#the satanic philosopher | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 13 days

Text

Podcasting “Capitalists Hate Capitalism”

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

This week on my podcast, I read "Capitalists Hate Capitalism," my latest column for Locus Magazine:

https://locusmag.com/2024/03/cory-doctorow-capitalists-hate-capitalism/

What do I mean by "capitalists hate capitalism?" It all comes down to the difference between "profits" and "rents." A capitalist takes capital (money, or the things you can buy with it) and combines it with employees' labor, and generates profits (the capitalist's share) and wages (the workers' share).

Rents, meanwhile, come from owning an asset that capitalists need to generate profits. For example, a landlord who rents a storefront to a coffee shop extracts rent from the capitalist who owns the coffee shop. Meanwhile, the capitalist who owns the cafe extracts profits from the baristas' labor.

Capitalists' founding philosophers like Adam Smith hated rents. Worse: rents were the most important source of income at the time of capitalism's founding. Feudal lords owned great swathes of land, and there were armies of serfs who were bound to that land – it was illegal for them to leave it. The serfs owed rent to lords, and so they worked the land in order grow crops and raise livestock that they handed over the to lord as rent for the land they weren't allowed to leave.

Capitalists, meanwhile, wanted to turn that land into grazing territory for sheep as a source of wool for the "dark, Satanic mills" of the industrial revolution. They wanted the serfs to be kicked off their land so that they would become "free labor" that could be hired to work in those factories.

For the founders of capitalism, a "free market" wasn't free from regulation, it was free from rents, and "free labor" came from workers who were free to leave the estates where they were born – but also free to starve unless they took a job with the capitalists.

For capitalism's philosophers, free markets and free labor weren't just a source of profits, they were also a source of virtue. Capitalists – unlike lords – had to worry about competition from one another. They had to make better goods at lower prices, lest their customers take their business elsewhere; and they had to offer higher pay and better conditions, lest their "free labor" take a job elsewhere.

This means that capitalists are haunted by the fear of losing everything, and that fear acts as a goad, driving them to find ways to make everything better for everyone: better, cheaper products that benefit shoppers; and better-paid, safer jobs that benefit workers. For Smith, capitalism is alchemy, a philosopher's stone that transforms the base metal of greed into the gold of public spiritedness.

By contrast, rentiers are insulated from competition. Their workers are bound to the land, and must toil to pay the rent no matter whether they are treated well or abused. The rent rolls in reliably, without the lord having to invest in new, better ways to bring in the harvest. It's a good life (for the lord).

Think of that coffee-shop again: if a better cafe opens across the street, the owner can lose it all, as their customers and workers switch allegiance. But for the landlord, the failure of his capitalist tenant is a feature, not a bug. Once the cafe goes bust, the landlord gets a newly vacant storefront on the same block as the hot new coffee shop that can be rented out at even higher rates to another capitalist who tries his luck.

The industrial revolution wasn't just the triumph of automation over craft processes, nor the triumph of factory owners over weavers. It was also the triumph of profits over rents. The transformation of hereditary estates worked by serfs into part of the supply chain for textile mills was attended by – and contributed to – the political ascendancy of capitalists over rentiers.

Now, obviously, capitalism didn't end rents – just as feudalism didn't require the total absence of profits. Under feudalism, capitalists still extracted profits from capital and labor; and under capitalism, rentiers still extracted rents from assets that capitalists and workers paid them to use.

The difference comes in the way that conflicts between profits and rents were resolved. Feudalism is a system where rents triumph over profits, and capitalism is a system where profits triumph over rents.

It's conflict that tells you what really matters. You love your family, but they drive you crazy. If you side with your family over your friends – even when your friends might be right and your family's probably wrong – then you value your family more than your friends. That doesn't mean you don't value your friends – it means that you value them less than your family.

Conflict is a reliable way to know whether or not you're a leftist. As Steven Brust says, the way to distinguish a leftist is to ask "What's more important, human rights, or property rights?" If you answer "Property rights are human right," you're not a leftist. Leftists don't necessarily oppose all property rights – they just think they're less important than human rights.

