he uses his rank

I’m hella proud of mark lee rn. it takes guts to go on a rap show esp when you’re from SM bc SM isn’t known for rap. he also didn’t try to use NCT to boost his ranking and instead chose to introduce himself as a student of SOPA for fairness. he also took the criticism well and not one time did he look arrogant. stan mark lee stan talent, humility and overall excellent character

#that boob shelf is where he stores kittens ok

@mirelurk–cakes

It was so ridiculous I had to.

I just love how some people in Magi look down on Aladdin.

Like dude…

HE IS THE SON OF KING SOLOMON AND QUEEN SHEBA.

If he wanted to, he could use his rank as the literal son of a GOD and become the king of the world. But he doesn’t, cause he’s not like that.

And you know what? He’s a badass magician, just like his parents. But he doesn’t use that to control people. He has said, very clearly, that he loves everyone in the world, even though he isn’t from it.

That kid is a saint.

anonymous asked:

I know Erwin was a person Levi considered as his liege/person worth his devotion/loyalty, but do you think Levi saw Erwin as a father/older brother type figure in some way?

As adult men in their 30′s, I think we can safely rule out a father/son relationship. When Levi met Erwin, he was looking for a purpose not a papa. Canon evidence contradicts it as well.

Levi respected and admired Erwin, but everything indicated he saw him as an equal. He paid no mind to Erwin’s rank. In his speech, he used none of the formalities or honorifics he would have had he considered Erwin a father. 

And if Erwin viewed Levi – or any of his soldiers really – as his children, it seems unlikely he’d be able to routinely send them to their deaths. True, in the smart pass interview, Erwin mentioned wanting a family, but said that the harsh reality of his existence didn’t allow for such dreams. In order to do his job, Erwin would’ve needed to bury many of his natural emotions, including parental ones.

So what about a brother type? Personally, I feel like Levi’s feelings go beyond that. This arc convinced me that Erwin is the most important person in the world to Levi, more important than humanity itself. That Levi loves Erwin is evident, but the exact nature of Levi’s feelings are not explicitly said. Be it is as besties or brothers-in-arm, be it romantic or familial, I seriously doubt Levi ever took the time to label it. I don’t think any of these character spend a lot of time in self reflection. 

A Black Templar

recruited from a feral world whose birth name loosely translates into Imperial Gothic as ‘Madcat’ or ‘Mad Cat.’  He’s given a more ‘proper’ Imperial name upon ascension to the ranks of the chapter (Frederich, or Eberhardt, or some other Germanic type) and goes by that one for years under some amount of protest, using it only when interacting with superiors and official ceremonies, keeping his true name for use amongst his immediate brethren.  Despite making waves he rises in the ranks, gaining a reputation as a crack shot and becoming one of his crusade’s heavy weapons sergeants.  Eventually he falls in battle but because his skills are so highly valued he’s placed inside a Deredeo chassis to continue putting his gunnery expertise to use.

Except because he’s dead he now picks up the sacred dreadnought tradition of not giving a fuck and completely goes back to his preferred name as Venerable Brother Mad Cat, and by now nobody dares naysay him.

In case I’m not making the reference clear enough

Depictions of Richard III`s life and reign

So. As anyone who has so much as glanced over my blog will notice, I have issues with most portrayals of Richard III`s life, reign and the people in his life and reign.

Here are the ones that annoy me most:

(1) Why is Richard never portrayed as a politician?

Seriously, the guy was not so popular in Yorkshire because he was such a sweet guy. I mean, yes, perhaps many people who knew him thought he was a real charmer and a guy they`d totally party with, but most of Yorkshire would not have known him personally. Particularly not the Yorkshire commoners who four years after his death were still so pissed off about it they went and killed the Earl of Northumberland for not helping him in his last battle. They liked Richard because he did stuff for them. Because he used his power as a high-ranking noble to actually do stuff for commoners and even sometimes pissed off nobles to do so.

Why do fiction authors - particularly Ricardian authors - never really portray this? It`s one of the best things you could possibly say about a politican, it shows him in a really good light, and even anti-Ricardian historians cannot deny it, instead having to find excuses for it. (That he wanted to stop people from seeing him as a tyrant is a favourite, though that also falls flat when you realise he did such kinds of things long before he ever even had the chance to become king.)

There is also the fact he handled the usurpation crisis with astonishing skill. No matter why it started, if it was his fault or not, it could have easily got out of hand and led to a whole lot of bloodshed. It didn`t. The Buckingham rebellion, too, was handled quickly and quite well.

So yes, I understand that Richard`s personal life is fascinating, and I find it as interesting as everyone else. I just feel his actions as a politican should also receive spotlight. 

(2) Anne Neville was a badass.

If you disregard all that was written about her after her death by people who did not know her, all the evidence points towards the fact she was just exactly that. The woman was the daughter of the Earl of Warwick and Anne Beauchamp, who can have hardly raised her to be anything else. During her first marriage, she spent time in Margaret of Anjou`s presence, who would have probably bitchslapped her had she suspected her daughter-in-law was weak or frail or meek. After being widowed, she was not cowed by George of Clarence insisting she should not marry again and was not even cowed by his hiding her away. Hell, she might have even organised her own rescue. Then, when she was married to Richard, she apparently did splendidly as his duchess, running the North in his absence. She was very popular there, too, which probably was in part due to her being the Earl of Warwick`s daughter and later on the Duke of Gloucester`s wife, but the kind of devotion she seems to have had there according to the evidence usually does not come simply from association with others. It is perfectly possible and even likely she was liked there in her own right. She was also close to Cecily Neville, and again, there is a woman who would have likely bitchslapped her had she suspected her daughter-in-law was meek or frail.

So why is Anne usually reduced either to her All-Consuming-Love TM with Richard or to his Weak-And-Suffering Victim, and not shown as her own person? I want to read Anne and Richard as a power-couple, because that is exactly what evidence suggests they were.

(3) Francis Lovell was also a badass.

Unless he did a 180° turn after Richard`s death, this man was a forceful personality. Seriously, doing what he did takes guts. It would have been perfectly normal and not in any way dismissive of his relationship with Richard had he accepted Henry VII`s offer of pardon after Richard`s death. After all, Richard was dead, and as “Summer`s End” points out, he had left no son behind either, so submitting to Henry would hardly have been betraying him in any way. But Francis did not think so and not only refused a pardon, he twice raised a rebellion against Henry and even tried to kill him single-handedly - at a moment when he was already a hunted fugitive. If that is not badass, what is? And how likely is it that a man who acted like that was some sort of silent courtier never getting involved in politics in Richard`s reign? Hell, we have evidence against that not only in all of the titles Richard bestowed on him (Privy Councillor. Speaker of Parliament. Hello?), but also in that Colyngbourne rhyme, which indicates Francis was known even in the population as one of Richard`s closest men and one, moreover, who had a good part in running the country.

So why is he never portrayed as doing that? Why is he never shown discussing matter of importance with Richard? Why is Richard never shown relaying tasks to him? Why? The man was a politican too, and I would love to see him acting as one, a portrayal exploring the part he played in Richard`s government as well as his life. It would be so much more fascinating than the unavoidable mistress he`s usually given.

All the spotlight on Francis Lovell!

(4) There were men who were completely loyal to Edward IV and who served under Richard III equally loyally.

John Howard springs to mind. Edward Brampton even more, because he had no reason, not even greed, to shift his loyalty to Richard had he not wanted to. There were people who had been very loyal to Edward and were very loyal to Richard. There should be more focus on that, on these people who apparently saw no contradiction in that. It shows that Richard actually did enjoy quite a bit of support, that lots of people either thought he was the best for the country or actually believed in what he said about the precontract. Possibly both. It also goes back a bit to (1), because it shows people had trust in Richard`s abilities.


There are other problems with many depictions of Richard`s life and reign as well. But these are the ones I find the most jarring.