Does it have to be an individual fey? Could it be an entire coven? Could be interesting to have your warlock be the charge of, say, the Hourglass Coven. They each distrust each other and want to get one up on the others all the time, so they could each be using you to fuck with the other two all the time, essentially giving you carte blanche to do as you want as long as you are constantly a thorn in the side of all 3.
Could even flavor your spells to take on the aspects/traits of one of the three, like that individual hag has given you that specific spell. Divination and control magic from Endelyn with something like suggestion or hold person controllingthrough puppet strings. Skabatha can give you summoning spells and enlarge/reduce with all effects appearing like wood carved toys. Bavlorna gives you all necrotic magic and polymorph with the forms they take looking like stitched together Frankenstein-esque monstrosities.
Or maybe your Patron is specifically Baba Yaga, but she tasks you with being the Hourgalss Coven's errand boy while also being her eyes and ears on her daughters' activities.
There's fucking instructions on how to getcha a good rape victim!
Numbers 17-18 (paraphrased):
"1.Kill all the men and boys. 2. Kill all the women who has had sex with a man. 3. Kidnap the remaining women and girls that are still virgins, and take them for yourselves as wives."
Judges 21:20-23 (again, paraphrased):
"Go stalk and hide in the places where young women do their traditional dances. When they come out to dance, catch and kidnap one for yourself and take her as your wife. When their male family members protest, tell them that the men should actually be helping you to steal their daughters and sisters because you didn't didnt manage to get any in the war, so you need these girls. Tell them it's fine, they don't have to be guilty, because they didn't actually offer them the girls themselves.
And they did that, kidnapped the young women, and returned home with them."
For context on this one, there was a place that most isrealites deemed too sinful to exist, like Sodom, so they decided to do a genocide on it. But one tribe refused to do said genocide, and stood against the rest of the tribes. All of that tribe were then killed except 600 men by the rest of the Isrealites.
But that left those 600 men without wives, and they were still the chosen people. So, while the rest of Isreal swore to never let their daughters marry someone from that tribe, they still decided to help get them replacement wives.... with another genocide. When another tribe failed to join their war coalition, they went and killed everyone there except the virgin girls, around 400 of them. Then gave the wifeless tribe the above instructions.
What makes this story extra shitty is the entire reason for the original genocide was because one group of men raped and murdered one woman. While that it abhorrent, they then corrected this crime with at least 400 rapes and tens of thousands of murders. Yaaaaay. Much better. Thanks, The Bible!
That shit is in the fucking Bible. Read those passages for the direct translations without my paraphrasing, if you like. It doesn't get any better.
Sorry about that. It was vile to write, too. But it illustrates how vile someone has to be to think that the only thing stopping child rape is reminding them that "it's against the rules", which.... it's also not against their rules, either. No commandment says anything at all about rape or pedophilia, which is just wild. But don't worry, they got the one about not making any idols/"graven images", so... the day is saved. In fact, both rape and pedophilia are often completely condoned in the Bible, at least under certain circumstances. So, yeah, I don't get this guys logic even a little.
Beside the idiocy of thinking that the mere displaying of the Ten Commandments automatically makes the property in question somehow more righteous, more moral, or just generally safer for children... you do know that the Ten Commandments, notably and infamously, do not have any commandment forbidding rape OR pedophilia. And, in fact, the Bible seems to be generally fine with those things at least under certain situations, so...
Honestly, probably helps explain all that child raping going on in churches. Nobody wrote down that they couldn't.
"I know if I carry around my pocket ten commandments at all times, it stops me from sticking my old sweaty semi-hard cock into every sweet virgin 10 year old butthole I can get my hands on. So you should display them everywhere I may be in contact with kids, just in case I misplace my wallet." - This Guy, Probably
Let's also remember that most people didn't REALLY think Trump had a chance in 2016, even most Republicans voting for him. If everyone that would have voted against Trump had shown up (less than 60% of eligible voters turned out in 2016), it would have been no contest. He didn't even get the popular vote in the end. But nobody took his campaign seriously and counted on everybody else to turn out to make the obvious but boring choice.
In 2020, though, we had the highest turnout of eligible voters since 1920 (still an embarrassing 66.6%). The only reason that the turnout for 2020 was so high is because so many people were so eager to either maintain or end Trump's reign that people were charged up and went to the polls. The only realistic way that Trump doesn't win this time though is if everyone who was so charged in 2020 remains as charged this time, or a new bunch of voters, like newly eligible young voters, show up in droves... and I'm very concerned that that doesn't happen.
I can't read the article myself due to the paywall. But presumably these quotes are by the same individual? Why would any Democrat campaign take the advice of someone who has spent decades helping to get Republican presidents elected? Why would he offer his advice to them at all? Certainly not in good faith. And why would he be an expert at what makes a good choice regarding nominees? His campaigns have presumably lost as many as they've won and their electorate is motivated by fundamentally different things. And never has there been a situation like this for either party during an election, a former president and convicted felon and current president circling the drain.
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but given the source I don't give the slightest fuck what his view point is on matters of the Democratic Party.