Think of conflicts between property rights and human rights: the grocer who deliberately renders leftover food inedible before putting it in the dumpster to ensure that hungry people can't eat it, or the landlord who keeps an apartment empty while a homeless person freezes to death on its doorstep. You don't have to say "No one can own food or a home" to say, "in these cases, property rights are interfering with human rights, so they should be overridden." For leftists property rights can be a means to human rights (like revolutionary land reformers who give peasants title to the lands they work), but where property rights interfere with human rights, they are set aside.

In his 2023 book Technofeudalism, Yanis Varoufakis claims that capitalism has given way to a new feudalism – that capitalism was a transitional phase between feudalism…and feudalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/28/cloudalists/#cloud-capital

Varoufakis's point isn't that capitalists have gone extinct. Rather, it's that today, conflicts between capital and assets – between rents and profits – reliably end with a victory of rent over profit.

Think of Amazon: the "everything store" appears to be a vast bazaar, a flea-market whose stalls are all operated by independent capitalists who decide what to sell, how to price it, and then compete to tempt shoppers. In reality, though, the whole system is owned by a single feudalist, who extracts 51% from every dollar those merchants take in, and decides who can sell, and what they can sell, and at what price, and whether anyone can even see it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/01/managerial-discretion/#junk-fees

Or consider the patent trolls of the Eastern District of Texas. These "companies" are invisible and produce nothing. They consist solely of a serviced mailbox in a dusty, uninhabited office-building, and an overbroad patent (say, a patent on "tapping on a screen with your finger") issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office. These companies extract hundreds of millions of dollars from Apple, Google, Samsung for violating these patents. In other words, the government steps in and takes vast profits generated through productive activity by companies that make phones, and turns that money over as rent paid to unproductive companies whose sole "product" is lawsuits. It's the triumph of rent over profit.

Capitalists hate capitalism. All capitalists would rather extract rents than profits, because rents are insulated from competition. The merchants who sell on Jeff Bezos's Amazon (or open a cafe in a landlord's storefront, or license a foolish smartphone patent) bear all the risk. The landlords – of Amazon, the storefront, or the patent – get paid whether or not that risk pays off.

This is why Google, Apple and Samsung also have vast digital estates that they rent out to capitalists – everything from app stores to patent portfolios. They would much rather be in the business of renting things out to capitalists than competing with capitalists.

Hence that famous Adam Smith quote: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." This is literally what Google and Meta do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

And it's what Apple and Google do:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23934961/google-antitrust-trial-defaults-search-deal-26-3-billion

Why compete with one another when you can collude, like feudal lords with adjacent estates who trust one another to return any serf they catch trying to sneak away in the dead of night?

Because of course, it's not just "free markets" that have been captured by rents ("Competition is for losers" -P. Thiel) – it's also "free labor." For years, the largest tech and entertainment companies in America illegally colluded on a "no poach" agreement not to hire one-anothers' employees:

https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/03/apple-google-other-silicon-valley-tech-giants-ordered-to-pay-415m-in-no-poaching-suit/

These companies were bitter competitors – as were these sectors. Even as Big Content was lobbying for farcical copyright law expansions and vowing to capture Big Tech, all these companies on both sides were able to set aside their differences and collude to bind their free workers to their estates and end the "wasteful competition" to secure their labor.

Of course, this is even more pronounced at the bottom of the labor market, where noncompete "agreements" are the norm. The median American worker bound by a noncompete is a fast-food worker whose employer can wield the power of the state to prevent that worker from leaving behind the Wendy's cash-register to make $0.25/hour more at the McDonald's fry trap across the street:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal

Employers defend this as necessary to secure their investment in training their workers and to ensure the integrity of their trade secrets. But why should their investments be protected? Capitalism is about risk, and the fear that accompanies risk – fear that drives capitalists to innovate, which creates the public benefit that is the moral justification for capitalism.

Capitalists hate capitalism. They don't want free labor – they want labor bound to the land. Capitalists benefit from free labor: if you have a better company, you can tempt away the best workers and cause your inferior rival to fail. But feudalists benefit from un-free labor, from tricks like "bondage fees" that force workers to pay in order to quit their jobs:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/21/bondage-fees/#doorman-building

Companies like Petsmart use "training repayment agreement provisions" (TRAPs) to keep low-waged workers from leaving for better employers. Petsmart says it costs $5,500 to train a pet-groomer, and if that worker is fired, laid off, or quits less than two years, they have to pay that amount to Petsmart:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

Now, Petsmart is full of shit here. The "four-week training course" Petsmart claims is worth $5,500 actually only lasts for three weeks. What's more, the "training" consists of sweeping the floor and doing other low-level chores for three weeks, without pay.

