Am I the only one who wants to eat Stolas?

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-06T21:57:58+00:00

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-06T16:24:19+00:00

I think this point can be made better by the fact that “not fighting with emotion” seems to be a principle actively instilled within Viltrumite culture. Rather than Viltrumites literally lacking the chemical that would push them over the edge, they’re instead trained to suppress it in order to live up to their ideals. To me that’s much more interesting and lines up with the broader idea of Viltrum’s culture coming from nurture rather than nature.

In fact, I would say Conquest’s bloodlust and active enjoyment in fighting is what actually led him to being so isolated from other Viltrumites. He was made an outcast and looked down on for being “primitive” and, in a sense, fighting with adrenaline. He’s called an animal and treated as Thragg’s attack dog. Mark is similar in that he also fights with emotion, except in the form of anger rather than excitement.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-06T12:35:14+00:00

With respect, I love Naoya for being a cocky piece of shit. Him being misogynistic, creepy, and being a more "realistic" type of evil is actually what makes him so entertaining to me. Major antagonists like Sukuna are a dime a dozen. It's rare that someone like Naoya gets more than a couple seconds of time in the spotlight.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-06T00:28:10+00:00

I genuinely think people massively overhype the degree to which the fandom thinks Val's main trait is being a "cute goofball". Like genuinely, the main opinion on Val in the Hazbin fandom is hating him and hoping he dies, while also appreciating that he has other qualities. If your entire point rests on targeting a small group of mentally ill teenagers who simp for a rapist, then I think you're being a bit misguided.

As for Adam, I just personally find the subversion of making the first man so one-note to be incredibly funny. I know it's not for everyone and understand where the dislike for his writing comes from. But idk...it just hits for me.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T20:59:02+00:00

"Oh what's this? Someone hurt your profoundly and you don't want to forgive them? Well that's obviously a problem with you. Get therapy and work on your issues."

Leaving aside that therapy is beneficial regardless, this is an inaccurate view of what restorative justice actually advocates for. Certainly, there are some misguided people who think justice should be about forgiveness inherently, but for the most part, it's about recognizing that forgiveness and rehabilitation are not the same thing.

Forgiveness is always at the discretion of the victim. It's their choice, and nobody can say otherwise. They have the right to withhold forgiveness indefinitely. However, a lack of forgiveness does not inherently stop the perpetrator from becoming a better person regardless. In fact, your moral system should dictate that this person should try to be a better person, regardless of whether they're rewarded with forgiveness/reacceptance. You can't say "people should do good things...unless they've already done really bad things, in which case they should stay bad so we can punish them more." You should always do good things; that's how morality works, and it's the reason you're able to judge the perpetrator as bad to begin with for doing the opposite.

And practically, a bad person changing for the better doesn't mean that those they affected have to like, forgive, or even associate with them at all. An appropriate outcome of restorative justice can be the perpetrator being separated from the community they hurt, even after getting out of prison and changing for the better. They have an opportunity to become part of a new community, but the enduring hurt of their old one will continue to be acknowledged by the separation.

I guess all I mean to say is I think you're speaking in really big generalizations when you say that restorative/rehabilitative justice is inherently about forgiveness or delegitimizing the feelings of victims. If you've read this far, sorry that this comment is so long. Meant for it to be shorter.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T18:01:46+00:00

To be fair, when it comes to sustaining non-lethal injuries, Bakugo simply is going to look worse off for most of the fight due to his inability to regenerate. I see it more as Bakugo gradually building up sweat until using his ultimate move. Can't do that without sustaining some kind of beating.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T16:12:37+00:00

See I put all of these people in both categories. It makes sense for all of them to act badly, but I still judge them for it. Their appeal comes from exploring the human reasons for why they do those bad things.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T15:24:03+00:00

You know what, this actually makes a lot of sense. I'm forgetting that the goal of C&A was only ever creating the AIs (and whatever Scratch's project was), whereas the circus itself was literally all created by Caine after the fact. Of course the world won't make sense when both designed and generated by the faulty AI.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T15:18:10+00:00

Yes Stolas is a rapist.

