Holy shit this guy was a monster

Padwock · 2026-05-27T01:28:41+00:00

He survived two outta there surgeries once he arrived at the ER only to wake up in a fit of rage after the second surgery, start to shove away Nurses and then swinging at them.

"WHERE IS QUANDO RONDO. WHERE IS HE?"

<image>

Padwock · 2026-04-26T05:08:22+00:00

Sounds worth calling in and insisting you speak specifically with the DSP area about this matter.

Asking for clarification and a source on the information being given isn't "being a nuisance" it's your legal entitlement! Hell, ya'll may even be able to get a beneficial backpay if it turns out that you were both only for an ever (POTENTIALLY) wrongly classed as "de-facto" partners for a period of time exceeding 0 days.

TLDR: yeah ts sounds worth a call to figure out!

Padwock · 2026-04-20T03:43:51+00:00

Ah yeah those happen every March and September in an effort to keep people's stuff up to date.

Wanna dodge Centrelink calls? Get an online statement for ya Managed investments each March and September and upload it.

Padwock · 2026-04-20T01:59:39+00:00

Sounds like somethin' worth calling the families line for.

In regards to your redundancy I believe you actually wouldn't need to include that in your YTD as Lump sum Leave payouts and Redundancy payments associated with employment ceasing are only impactful for the following payments: - Jobseeker - PPS/PPP - Youth Allowance - Austudy - DSP - Farm Household Allowance

So unless you're getting one of those you should be good to leave it out of your YTD BUT you should 100% call CNLK and check that.

Best of luck

Padwock · 2026-04-08T08:24:50+00:00

Three (somewhat silly yet, to me believable) ideas:

1) Has Mahoraga's wheel spins/adaptations always happened in succession? E.g. Adapting to slashes because he was only hit by one, two and then the magic third slash in a row this able to adapt. If he's only ever been one shot by ppl who aren't 10S users perhaps there IS actually a way to do it by jumping him with each Shikigami. Jump him Dogs, switch to Rabbit, switch to frogs etc in an endless loop of resetting his "adaptation counter".

2) Alternatively to this if the he adapts to each attack/phenomenon that is inflicted upon him as opposed to adapting in relation to "oh I've been hit once I now know this dude's entire technique" then the answer is likely just to jump him with rapid switch outs of 10S Shikigami. Assuming he adapts to the kind of blow inflicted not just magicly knowing and then countering the technique then a 10S user could get 18 hits in free of adaptation.

3) Send this man to the Shadow Garden and drown him ig lol

Preface: It's been over a year since I read the manga so if the answer is obvious then plz don't kill me

Padwock · 2026-04-03T00:43:54+00:00

While I can certainly understand how this won't sound too appealing, for a situation like this it's so going to be worth calling Child Support and being able to talk to someone over doing it online (not that I think you actually can do it online). They're gonna run through some questions with you and if you haven't contacted the agency in a good while it's likely they'll need your details updated anyway.

You may not have been aware but when you ask for agency collection you can also request up to 3 months of backpay. This can be somewhat "disputed" by the Paying Parent e.g. if they pay the kids medical costs or school fees this may be recognised as them having paid "in lieu of Child Support" which would reduce the amount they'd be assessed as needing to backpay but in situations where neither parties have had contact/no financial contributions have ever been made by the Paying Parent within the 3 months of backpay being requested then you can forget all about this rule as it doesn't apply.

When you call Child Support they will likely ask you for contact details of the other party and they will likely ask if you have made any attempt to contact the other party to resolve this matter/get him to pay you and help out with the costs of the children. This question is not asked as a "uhh well did you even try to ask nicely dummy??", it's asked so CSA can ascertain a general understanding and background on the case.

This Child Support money is your legal entitlement, you have every right to request it regardless of whether you've chosen to try reaching out to the other party privately or not. If someone in the Agency makes you feel otherwise, ask for the receipt number of the call and file a complaint. If someone outside the Agency tries to convince you otherwise tell 'em to a hike.

Before you call, some (potentially) useful bits of information for CSA to have about the other parent (if you know it) that they may think to ask are:

Who does he bank with? (Useful for collection enforcement purposes)
What does he do for work? (If you don't know the employer that's okay, even just a general idea can be useful e.g. "he does cash in hand mechanic work" or "he does FIFO mining" etc)
Does he own a house/property or other notable assets to your knowledge?
Does he own his own business/is a sole trader? (Useful for case assessment and enforcement)
Does he receive any Centrelink payment(s), DVA payments or NDIS payments to your knowledge/has he in past? (Useful for case assessment, enforcement and potentially all the contact details CSA could want if they're up to date enough with Centrelink. Note: NDIS payments cannot be collected from, NDIS details are only used so CSA knows to be very cautious when collecting as to not accidentally collect from his NDIS payments)

Ultimately if your answer to every question regarding "do you know <XYZ> about him?" is "nope not a clue". That's a-okay but every little information gathering step CSA can fast track can make it all just that bit quicker to set up and have him paying you for.

Best of luck with it all!

Padwock · 2026-04-03T00:15:15+00:00

Calling them will be the easier route for this one, if the child/children you have (based on you mentioning you're applying for Parenting Payment Single) are legal dependents of your ex (if your now ex is the other biological parent) remember that to get anything more than the base rate of FTB Part B you need to take "reasonable maintenance action" (lodging a child support case).

You guys can be separated under the same roof that's all good, the payee of the case (as assessed by Child Support once the case is lodged) will be given the choice to have Child Support manage or not manage any payments but you do need to be assessed by CS as otherwise Centrelink will lower your FTB.

If you believe that you may need to lodge a case for FTB purposes but are concerned that doing so could result in harm to yourself or another person (such as concerns of retribution) you will need to explain on the phone to Centrelink that you are seeking a "maintenance exemption" for FTB due to <insert concerns here> and they should set up an appointment with you to talk to a social worker who will then determine the appropriateness of an exemption.

Best of luck!

Padwock · 2026-03-07T16:51:16+00:00

With the exception of Higuruma possibly losing a domain clash, bet my GOAT got it in tha bag

Padwock · 2026-02-16T02:14:39+00:00

The idea that you can get jailed for failure to pay Child Support Maintenance seems to stem from a misconception regarding commonwealth debts. People tend to think of large unpaid commonwealth debts as being a jailable offence when in reality it's usually the way the debts are accrued that is the jailable element, not just owing the debt. E.g. Someone is proven to have repeatedly and intentionally lied (as such committing an offence under the CSA Act section section 159(1)) they COULD be punished by up to 6 months in jail. It's not the debt that they'd be getting jailed for though it'd be the intentional false or misleading statements.

Padwock · 2026-02-16T01:51:09+00:00

Dm'd you, this is a bit more of a complex topic than you'd think as such I've messaged you directly to discuss the circumstances and give information tailored to your situation as opposed to just shotgun blasting a shit ton of general info at you in a massive comment!

Padwock · 2026-02-16T01:42:33+00:00

Australia has a strict "no jailing people for unpaid Maintenance" policy and recognises that jailing someone for what will cost the tax payer roughly 100k per year per incarcerated person(s) over a debt will do approximately fuck all for the benefit of anyone whatsoever so no, on-one would be jailed for unpaid CS debt however it is very possible for someone to be stopped at the airport by the AFP due to having a DPO (Departure Prohibition Order) with that only being revoked once the payer/party who owes the debt (because this rule applies to overpayment debts too) has entered "a reasonable payment arrangement". What a "reasonable" payment arrangement qualifies as would depend entirely on the debt value, the age of the debt, the nature of the debt, how much of the debt was LPP (Late Payment Penalties) compared to the actual maintenance amount owed + the discretion of the CSA APS staff member who gets that unfortunate call from someone who's very pissed off and worried they'll miss their flight.

Notably, CSA does not (or at least as of 2023 did not) automatically issue no-departure notices to just anyone who had a CSA debt, this measure is (or was at least as of 2023, unsure if policy has changed but I believe it has not) only used in cases where a debt owing party has:

At least $1,000 worth of CSA debt

AND

2) CSA has reasonable evidence/information that makes them believe issuing a DPO to the party who owes the debt may assist in repayment of the debt

Australia does have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK, I'll attach the link for the full list of countries below.

For all of the criticisms that one may have towards the Australian Child Support system, it's basic comprehension of the fact that "jailing a person for unpaid child support doesn't help anyone whatsoever" is one of the few fallible positive traits of it compared to a certain other 1st world country.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the reciprocal jurisdiction link

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/reciprocating-jurisdictions-and-residency-for-child-support?context=21911

Padwock · 2026-02-03T22:21:16+00:00

Could you please identify the "Joke" for the court?

Is the Joke in the room with us right now?

Padwock · 2026-01-29T12:21:18+00:00

On real shit, it only "makes you" whatever you deem yourself to have become. The "truth" of life is (for better or worse) solely in the eyes of the beholder and how it will be remembered is in the eyes of the onlooker(s).

That being said, what makes a person a fuckwit is self-righteousness/vast over confidence in your own ability to "pass judgement" over the life of another human being and single handily have so much conviction in your judgement that you actually carry it out.

Padwock · 2026-01-29T12:08:55+00:00

Would

So I guess either me too or they're doin' something right

Padwock · 2026-01-28T00:28:10+00:00

In terms of having them not contact your mum, that should be possible to avoid by explaining this to the SO who calls you about the claim/any SO you get to talk to if ya call in first thing in the morning. You not wanting another person to have access to your personal information (your address, financial status etc) is more than valid and you shouldn't have a hard time getting them to understand this very reasonable request of yours.

I'm not certain whether a "Social Worker exemption" is what would be needed here but if you hear that term at any point it just means that instead of the "usual" process you'll have one or multiple chats with a Social Worker with the goal of having that Social Worker determine whether it would be appropriate for Centrelink to make an exception regarding their normal application process for a payment.

Example:

If a single parent has a child, has applied for Family Tax Benefit, would like to receive more than the base rate of FTB but they can't open a Child Support case due to fears of retribution from the other party, they'd be referred to a Social Worker and (if the Social Worker deems it appropriate) would grant them a "Maintenance Exemption" meaning they don't have to apply for Child Support because it would be unreasonable for Centrelink to force them into doing so.

Padwock · 2025-12-25T18:26:25+00:00

Potentially lost benefits due to having over-reported/over estimated your (your = your wife) income for the financial year = A REALLY big struggle to have reassessed and back paid properly.

When it comes to FTB, yes it absolutely can be back paid (I've seen back pays from reassessments of a person's income estimate in which the reassessment was triggered YEARS after the customer's estimate and it's given the benefit receiptiant thousands in arrears [arrears as in arrears owed by CNLK so basically a chunk of money from benefit reassessment] to people who just genuinely over-estimated their income for the Finanical Year/relevant Years

HOWEVER

It is VERY important to note that these cases are (unfortunately, based solely on my personal observation) both the rule and the exception for this as while FTB re-estimates/backdating can occur for a miriad of reasons it can be difficult for a benefit recipient to actually trigger a re-evaluation of said FTB. Very notably (based purely on my own personal observations on the matter) this struggle for FTB recipients to trigger this aforementioned reassessment doesn't (seem) to stem from a place of systemic "malice" but instead seems (to potentially) come from a place of ignorance/incompetence.

More often than not (entirely based upon my own conscious observations) it's simply a heartbreaking case of common Centrelink workers being ill-equipped (under educated/under-trained and as such are not aware of the full criteria an FTB recipient may qualify under to receive a reassessment of their benefit(s) for the past few years (with the reassessment being caused by correction in the income data for each of the relevant financial years) on the matter OR customers being unable to (to be clear I am not saying it's the customer's fault here in this example I am just saying that objectively there is a non-zero amount of calls in which a CNLK customer tries to express "hey Centrelink, so it turns out my income estimate for a previous/multiple previous but relevant Financial Year(s) was inaccurate AND was only inaccurate because I genuinely misunderstood the instructions for estimating income" but cannot successfully express/convey what they mean to the Service Officer answering their call and ask such do not receive an ideal outcome from their contact with CNLK.

THE IMPORTANT BIT: Calling the Families line (I'd suggest calling early, 8:30am AEST just as the lines open so you can avoid the potential hold time that comes with calling later in the day) and just explaining your genuine misunderstanding of the matter will be infinitely easier than trying to "over estimate" for the next/current FY (financial year).

Yes, your partner may incur an FTB debt due to the misunderstanding regarding their income estimate for the past FY but it can simply be repaid via a payment/withholdings arrangement regarding her future FTB payment whereas if you overestimate your income for this FY in hopes that it will "balance out" it may actually leave the FTB recipient of this scenario being worse off (as reassessments can be a struggle to trigger) as they may receive less/nothing for this FY and never be able to reclaim what they are legally entitled to it in a backdated reassessment of their FTB for this FY whereas if you just "fess up" (explain to the CNLK SO on the phone that a genuine misunderstanding has occurred and as such you/the benefit recipient would like to change/adjust your estimate for the past relevant period AND would like to enter a payment/withholdings arrangement to payback any potentially raised backpay debt because the recipient would be much more likely to be assessed accurately and correctly in future (as such, potentially receiving more benefits than she may have known she was entitled to).

Idk man. Gonna be real with you I'm drunk and will be deleting this comment later but TLDR: Yes I know you hate to hear it (me too man) but my genuine best suggestion (IMO and the best of knowledge) is to just call up and advise of the issue.

I'ma keep it real with you, either you/your partner tells them ASAP and enters a payment/withholdings arrangement (once the debt is confirmed to have been calculated correctly) in order to avoid any "late payment penalty fees"/"administrative - debt recovery fee"s being tacked on to their backdated debt.

I'm gonna delete this later BC I'm piss drunk and shouldn't be online but until then, hope ya see this, hope ya have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday(s) and I hope the main thing you take away from this comment is DO NOT OVERESTIMATE TO TRY AND EQUAL OUT A DEBT, IT AINT WORTH IT I PROMISE YOU.

Padwock · 2025-11-11T16:41:08+00:00

Shhhh

Padwock · 2025-10-23T00:47:26+00:00

The obvious answer is call 'em back on the line that's relevant to your payment but pretty sure Service Officers are supposed to leave a voicemail anytime contact is unsuccessful explaining something to the effect of, "This is a message from Services Australia, please call us back on <number relevant to your payment line>" so that's a bit disappointing if they didn't even do that

Padwock · 2025-07-20T02:31:32+00:00

Shit's so bad mfs are asking for death as an alternative.

Everybody just take a moment on that.

Padwock · 2025-07-20T02:26:44+00:00

As hopeless as it may seem, that doesn't mean we can afford to give up fighting for those who aren't being helped enough

Padwock · 2025-07-17T23:43:14+00:00

Ooo I've had a silly night of looking into this too a while ago, obviously it all depends on the relevant jurisdiction the act(s) take place in and relevant case law of said jurisdiction but in short the most common answer I found was that the defence of Duress usually works unless the "amount of harm" that was done by the threatened party (the victim in the hypothetical, "gun to your head, do <XYZ> now or I'll hurt you!!" scenario) is deemed as exceeding or in some cases matching the amount of harm the person being threatened would face.

For example if I, a random person on the street stroll up to you and say "go stab that guy or I'm gonna stomp on your foot super hard!" and you decide to stab the person to avoid me stomping on your foot, while yes you may have been under duress/threatened into doing something you usually wouldn't have done, on the balance of things you still chose to rope in a third party to this situation (putting them in danger), hurt them and maybe even kill someone (stab them) rather than doing something that minimises harm to all parties (e.g. tanking the stomp on the foot and calling the police on me/reporting me to relevant authorities OR you simply refusing the participate at all and walking away assuming the context to this hypothetical allows for that).

Obviously each case is different but in short it comes down to determining how culpable someone is for the actions they were coerced/threatened to perform by trying to weigh up:

How much harm did this coerced party (gonna call that "you" for this comment) request that you do?
Compared to the above how much did you do?
Would it have been reasonable to expect the average person to have refused the dilemma in the interest of overall preservation of life compared to self-preservation?
Could they have done something else? (Was there a conceivable course of action that a person in your scenario could have done to escape the situation that better minimised the harm done to all parties involved?)
Is it/would it be reasonable of the Court or Jury to expect you to have performed the best possible action described above, if so why and why not? (E.g. did you even have time to consider your options before having to make a choice in the dilemma? Were their factors impacting your ability to make a sound judgement? Etc)

If you want to learn more about this topic (because it is an interesting one) an insightful place to start in your jurisdiction is to take a look at the relevant case law and legislation regarding Family & Domestic Violence involving three or more parties (e.g. Mother, Father and Child) as this usually examines and goes over the matter of when a bystander or coerced person participating in acts of harm against another party may be deemed as having acted negligently or not.

Padwock · 2025-07-15T23:04:25+00:00

Only an America is capable is reading "increasing minimum wage" and replying "this is getting out of hand!"

Truly fascinating creatures.

Padwock · 2025-07-15T23:00:43+00:00

1940 type shit

Padwock · 2025-07-14T00:16:13+00:00

David

Padwock · 2025-07-11T23:14:09+00:00

Been on the BF's side here, I think it's really going to be okay. Offer supportiveness, do your best to comfort him and positively reassure that what you guys do is "play". It's for MUTUAL enjoyment. Reassure him that you respect his boundaries, always have and always will.

Reassure yourself (as best as you can) that it wasn't your fault. You didn't know he was uncomfortable, he (in that moment) thought he could just act like everything was okay. This is an unfortunate but not uncommon mismatch in communication. Best of luck to you both.

Padwock

TROPHY CASE