But even if Petsmart were to give $5,500 worth of training to every pet-groomer, this would still be bullshit. Why should the worker bear the risk of Petsmart making a bad investment in their training? Under capitalism, risks justify rewards. Petsmart's argument for charging $50 to groom your dog and paying the groomer $15 for the job is that they took $35 worth of risk. But some of that risk is being borne by the worker – they're the ones footing the bill for the training.

For Petsmart – as for all feudalists – a worker (with all the attendant risks) can be turned into an asset, something that isn't subject to competition. Petsmart doesn't have to retain workers through superior pay and conditions – they can use the state's contract-enforcement mechanism instead.

Capitalists hate capitalism, but they love feudalism. Sure, they dress this up by claiming that governmental de-risking spurs investment: "Who would pay to train a pet-groomer if that worker could walk out the next day and shave dogs for some competing shop?"

But this is obvious nonsense. Think of Silicon Valley: high tech is the most "IP-intensive" of all industries, the sector that has had to compete most fiercely for skilled labor. And yet, Silicon Valley is in California, where noncompetes are illegal. Every single successful Silicon Valley company has thrived in an environment in which their skilled workers can walk out the door at any time and take a job with a rival company.

There's no indication that the risk of free labor prevents investment. Think of AI, the biggest investment bubble in human history. All the major AI companies are in jurisdictions where noncompetes are illegal. Anthropic – OpenAI's most serious competitor – was founded by a sister/brother team who quit senior roles at OpenAI and founded a direct competitor. No one can claim with a straight face that OpenAI is now unable to raise capital on favorable terms.

What's more, when OpenAI founder Sam Altman was forced out by his board, Microsoft offered to hire him – and 700 other OpenAI personnel – to found an OpenAI competitor. When Altman returned to the company, Microsoft invested more money in OpenAI, despite their intimate understanding that anyone could hire away the company's founder and all of its top technical staff at any time.

The idea that the departure of the Burger King trade secrets locked up in its workers' heads constitute more of a risk to the ability to operate a hamburger restaurant than the departure of the entire technical staff of OpenAI is obvious nonsense. Noncompetes aren't a way to make it possible to run a business – they're a way to make it easy to run a business, by eliminating competition and pushing the risk onto employees.

Because capitalists hate capitalism. And who can blame them? Who wouldn't prefer a life with less risk to one where you have to constantly look over your shoulder for competitors who've found a way to make a superior offer to your customers and workers?

This is why businesses are so excited about securing "IP" – that is, a government-backed right to control your workers, customers, competitors or critics:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

The argument for every IP right expansion is the same: "Who would invest in creating something new without the assurance that someone else wouldn’t copy and improve on it and put them out of business?"

That was the argument raised five years ago, during the (mercifully brief) mania for genre writers seeking trademarks on common tropes. There was the romance writer who got a trademark on the word "cocky" in book titles:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/16/17566276/cockygate-amazon-kindle-unlimited-algorithm-self-published-romance-novel-cabal

And the fantasy writer who wanted a trademark on "dragon slayer" in fantasy novel titles:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/06/14/son-of-cocky-a-writer-is-trying-to-trademark-dragon-slayer-for-fantasy-novels/

Who subsequently sought a trademark on any book cover featuring a person holding a weapon:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/07/19/trademark-troll-who-claims-to-own-dragon-slayer-now-wants-exclusive-rights-to-book-covers-where-someone-is-holding-a-weapon/

For these would-be rentiers, the logic was the same: "Why would I write a book about a dragon-slayer if I could lose readers to someone else who writes a book about dragon-slayers?"

In these cases, the USPTO denied or rescinded its trademarks. Profits triumphed over rents. But increasingly, rents are triumphing over profits, and rent-extraction is celebrated as "smart business," while profits are for suckers, only slightly preferable to "wages" (the worst way to get paid under both capitalism and feudalism).

That's what's behind all the talk about "passive income" – that's just a euphemism for "rent." It's what Douglas Rushkoff is referring to in Survival of the Richest when he talks about the wealthy wanting to "go meta":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/13/collapse-porn/#collapse-porn

Don't drive a cab – go meta and buy a medallion. Don't buy a medallion, go meta and found Uber. Don't found Uber, go meta and invest in Uber. Don't invest in Uber, go meta and buy options on Uber stock. Don't buy Uber stock options, go meta and buy derivatives of options on Uber stock.

"Going meta" means distancing yourself from capitalism – from income derived from profits, from competition, from risk – and cozying up to feudalism.

Capitalists have always hated capitalism. The owners of the dark Satanic mills wanted peasants turned off the land and converted into "free labor" – but they also kidnapped Napoleonic war-orphans and indentured them to ten-year terms of service, which was all you could get out of a child's body before it was ruined for further work:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#thats-fronkonsteen

When Varoufakis says we've entered a new feudal age, he doesn't mean that we've abolished capitalism. He means that – for the first time in centuries – when rents go to war against profits – the rents almost always emerge victorious.

Here's the podcast episode:

https://craphound.com/news/2024/04/14/capitalists-hate-capitalism/

Here's a direct link to the MP3 (hosting courtesy of the Internet Archive; they'll host your stuff for free, forever):

https://archive.org/download/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465_-_Capitalists_Hate_Capitalism.mp3

And here's the RSS feed for my podcast:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/18/in-extremis-veritas/#the-winnah

#pluralistic #technofeudalism #yanis varoufakis #rents #profits #economics #podcasts #locus magazine #mp3s

1K notes · View notes

sientifiksiameez · 1 year

Text

youtube

I'm OBSESSED with the vibes in this

(towards the middle there's a glancing mention of s*icide and towards the end there's a bit of flashing lights)

(the entire thing is also heavily based around Christian/Catholic iconography)

#i'm almost certain there's a lot of deeper philosophical meat here i completely missed #but the style and presentation had me ENRAPTURED #also it has my favorite representation of Satan in anything ever #Youtube

0 notes

theinfernalsanctuary · 6 months

Text

I know a lot of us have seen discourse on Lilith, whether or not anyone can worship her, whether or not she is a part of any closed practices, so on and so forth. It is very important to understand that she is, in fact, a part of a closed practice that closed practice being Judaism. You have to be invited or convert through an official process to call yourself Jewish if you weren't born into it.

This is not up for debate. This is not an opinion piece. If you worship Lilith but are not Jewish in any way, you are partaking in cultural appropriation. I will not tolerate that on my page in any way, shape, or form. It is antisemitic, point blank, period.

#hail satan #satanism #theistic satanism #satan #satanic #theistic luciferianism #the infernal gospel #ave satanas #the infernal circle #the satanic philosopher

213 notes · View notes

altargarden · 2 years

Note

The Infernal Gospel by Rev Cain is good! I haven't had a chance to read his other books, but I've heard they're good too.

the infernal gospel is literally soooo good!!! i forgot to mention that that's one of the books i've read in the past -- i'll admit, i'm such an incredibly huge fan, the infernal gospel blew me away back when i was first dipping my toes in theistic satanism.

#i noticed they released 'the satanic philosopher' which i was very curious about -- is that any good?#dev talks #asks

0 notes

lenaellsi · 25 days

Text

we really need to be able to separate "demon as species" and "demon as political affiliation" in good omens, because that is at the core of why so many people (including the characters in the show, especially aziraphale) are reluctant to acknowledge crowley as a true demon.

demon means BOTH "an angel who has fallen from heaven, has an animal aspect, and is weak to holy water and resistant to hellfire" and "an employee of hell who is loyal to satan." there is one word for both of these concepts. crowley fits one, but not the other. it's why he's simultaneously a "former demon" by his own words and also incredibly resistant to the idea that he is anything else.

not working for hell doesn't mean he's not really a demon. it doesn't mean he's in any better standing with god. it doesn't mean his fall wasn't something that changed him deeply, both on a physical level and as a person. it means he is struggling to find the vocabulary to define himself, because the system is not built for someone like him. it is impossible, in the minds of every character in the show except for crowley, to be a demon without being one of "the bad guys." it's impossible to have fallen without joining team hell.

the same is also true of angels. michael refers to aziraphale as a "former angel" in the same episode that crowley refers to himself as a "former demon." I don't think aziraphale would ever use that language for himself--he's very attached to his identity as an angel, and the closest he ever gets to calling himself anything else is when he's so upset at the end of the job minisode--but just as there's no word for a demon who is not associated with hell, there's no word for an angel who has been alienated from heaven.

but these identities still mean something for both crowley and aziraphale. a huge part of crowley’s personality and his moral code is his resistance to authority and his disdain for rules and predestination. likewise, a huge part of aziraphale’s personal code is still his allegiance to some sort of “greater good,” whether that be god or just a nebulous concept of a heaven that doesn’t exist.

and in addition to the philosophical divide, there are real tangible differences between the angel crowley used to be and the demon he is now. the distinction between “angel” and “demon” is not important in that it dictates whether a celestial being can be Good or Bad, but it is important in how it functions as a descriptor of the person’s prior life experiences, their relationship with god, and their physical characteristics.

#good omens #good omens 2 #good omens meta #aziraphale #crowley #long post

476 notes · View notes

witchplease-freakbitch · 1 year

Text

@yumekuipup and I will (hopefully) get our new clothes delivered later today / it's 5:15 am rn. Insomnia ftw /

So curios. We do still not own a closet. And we share a room. But heyyyy. Clothes in boxes are fun

Might take some pics in them within the next weeks 💕 / although there are some lovely ppl that def will get to see us in them if they so want before we post them heh ♡ /

#about a handful of ppl for sure #not all of them have tags on my lil blog yet tho lol #alien mommy's doll #satans asylum toy #poetic philosophical tumblr crush #to my personal online stalker #let's change the tagging issue lol #a new shy guy appears #@A who's gonna visit us this year: hope you like your own tag haha <3 #asylumdoll thoughts

2 notes · View notes

headspace-hotel · 2 years

Text

i'm too...skeptical of a person to vibe with much of the "witchcraft" adjacent spirituality that's popular nowadays

However, one of the most difficult things to understand about The Past is that for many of your ancestors, the distinction between "spiritual" and "mundane" phenomena did not exist.

and this does create problems for the idea that "science is for one set of questions, religion is for another" or at least the idea that "witchcraft" is a religion (exclusively). In The Past, philosophers speculated about the universe from the point of view that there were spiritual realities and that they weren't distinct from material realities. Before the modern idea of gravity, there was the idea that the four classical elements each had a particular nature, with earth being the heaviest and fire being the lightest. This also corresponded to a moral reality about the elements—the lighter elements were more "pure." (This is why in Dante's Inferno at the center of the Earth is Satan himself.) These people weren't assigning morals to substances in the way we now think of it. Their spiritual and moral realities were just "real" in the same way as the physical world.

People asked "From what we know of God, what can we hypothesize about the existence of extraterrestrial planets and beings, and what they are like?" And it's interesting to note that the belief in God didn't obstruct them from asking these questions; instead, it allowed them to ask these questions at a time when they didn't have naturalistic observations to go on.

But I'm getting off track—modern science is derived from things like alchemy and philosophy, and we are a bit biased here because we tend to see Aristotle and the like as precursors to "science," whereas when indigenous people maintain and pass down a collective body of naturalistic observations about their world, that's seen as some kind of cutesy pagan thing. Which is just racism.

In reality, ancient astronomers were also priests, medicine was practiced by shamans. They were people with knowledge that the average person did not possess. If there's a generic word for this type of person, it's "wise woman" or "wise man": the "three wise men" that are said to have visited Jesus were astronomers. The figures we see as "spiritual" often dealt primarily, and sometimes almost exclusively, with physical, natural phenomena. When they did deal with spiritual phenomena, it was for a lot of the same reasons that we do.

(Arguably, we have a worse understanding of some things, because we see everything in the physical world, including our own bodies, as unaffected by the meaning we assign them.)

What this means is that "witchcraft" can and should be to some extent "mundane" and evidence-based. But in my mind, "witchcraft" means possessing some kind of knowledge that is hands-on, practical, and not easily obtainable just by reading books or wikipedia, tempered by wisdom as a guide for when and how to apply it. It's also a social role; it suggests your knowledge makes you important to your community.

...

So I think an auto mechanic is technically some kind of witch.

#random #witchcraft #history #history of science

6K notes · View notes

chimpanzeedotcom · 7 months

Text

The word “neurodivergent” really pisses me off because it creates this grey area terminology that any old idiot can label themselves. The “neurodivergent urge” that means NOTHING it’s a nothing term. The blurring of lines between autism and adhd as if they aren’t vastly different disorders. This kind of pseudo-outcast mindset where the person themselves is normie but they have deluded themselves through consumerism that somehow they’re “different”. Meanwhile the people who are actyally different, those who have disorders and disabilities that cannot be commodified into an identity to be worn. From cerebral palsy to burn victims to genetic abnormalities to real tangible “””””school shooter””””” autism. To actual mental disorders that really effect the lives of both the person and the people around them. It’s like I hate it I hate it so much. The idea that now this concept of alternative is this grey amorphous blob of mall emo and baby’s first post punk and genetic shitty metal instead of sub cultures with rich histories of the philosophical reasons behind their sonic palettes. This is why I have found myself more and more drawn to power electronics and more transgressive forms of black metal. This kind of barrier that stops the slop mind of the pseudo alt normie. Then again I have my own issues with costumed sub cultures. The idea that someone can choose to be this misfit is one that irritates me the idea that at the end of the day they can take off their consumable identity and enter wider society once more leaving behind those who cannot (NOT just choosing not to but CAN NOT) blend into the swarm. Kill all normies. The Redditification of “satanism” as a edgelords choice of anti abrahamic religion instead of the wide range of esoteric belief systems that are out there to explore. Although maybe that’s a good thing.

456 notes · View notes

canyourfavesurvivecastledracula · 28 days

Note

Would T-Rex from Dinosaur Comics / Qwantz comics by Ryan North survive?

I feel like this is in large part going to be based on whether or not t-rex blood is vamp food & if t-rexs can be mind controlled??? Might come down to an actual fight.

T-Rex probably stomps on the woman with a crucifix, but he doesn't shave, so probably ok. He does have a personal friendship with both God & Satan though?

T-Rex is not great at social niceties, so I don't know if Dracula will want him around for very long, but T-Rex is also a dinosaur so I don't know if Dracula can actually get him to leave. Maybe they bond over being apex predators???

T-Rex can definitely not climb (those lil arms!), but he might be able to out predator the wolves & eat them.

I am going to apologize in advance for the fact that I just do not possess the philosophical education or terminology to give this subject the treatment it deserves. When it comes to philosophy, I possess the wisdom of Socrates: I know what I do not know. I know that the three characters of Dinosaur comics embody different philosophical archetypes. I know that T-rex's rhetorical style has a name, as does his axiology. I could not for the life of me tell you what they are. I remand the deeper analysis to Philosophy Side of Tumblr

Given the metaphysical reality of the comic strip, I think it is fair to understand T-rex as an ensoulled being, in which case his blood might be attractive to Dracula. I am not up to date on the scientific thinking around the penetrability of tyrannosaur skin, but they definitely don't osteoderms and I don't believe we have found any evidence of scutes or scales. We have also found zero evidence of feathers, despite looking really really hard, and so while the current understanding is that feathers on dinosaurs are the rule, not the exception, T. rex seems to have been exceptional. Which is moot because T-rex the character definitely lacks them. So I am going to say that Dracula can physically bite T-rex and has a tentative interest in so doing.

T-rex has a strong interest in religion on a philosophical level, but he is definitely not Anglican. He would accept the crucifix specifically to argue with Utahraptor over whether or not it was idolatrous - though I don't think the townsfolk would offer it given all the stepping on dudes and houses he gets up to. And as you say, he doesn't shave. He also has no need of mirrors, as he already knows how cool and sexy he is.

On that level, I think he would be difficult for Dracula to psychologically torment. Now, while it is true that Jonathan Harker also goes into Castle Dracula already knowing how cool and sexy he is, and that provides him some level of protection, he's just not on T-rex's level. I would venture that not even Zaphod Beeblebrox is on T-rex's level, which is impressive because Zaphod literally has an ego the size of the entire universe. I don't think T-rex can be gaslit, because he would enthusiastically take any doubts about his own sanity as a jumping off point for philosophical examination and possibly epistemology. He probably is susceptible to Brain Fever. When Ornithomimus finds him in Budapest he doesn't know who he is but he knows his genitals are GREAT.

The main source of conflict will be that both T-rex and Dracula really like hearing themselves talk. I don't think Dracula would be very pleased slipping into the role of Utahraptor and letting T-rex take the lead - and T-rex can't stop being the thing that he is any more than Dracula can. If they can work out a mutually satisfying conversational structure, I think T-rex could keep Dracula entertained indefinitely. He would definitely have thoughts about changing attitudes towards violent conquest. They might discuss the nature of the soul and the extent to which treating it as transactional (eg in Faust) is compatible with Christian teaching, or whether you can be damned without your own participation (say, by being turned into a vampire). T-rex may be curious about dabbling in vampirism provided he can do so temporarily - which, given T-rex, he is confident he can.

T-rex definitely cannot climb down the wall with those itty bitty arms. He probably can't fit through the window. On the other hand I am not sure walls can contain him (there are no walls in the comic save on the stomped cabin). I do not think he would be deterred by Dracula's doors or his wolves.

So I think T-rex of Dinosaur Comics can survive Castle Dracula, and raise some very interesting questions while he's there

Unrelatedly, the @wheresjonno project last summer ended up giving Jonathan Harker a pet T. rex named Hamlet, but she's an entirely different character who doesn't fit in the London Underground. Nevertheless.

#qwantz #dinosaur comics #t-rex #animals #webcomics

153 notes · View notes

bloomingdayswithyou · 10 months

Note

can I make a request for obey me? How the 7 brothers would flirt with a female mc? thanks!!!

How would the brothers flirt with MC

Author’s note: I usually would do only 3, but I couldn’t choose so I just did all of them <3

You can check pt. 2 with other characters here

1. Lucifer:

Lucifer's flirting style with mc includes a balance of refinement and intellectual charm. He values intelligence and elegance and appreciates those qualities on a person.

When flirting with her, Lucifer would often invite her to formal events, treating her like a lady. He would extend his arm for a graceful dance or engage her in sophisticated conversations during lavish parties.

Lucifer's compliments would focus on her intellect, wit, and ability to handle complex matters.

He would appreciate her for that, acknowledging her opinions and valuing her insights.

His admiration for her would manifest through thoughtful gestures, such as presenting her with rare books or inviting her to join him in discussions about literature, history or other topics.

In private moments, however, Lucifer might reveal his vulnerable side, opening up about the pressures of his role as the Avatar of Pride and expressing how mc’s presence brings him solace.

He might engage her in philosophical debates, relishing the intellectual simulation their conversations provide.

2. Mammon:

His flirtatious behavior towards mc is filled with playful banter and a hint of protectiveness.

He adores mc and is often torn between wanting to impress her and teasing her relentlessly.

He would refer to her as “Princess” or “Darlin’”, playfully using terms like these to establish a sense of familiarity and affection.

Mammon’s attempts at impressing her would involve flashy gifts or extravagant gestures. He might sweep her off her feet with surprises, like organizing a private fireworks display or reserving an entire amusement park for a day of exclusive fun.

Despite his nature, his possessiveness would become evident when other people show interest in mc. He would make it his mission to get all of her attention, constantly reminding her of his affection and playfully challenging anyone who dares to come close.

While his flirting includes teasing and cheeky compliments about mc’s appearance, he also has moments of vulnerability where he reveals his fears and insecurities.

Being the Avatar of Greed, he might struggle with self-stem and worry that he isn’t enough for mc.

In these moments, mc’s reassurance and genuine care would mean the world to him, and he would shower her with affection, showcasing his genuine feelings.

3. Leviathan:

Levi’s approach to flirting with mc revolves around their shared interests and virtual escapades.

He appreciates her understanding and acceptance of his passion for games and anime, finding solace in her presence.

When flirting, Levi would invite her to gaming sessions, exploring various virtual worlds together and experiencing thrilling adventures side by side.

He would discuss strategy and tactics with her, valuing her insights and appreciating her ability to think strategically.

Levi might recommend new games or anime that he thinks she would enjoy, taking pleasure in introducing her to his favorite titles.