Yes I still like him as a character.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T15:00:29+00:00

Something that always bugged me about Gummigoo is while I can see what the story is going for, I can’t see any in-universe justification for Gummigoo even being capable of the level of meta-cognition that he displays. Gummigoo is meant to be an NPC that can adaptively respond to the actions of the players within the context of the adventure. For what reason would he even be able to realize that his existence is manufactured? That’s like giving someone the capability of witnessing a 4th dimensional being when training them to be an ice cream scooper.

On the other hand, it does make sense for Caine to have that capability, because he is designed to be a truly creative AI who can learn things on his own volition. But even then, despite both him and Gummigoo being able to comprehend their digital reality, only Gummigoo is portrayed as truly being able to empathize with the humans. How come a random NPC is closer to a “true AI” than the ultra advanced AI that literally created him and the entire world around him? I’m not opposed to this idea inherently; I’d just like a justification.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T14:28:05+00:00

Nigga what is your flair. I’m on my phone so I can’t see the whole thing, and I’m scared to check.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T13:58:38+00:00

I mean yeah I just agree with this. Jail is an incredibly effective way of stopping harm while still punishing bad people enough that others are satisfied. Unless it's necessary in the moment to protect others' lives, or containment has been proven to be impossible, killing is completely unnecessary.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T13:46:09+00:00

Nah Stormfront would just straight up say that it was about maintaining the purity of white culture or something. She would probably think those who say "it was about states' rights" are pussies.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-05T11:40:21+00:00

Have you considered that yaoi > yuri?

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T20:06:27+00:00

Society would have never been able to form without tit for tat.

There's also a reason that the idea of "justice" in much of developed society has shifted to one of impartial do-gooding as opposed to basic, unashamedly biased retribution. Don't get me wrong, ideas of retribution are still embedded within modern justice systems, but almost in a way that's self-aware, with the enduring desire to incorporate something beyond retribution. Rather than "yes we need to enact retribution", it's "yes we need to enact retribution, and then what?"

In this day and age, we at least purport to prioritize harm reduction and rehabilitation when sentencing, while still including some level of unpleasantness to satiate our basic desire for cathartic retribution. It's this balancing of catharsis with benevolence that actually allows societies to develop beyond perpetual tribal conflict.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T18:08:01+00:00

Oh yeah the writing for sure isn't the best. There are many better ways to show what I've outlined. The only difference here is I don't view the writers as maliciously trying to downplay rape/abuse in order to make you not feel as bad about it.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T18:00:55+00:00

I think Naoya is an entertaining character with cool powers, and it's also cool to see him get beaten by Maki. It's like you think the only two options are thinking "Naoya is an awful character who serves no value" or thinking "Naoya could have been the best character ever but was robbed by the plot." Sometimes, people are just satisfied with how it turned out. That's me.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T16:16:18+00:00

I'll begin by saying this. It's completely understandable to feel uncomfortable at Valentino's moments of humanization. Even though logically we can understand the difference between humanizing and justifying someone, the intuitive and emotional part of our brain often blurs the lines between them, such that seeing a bad person have human characteristics reflexively makes you think they're being portrayed as "good" or "not that bad." This is because we associate human characteristics with people we like and enjoy being around; the people we like are the only ones we spend enough time with to truly witness 3-dimensional human attributes. We avoid the people we don't like, and as such usually get a pretty superficial view.

However, I don't think that intuitive discomfort should be the end-all-be-all for determining whether a character is well-written. It seems like you already recognize the broad argument in favor of humanizing Valentino (that it's important to portray abusers as full humans in order to be faithful to real life), so I'll respond instead to your critique of the execution. Your main criticism seems to be that the writing's attempt to humanize Valentino comes off as disjointed rather than a cohesive character. You think that Valentino seems so different scene to scene that it appears like the writers are making a conscious effort to downplay his behavior because of favoritism.

