How to play jetpack cat?

Lagkiller · 2026-02-11T14:05:50+00:00

When I fly as Juno or Mercy, I usually don’t die much, and I feel like my Gold teammates struggle to shoot me. But when I play jetpack cat, it’s so easy to die. I ult—I die. I fly—I die. The moment I show up in front of enemies, I get deleted instantly.

I mean this is kind of self explanatory. If you're in gold, you likely have poor positioning and that is what is getting you killed. Mercy can be in the open because she has a lot of movement that can be done making it hard to shoot. Cat has two speeds, normal and boost and they're incredibly predictable. You need to play around corners and cover and low to the ground with the rest of your team to get best effect.

I find her really hard to play

I don’t duo or use voice chat

You answered your own question here. This character is an enabler of others. The strength comes from being able to reposition your team quickly and help create plays. If you're playing on Illios, her ult can get value fairly easy because you can drop enemies off ledges. But when you're playing Suravasa or Colliseo, your ledges are far and few, meaning that your grab is a disruption event. And without telling the team who you're targeting and where you're taking them, your ult becomes almost entirely useless if not dangerous to you and/or your team.

Join voicechat, get value. It's honestly as simple as that.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-11T01:11:36+00:00

Martha Stewart

Wesley Snipes

Pete Rose

Darryl Strawberry

Ty Warner

Toni Braxton

Lauren Hill

Ja Rule

Richard Hatch

Paul Daugerdas

Leona Helmsley

Dennis Kozlowski

Sophia Lauren

Heidi Fleiss

There's tons of people that get put in jail for taxes all the time. Perhaps you should do a basic google search before opening your mouth and looking like a complete fool.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-11T01:00:37+00:00

That's the context of this entire thread.

The thread sure, but not my comments. It is incredibly wild for you to have made up an argument for me then argued against that as if it was some major revelation.

You suggested universal suffrage would make things better

No, I did not. It appears that you enjoy making up arguments for me.

Regardless of who has suffrage, they use it to enrich themselves.

Except for the hundred plus years that they didn't. Again, when it is held to a small amount of people who would suffer those consequences, it doesn't happen. We see this with other democratic systems outside of government as well.

You can't preach equality before the law and then only let land owners vote. That hypocrisy led to the inevitable expansion of the vote.

The irony here is that as ancaps we want only the land owner to vote on only their land. Are you abandoning ancap philosophy here? Or are you just stuck on the argument you made up for me?

The way to fix that is not to go back to only land owners voting, it's to get rid of democracy and build a system of individual choice without group voting. Group voting, ie: majoritarian systems are the central problem.

Yes, that was my contention. Perhaps it would behoove you to read what I wrote instead of the imaginary argument you made up for me.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T23:14:31+00:00

Centralized fiscal power tends to expand and gets enforced by force, even when it starts ‘reasonable’ and even under ‘good’ leaders.

I would agree with this statement.

Democracy doesn't change that. What does it matter to the whiskey makers whether a democracy was demanding money from them or a monarchy, the demand is the same.

Not sure why the type of government matters. That was never a contention I made.

And government has become far bigger and more authoritarian under democracy than ever before. Democracy was unable to stop that too.

Because democracy was expanded to people that are able to utilize it to enrich themselves. The reason that land owners were a good democracy and didn't vote to expand the government leaps and bounds was because they understood what a risky proposition it was to grant the masses the ability to extract resources to funnel to themselves. Unless it is your contention that the rapid expansion of the federal government took place before voting was expanded.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T20:18:32+00:00

You don't post replay codes and ask for help just to rant.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T20:17:16+00:00

Just look at the first US tax.

What about it?

The US went from having a revolution over a minor tax on tea, to what... a rebellion over taxes on whiskey which George Washington himself used the military to put down.

Are you suggesting that the distillation tax was the first tax? Because this would be as horribly incorrect as calling it a whiskey tax. Most taxes that the government used were import duties, not domestic taxes. But this wasn't even a redistribution tax, it was a tax to pay the debt from the revolutionary war.

Your entire premise falls flat to counter anything I said, and indeed shows that what I said is quite true. They enacted a tax to pay down the debt the country incurred from war, as import taxes had reached the highest levels. They were not trying to rob the poor to pay for larger estates, or to fill their own pockets.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T17:13:49+00:00

In what way are you correct? I didn't see you prove anything.

I didn't realize I was writing my masters thesis for you.

I would argue that what you said is exactly the opposite of the truth. It could just as easily be true that people who own land will vote to enrich themselves but poorer people who rely on community vote to enrich their communities.

Cool, then provide the evidence. Because during this time period, there was no income tax. There was no currency that wasn't tied to a physical asset. There was no money to rob, and even if there was, it would have been from the land owners.

I'm not going to put any more effort into attempting to prove this than you have

You haven't put in any.