In the virtual realm, he would be more confident and expressive, allowing their connection to flourish.

As their bond deepens, Levi might shyly confess his affection, expressing how grateful he is to have found someone who appreciates his hobbies and understands him.

He would reveal the extent of his vulnerability, sharing stories of his struggles with social interactions and the comfort he finds in their companionship.

In these moments, Levi’s affectionate side shines through, and he becomes more open and expressive about his feelings.

4. Satan:

His flirting style centers around intellectual and literary pursuits.

As an avid reader, Satan is drawn to her intellect and curiosity. He finds joy in their shared love for books and knowledge, viewing her as a kindred spirit.

When flirting, Satan would recommend books, poems, or thought-provoking articles that he thinks mc would appreciate, sparking engaging discussions between them.

They might spend time in the library together, exchanging ideas and delving into deep conversations about their favorite authors or literary theories.

Satan would value her insights and opinions, seeking her perspectives on various subjects. His compliments would focus on her intelligence, insightfulness, and the stimulating discussions they have.

His affectionate side would surface when they are alone, away from the prying eyes of his demon brothers.

In these private moments, he would reveal his vulnerabilities, sharing personal stories and embracing her as a trusted confidant.

He might express his gratitude for her presence in his life, describing how she brings balance to his sometimes chaotic emotions.

Satan’s flirting would Inter wine with profound conversations, creating a deep emotional connection between them.

5. Asmodeus:

Asmo would employ his instinct for glamour and beauty to captivate mc.

He finds joy in adorning others with his fashion expertise and takes pride in enhancing their appearance. When flirting, Asmo would offer fashion advice, helping her choose stylish outfits that accentuate her features and personality.

He might even design unique ensembles for her, showcasing his creativity and attention to detail.

Asmo would plan spa days or makeovers, pampering mc with luxurious treatments that make her feel like a queen.

He would compliment her on her beauty, highlighting her elegance and grace. As the Avatar of Lust, his flirtatious remarks would often revolve around her physical appearance, but he would also emphasize the beauty he sees within her, appreciating her inner radiance.

Beyond the superficial, Asmo is also caring and affectionate. He would create a safe space for mc, encouraging her to open up about her dreams, desires and insecurities.

He would showe her with compliments, recognizing her strengths and making her feel cherished and desired.

Asmo would revel in romantic gestures, believing that love should be celebrated and expressed in a bold way.

6. Beelzebub:

His flirting style revolves around shared meals and engaging in physical activities together.

He find comfort in their companionship and appreciates mc’s understanding of his insatiable appetite.

When flirting, Beel would invite her to try delicious foods, cooking for her or taking her to the best entries in the demon realm.

They might embark on culinary adventures, discovering unique flavors and bonding over shared gastronomic experiences. Beel might challenge her to eating contests, playfully competing with her while sharing hearty laughs.

Through these activities, he would express his desire to experience the hoys of life with her by his side.

In addition to this, Beel would encourage her to participate in physical activities like sports, workouts, our outdoor adventures.

He would cherish their time together and celebrate their shared interests. Beel’s flirtatious gestures would often be accompanied by his infectious laughter and warmth, creating and atmosphere of happiness and friendship.

7. Belphegor

Belphie’s flirtatious behavior towards mc is infused with humor, laziness, and a touch of mischief.

He often appears uninterested but secretly keeps an eye on her, observing her every move.

When flirting, Belphie would playfully tease her, pretending to be uninterested while dropping hints of his affection to catch her attention.

He might engage in witty banter, using his dry wit and sarcasm to make her laugh. Belphie would suggest fun and relaxed activities that cater to their shared laziness, such as napping together, binge-watching shows, or enjoying lazy afternoons under a shared blanket.

In these moments, he would create a comfortable and lighthearted atmosphere, allowing mc to feel at ease in his presence.

Belphie’s flirtation would often involve subtle gestures that express his care and protectiveness.

He might fall asleep next to mc, subconsciously seeking her warmth and companionship. His mischief would give away to moments of vulnerability, where he reveals his true emotions and the depth of his feelings.

Belphie would cherish mc’s ability to accept him for who he is and would shower her with affectionate gestures that reflect his genuine care and admiration.

541 notes · View notes