gradually lead to indications that Gladstone is a deeply isolated character; not simply because it makes sense psychologically, but because narratively it’s a very compelling source of story material, and gives his personality a great deal of intrigue. Whether they play it that Gladstone is aware of this loneliness or not doesn’t matter, but removing that aspect of melancholy from him reduces him to a very two-dimensional character, and not in the cartoon sense.
Worst case scenario: Pushing Gladstone into the vapid, annoying, just-plain-unlikeable antagonist corner. Similarly, making him too much like Glomgold- Glomgold fits well into the ‘evil twin’ stereotype and doesn’t much care if Scrooge and his nephews suffer (or even die, in some stories). Glomgold will do anything to win, whereas Gladstone certainly likes to win, but wouldn’t go out of his way to hurt Donald to do so (he’s too lazy, for one). They are opposites; Donald is unlucky, wildly passionate, and will work very hard if he has to, whereas Gladstone is lucky, aloof, and avoids work where-ever possible. He’s not a bad guy, he’s simply not a particularly good guy either; the ultimate chaotic neutral. My fear is that this subtlety could be run over in favour of just making him into an evil ‘anti-Donald’, which would feel lazy and destroy his appeal even as an antagonist. All the ‘bad guys’ in the Duckverse have some redeeming quality, some extra angle that makes you love them- you kind of want the Beagle Boys to get into the Money Bin, because they try so hard, and they’re adorable! You want to see Magica De Spell get hold of that dime, because she’s exciting, outrageous, and the stakes are so high! All I wish for is that Gladstone not simply be ‘the person that you hate because he’s an ass’- because then people won’t even love to hate him, it’ll just be a knee-jerk reaction of ‘oh god not this guy again’ whenever he shows up, which isn’t enjoyable on any level. We need to want to see Gladstone’s hilariously absurd luck- we need to want to see him fail because he hasn’t earned the right to win- and most of all we need to want to see him do the right thing, because as unusual as it is we know it’s possible- and that makes it infinitely rewarding when it happens.
(Tiny personal fear which is petty as hell: An annoying voice. Please, god, he’s supposed to be attractive and is canonically good at singing don’t give him an annoying voice. Make him brassy and brash sure but please...)