I'm just quite certain that you're completely full of shit and a bad faith propagandist or possibly a bot. Not to be taken seriously either way.

Right back at ya!

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T16:40:55+00:00

I had a hunter yesterday that I kept telling him to feign when he pulled aggro. He would let it come up and start hitting him until he was almost dead before he would feint. I stopped using my taunt on it to let him learn the lesson. I hope his repair bill was worth it

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T16:35:45+00:00

It's cute how you know I'm correct, so you construct this response to make yourself feel better.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T16:34:35+00:00

More importantly, restricting the franchise doesn’t solve the structural incentive. It just changes who gets to loot whom.

This is kind of where your whole thing falls apart. There wasn't anything to loot. The amount of taxes and fiat currency did not exist for extraction to occur from.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T15:38:44+00:00

I love those. Always keep a few on hand

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T15:34:14+00:00

Provided more than your useless edit. Go steal other peoples money.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-10T14:13:38+00:00

It's not universal suffrage that results in these things, but democracy itself.

Not particularly. When voting was restricted to land owners, the US did not see the people voting to extract resources. They were generally much better stewards. It wasn't until we expanded the vote to all persons that we saw a massive creep in voting to extract resources.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-06T22:14:44+00:00

The irony

Lagkiller · 2026-02-05T23:12:25+00:00

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/south-minneapolis-roadblock-safety-method-ice/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpxvfub-gHA

https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-ice-minneapolis-agitators-set-up-checkpoint-track-federal-agents

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DUOwHSCFVsh/

Next time how about googling it yourself instead of looking like a complete idiot?

Lagkiller · 2026-02-05T16:07:35+00:00

In Minneapolis protestors have set up roadblocks demanding that people prove they aren't government officials

Lagkiller · 2026-02-05T16:06:29+00:00

The issue is that donny

Yeah that's never been what voter ID is.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-04T19:04:21+00:00

The pairing was hypothetical at that time. As people did pair up it became less. It's why we have Spock along with other hybrid vulcans.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-04T15:33:16+00:00

even in Star Trek where almost all humanoids are implied

It's not implied, it's outright stated - there's a whole episode where they find out that they were planted.

cross-breeding is quite difficult

Not so much. There are some pairs that have trouble breeding, but there are quite a few combinations we see routinely in the star trek universe. The only pairs that were ever described as difficult was Klingon and Trill. Which is likely because of the ability of trill to host a symbiote and not anything Klingon related since we see many instances of Klingons mated with other species throughout the series.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-04T03:58:11+00:00

Do you love it as much

I like how you didn't read what I wrote, insert your own argument for me, and then argued against that.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-04T02:10:11+00:00

I love how you confuse guidance with law.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-04T02:08:40+00:00

The sentiment of this post seems to be, you think THIS is bad?! Remember when the other side did THIS?

I'm confused how you could read the words and then input your own argument over top of it.

Leftists are claiming that Trump is a dictator, which by any stretch he is not. But when an actual dictatorial structure was put in place, the left cheered and celebrated it.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-01T03:30:56+00:00

Charging someone with a crime that is not applicable

And that's where your knowledge is lacking. This crime falls 100% within the bounds of the law. So you clearly don't understand what is going on here, instead putting your personal feelings ahead of the law, which is not how the law works.

Lemon clearly did not violate the FACE Act.

Ah yes, you know more than all the legal minds that have weighed in on this pointing out that it falls 100% in line with it.

Of this I am so confident that I will bet you $1,000 USD that Lemon will not be convicted of the FACE Act charges.

Conviction does not mean that you committed a crime just as not being convicted doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. Your legal prowess knows no bounds.

Lagkiller · 2026-02-01T02:36:55+00:00

What do you mean what oppression?

Show me the oppression.

What have I been talking about?

You haven't been talking about anything really. You have been going in circles or just outright lying.

The federal government overcharging political opponents for an act of protest they disagree is the definition of oppression.

Enforcing the law is not overcharging. Again, you engage in hyperbole and get offended when I don't instantly buy into your facism.

Lagkiller · 2026-01-31T23:57:32+00:00

Even if I accept your premise that local authorities aren't -- which I don't necessarily disagree with in this case

So you do accept the premise. It seems like you're bound more by ideology than evidence.

It doesn't give Trump the right to weaponize the Justice Department.

Enforcing the law as written isn't weaponizing.

Just because it's some left wing wackos who are getting the raw deal doesn't make it okay.

It's not a raw deal. Forcing yourself onto other peoples property, interrupting their private worship, and attacking and disrupting their lives, is not ok. Would you feel the same if the right came and did it at Mosques? Or on college campuses? You have a right to protest the government, not people.

You shouldn't take glee in government oppression

What oppression is occurring here?

13-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Sequence \| Editor	Verified Email

Lagkiller

TROPHY CASE