"Punish the Deserving" suggests an urge to inflict punishment, maybe even pain or death, on those you you personally deem deserving. "Judged by XII and Carried by VIII" is about how you would rather be Judged in court by 12 jurors for crimes than be dead and carried by 8 pallbearers. That's not in itself an uncommon opinion, probably, but to get it tattooed explicitly suggests a fixation on the idea. It suggests that they value their life over upholding the law and will take whatever means necessary to preserve their life even to the point of deserving to be tried for their actions, which is not a great mindset in a person trusted to put themselves in danger and uphold the law. "Only evil need fear me. The shadow is mine and so is the valley." Again this gives the impression of a fixation with dealing fear and retribution to those he judges as evil. "One day as a lion" is a part of a longer quote from Fascist dictator Mussolini, "better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep" and is about being a victimizer rather than a victim. That is all on top of the connection between the far right and Nordic tattoos mentioned by others.
None of those sentiments in itself is incriminating or anything. But they do shed light on the general mindset and worldview of the officer in question that, paired with his actions (multiple instances of shooting people in the head), can suggest a criminal intent or liklihood to repeat his criminal actions.
The problem with them being the only ones with this special magical legal knowledge that no one else knows about is that the people executing the law also do not know about it. If the police, lawyers, prosecutors and judges do not know that your magic words negate all responsibility from the law... guess what it doesn't do...
Even if that nonsense actually did mean anything at all legally, why would he think that would be acceptable to the other party? Dude thinks he can do the equivalent of making an agreement while crossing his fingers right in front of their face and they're going to be like "yeah, this is fine".
And that's before the fact that, if the signature doesn't bind the agreement, then there is no agreement and that goes both ways. You're not held to the terms of the agreement and neither are they, meaning no house for you.
Or does he somehow think that since they signed for-realsies and he signed with an attached asterisk that says "psych!" that they somehow legally owe him the house and he owes them nothing? Could you imagine if the world actually worked that way? Why would anyone ever enter into a contract like that? These people who think that's reality do not seem to realize what chaos such a system would actually bring.
Also interesting that everyone I've ever met that is a fan of Andrew Tate wears wife beaters because they dress for the job they want. Also they seem like they either have meth or know where to get it.
I moved out to go to college at 18 and back in with my mom as 21 after dropping out due to financial issues. I had trouble finding work there, nothing stable that paid well. I was a pretty lonely depressed guy, a virgin into my 20s, with nothing significant in my life and nothing to offer anyone else. It was a pretty shit time for me. I ended up moving in briefly with my dad 2 states away and was able to find a decent paying factory job shortly thereafter and got my own apartment. Then I found an even better paying factory job a year or two later, and got promoted to management within the year. I lost a bunch of weight, was able to save money, lost my virginity finally and I bought a house. I met the woman who would become my wife. Sold my house moved in with her. Went back to school, got my degree, got a much higher paying job, bought a much nicer house and we just had our first kid.
I don't want to tell you how to live and I am not under the impression that everyone can just do what I did. Everyone is different. Circumstances are different. I know. But nothing in my life started to improve from my lowest point in my adulthood until I stopped the complacency, moves out and worked to improve myself and my life. I would be shocked if your 50+ year old uncles who live with you grandmother and have never had a girlfriend are truly happy with their situation. I would encourage you to seek to change your situation if you can. I'm only a year older than you. At one time I was tens of thousands in debt, out of shape, had teeth falling out, living with my mom, no social life, no girlfriends, sexless, penniless, and had no hope or outlook in life. I have had my own share of failures, yet I am in a good place now. I got my teeth fixed, got a degree, i have a nice job, a nice house, a wife and beautiful daughter, and we're comfortable. I hope you can get there too.
Could you imagine if both of them just suddenly died of natural causes from old age in the same day before the election... like... the power vacuum would be wild.
So... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this is quite right. Intent does matter in a criminal act, yes. This is called mens rea. It is the intent and knowledge to commit a criminal act, rather than just the action itself. For example, causing the death of another intentionally (without reasonable cause like self defense) is murder. Killing them unintentionally is only a crime if you were criminally negligent (which also includes knowledge and intent) and said negligence caused the death.
However, motivation is not the same as intent and a potentially unethical or political motivation to perform an otherwise legal action does not make the act illegal. Especially in the execution of the law. If your political rival commits a crime, even though you may care more about their political challenge then actual justice in that case, you still can and should execute the law exactly as you would for anyone else. The alternative would be to allow personal bias against the criminal to make them immune to the law, which can clearly not be the solution. So long as due process is followed, the law is impartial, and the trial is fair, it doesn't matter what the motivation of the prosecution was. They are still subject to the law like anyone else.
I just had this same argument with my Father-In-Law a couple weeks ago about the Trump convictions. He said it was all politically motivated, so it was wrong. I said, maybe it was politically motivated, I don't know. I can't read the minds of dozens of people that I've never met before. But it doesn't matter if it was or not, because Trump still committed the crimes, as was demonstrated before a jury, and he was given a fair trial like any other person was and found guilty by a jury his lawyers helped to select. What anyone's hopes or reasons were are their own and completely inconsequential.