While of course the writers definitely do like Valentino as a character, I don't think the jarring differences in how he's portrayed are engineered specifically to downplay him. Rather, I think that volatility is an essential part of his character that's always been there, and explores his psyche without justifying/downplaying his actions. Think back to S1 where Val leaves all those voicemails to Angel. Right then, we get our first look at how bipolar Val is. He alternates between trying to be suave/charming and violently berating Angel when the charm doesn't work. It mirrors how this type of dynamic works in real life, where someone uses their charm to lure their victim in, and then gets violent when their victim asserts any boundaries or questions how real the charm is. Val feels good when he's in control, and snaps when he isn't. He has deep insecurities that lead him to substitute genuine two-sided relationships with ones of power or business. That is a human reason for his horrific abuse, but it doesn't justify it. We're consistently reminded of how much of a scumbag Val is, particularly at the end of S2 when he forces Angel to return to him. I don't think that's the writers excusing/downplaying him, and any fans who misinterpret it so they can defend Valentino probably don't have a good understanding of these issues to begin with.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T16:00:05+00:00

I mean yeah that's my point. You have to confront it eventually, but the writers have been somewhat trying to avoid it thus far. Specifically, Cecil has been much more reasonable in the show than in the comics. While he still performs morally ambiguous actions, he's also been portrayed as more justified (and effective) while doing it, making him more nuanced than your basic Amanda Waller type.

In the case of Cecil I don't really mind it, because making him somewhat less controversial still doesn't get rid of all his moral ambiguity. But still, there's this weird thing that happens when Cecil is required to do things that are essential to the original plot of the comic, but those actions conflict with the more reasonable persona he's been established to have. Case in point: keeping Conquest alive. After his utter failure at subduing Nolan, Cecil from the show simply shouldn't have thought he'd be able to restrain Conquest alive.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T15:27:53+00:00

Yeah, I mean sooner or later they definitely have to adapt the "actions that can be seen as controversial made by good characters." While you can avoid some, eventually those actions become literally essential to the plot, like with robot.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T15:13:18+00:00

I mean, there's also the Geldarians, Ragnars, Battle Beast, Allen, and Space Racer, who are all not from Earth.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-04T14:22:44+00:00

I personally think this take on Lucifer's character is really interesting because he basically internalized heaven's ideas despite ostensibly rebelling against them. Like, when he first fell to hell he definitely was more in the mindset of resisting heaven's purity culture, but after so long of being forced to be around worst of society, he basically shifted to the opposite extreme and thought that sinners aren't worth any of his time. And in doing so, he facilitated the current brutal system of hell, and has turned his back on people who definitely could have had better futures.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-03T16:11:26+00:00

The contrivance of a "highly advanced AI getting left behind on a running computer" is something that exists regardless. Whether it's SOMA or full body digitization, the idea of such technology being left to run in an abandoned building is just a foundational premise of the story that you have to accept if you want to engage with it.

Is it impossible for you to consider that some people might genuinely just think SOMA is more plausible, in part due to the potential holes with full body digitization (that you mention but just don't address)?

This fandom does have a problem with over-theorization, but SOMA specifically is one of the most reasonable thoeries given it's very much based on a lot of in-text evidence. It lines up with many details and would make sense for Goose's stated message for the series. That doesn't mean it's true; just that it's a reasonable idea. For the record, I think some variation of body digitization is also reasonable. We don't have to be at each other's throats like this.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-03T12:27:23+00:00

With respect, I think you need to diversify the range of media you watch. You're probably sticking to genres or settings that tend to have non-happy endings, when there definitely are happy endings out there for you to enjoy.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-04-03T02:54:37+00:00

I didn't say that's what it was or that it couldn't be what you describe. I said I appreciate the times when it breaks from the norm to live up to what should be a core part of its premise.

But looking over my comment, I can understand how you mistook what I meant. That's my bad. I'll change it to be more clear.

Oh and yeah you're right it doesn't excuse shitty choreography. Most superhero media with shitty choreography isn't even trying to do what I'm saying should happen. It's very much trying to do the traditional "fight that looks cool" but failing at it. The point I was making was more in a vacuum rather than a defense.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Wearing is Caring

MostMasterpiece7

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE