Hey, I’m Chloe. I’m mostly here because of the OTDevil community, but I might do Metroid stuff from time to time as well.
DNI: people who haven’t read this sentence (dw, ur in the clear)
ojovivo
occasionally subtle

#extradirty

JBB: An Artblog!
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

pixel skylines
sheepfilms
trying on a metaphor
wallacepolsom
Claire Keane

Andulka
DEAR READER

@theartofmadeline
d e v o n
RMH
KIROKAZE

Kaledo Art

tannertan36

roma★
Xuebing Du
seen from Slovakia
seen from Paraguay
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia

seen from Brunei

seen from Singapore

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
@fifteencrows
Hey, I’m Chloe. I’m mostly here because of the OTDevil community, but I might do Metroid stuff from time to time as well.
DNI: people who haven’t read this sentence (dw, ur in the clear)
Who here fw horse race tests still
Ayyy, you even got the Chinese horses; most people moved on after HRTT:HRT or basketball
Gotta love the BBC trying its very hardest to pretend one of the biggest marches in UK history isn't happening right now
Every other news source: approximately half a million people are currently marching through London against the far right today
BBC: And today in London, nothing is happening whatsoever. Anyway,
They finally acknowledged it 🎉
Even if a large part of their article was "the met police said there weren't that many people actually, clearly everyone but them is lying"
It’s worse than that, they describe it as “tens of thousands” and then go out of their way to bring up that Tommy Robinson got over 100,000 people twice. They’re pretending Robinson won and had higher attendance than us, and are manipulating the facts to make it seem that way.
Given the BBC has refused to cover it and the MET are lying about attendance, and given you all like pushing leftist news that the state and media fights back against, the Together March in London yesterday had an attendance of around 500,000 people if not more, making it 5x more successful than the Tommy Robinson marches we were trying to beat (being as conservative to us and as generous to him as possible, respectively). We are many, and Robinson’s clowns are few. While Westminster may belong to the right, the streets clearly belong to the left.
Tumblr Sexy Women Contest 2026 Round 2
Evangeline Morgan (of the Devil)
Lady DeVoid (pppidwtbamg)
If Morgan loses here I’ll shoot an intercontinental ballistic missile at wherever Tumblr keeps their servers. Morg sweep
Hey, is hyperfixation able to be a disabling aspect of autism as opposed to something actively positive? I’ve had it drilled into my head that it’s an advantage and something I should be happy about, but it’s actively hindering my ability to live my life; and yet complaining about it still feels ungrateful. Like, yes I’m better at some things than Billy Neurotypical because I practice nonstop, but given my hyperfixation on Trotskyism drove all my would be friends away, and my hyperfixation on game development has left me awake at 5:30 AM because I got too carried away on Unity, I think it’s not like, necessarily a boon.
Lmk if this is me complaining about my lobster being too buttery and my steak too juicy.
PLEASE HOW DO YOU DO YOUR LINEART
it's complicated, and also something i put a lot of serious thought and practice into, so this answer got very long!
Given the crowdfunding is going very very slowly, I figured here might be a good place to promote it.
Last April, For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers led to the Supreme Court ruling that the term women in the 2010 Equality Act refers to cis women only. This ruling directly resulted in the EHRC changing its guidance for trans people, causing us to be legally barred from accessing spaces designed for either gender, causing us to have to use spaces typically allocated for disabled people in order to comply. This has also caused trans people to be barred from organisations such as the WI, out of fears of them losing their legal status as a charity through non compliance with the ruling. The actual trial contained no trans voices, and was made up of primarily TERFs causing the ruling to be biased and unfair.
Fortunately, the ruling likely does not comply with the laws of the European Court of Human Rights, so Britains first openly transgender judge Victoria McCloud is attempting to form a legal case against the UK. Unfortunately, due to the case being crowdfunded and there being very little marketing for the campaign, it hasn’t actually progressed that far.
If you’re a British trans person, or simply someone who wishes to stand in solidarity with us, I highly encourage you to donate what you can to the crowdfunder by Trans Legal Clinic for McCloud vs UK. The link is below
McCloud v UK | Trans Legal Clinic
About Those "Checks"...
Emma's is, as you can probably tell, a chess game - the white queen, representing Emma, has just put the red king, representing Morgan, in check.
In chess, for clarity's sake, a "check" happens when a piece is in a position to capture the opposing king. In this case, the white queen threatens the red king along the left-down diagonal line.
When the king is in put in check, that king's player is compelled by the rules to make a move which will take the king out of check. In this case, the king can move left, right, up... basically anywhere that is not on that particular diagonal.
That's all fairly basic - Emma has put Morgan in check, and now Morgan must respond, but there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Where it gets interesting is when we consider this position not only in terms of the next move, but also how it would develop. Which is to say, it wouldn't.
You see, the white queen cannot put the red king in checkmate and win the game, because if the queen literally corners the red king, cutting off all avenues of escape, it is still legal for the red king to capture the piece that put it in check - but likewise, the red king will never be able to capture the white queen, because that would require the white queen to move next to the red king, which is obviously suicidal.
This position leads to perpetual check, with neither player able to finish the game. Emma cannot checkmate Morgan without getting too close and getting killed - Morgan can't kill Emma because she's smart enough to keep her distance.
However, there is a scenario in which it would be possible for white to checkmate red. It is illegal to move your king into check. Therefore, if another white piece threatened the square where the white queen is standing, the red king cannot capture it, and red would lose.
So it sure is a good thing for Morgan that Emma is working on Heartbreak all by her lonesome. Would be terribly inconvenient if she acquired a partner of some kind.
"Check" in poker means something different than in chess. In chess, allowing for a bit of simplification, it's a threat. In poker, more specifically Texas Hold 'Em as is being played here, to "check" means to pass on betting anything for the round, without folding. If all players check during a round, then the next card will be revealed - in this case, the fourth card, the "turn".
In this game, something extraordinary has happened: the "flop", that is, the three cards revealed after the initial round of betting, when players only know the two cards they themselves have been dealt, contains three of the four queens in the deck.
This means that there are very few hands that are any good - really, it's only the four-of-a-kind with queens that's important. This is because any player can use the cards in the flop (and beyond) to construct their hand, therefore all hands this ante are at least three-of-a-kind. Pairs become full houses, but no flushes, straights, or three- or four-of-a-kind hands that are not queens can be constructed.
So the game is on, and the question is this: who, if anyone, has the queen?
Morgan checks. She does not raise the bet. Does this mean she doesn't have it? Surely if not, she would've folded, right? Or does she just want you to think that? But if she had it, she'd have raised, right? Or is that too obvious?
And there's nothing to prevent her opponent, Emma, from doing the same. A sort of... perpetual checking. (In this case, slightly less perpetual - the game will end after the final card, the river, has been revealed.)
Oh, would you look at that. She did have it. Hope you didn't bet against her.
In this case, the check represents Morgan being put in a dangerous situation, and allowing Emma to gauge how lucky she thinks Morgan is. There's only one way out - for both of them. Whoever has the queen wins - and maybe neither of them do. If Morgan is lucky, she's toying with Emma. If not, she's trying to expose her to the other players by tricking her into betting. Either way, she's given Emma just enough rope to hang herself with. It's a move that cannot be outsmarted, because the intention behind it hinges entirely on something random and unknowable - what card Morgan is holding.
As a final note, we can consider these two checks in concert. Both revolve around a single queen threatening to steal the game, while in actuality provoking repetitive gameplay.
But in chess, the queen belongs to Emma. And the flop doesn't "belong" to Morgan - as I said, it can be used by any player at the table. And we don't see Morgan's two hole cards; it's only when she has a winning hand that we see the queen. It's entirely possible she won't have it. So in chess Emma always "has the queen" and can win, if she knew to play with the flop. In poker, Morgan might have the last of four queens, and wins instead.
Only if Emma learns to play Morgan's game can she win on her own.
That is, unless Morgan was lucky enough to draw the queen. Then, it's a tie... and on to the next game.
About Those "Checks"...
Emma's is, as you can probably tell, a chess game - the white queen, representing Emma, has just put the red king, representing Morgan, in check.
In chess, for clarity's sake, a "check" happens when a piece is in a position to capture the opposing king. In this case, the white queen threatens the red king along the left-down diagonal line.
When the king is in put in check, that king's player is compelled by the rules to make a move which will take the king out of check. In this case, the king can move left, right, up... basically anywhere that is not on that particular diagonal.
That's all fairly basic - Emma has put Morgan in check, and now Morgan must respond, but there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Where it gets interesting is when we consider this position not only in terms of the next move, but also how it would develop. Which is to say, it wouldn't.
You see, the white queen cannot put the red king in checkmate and win the game, because if the queen literally corners the red king, cutting off all avenues of escape, it is still legal for the red king to capture the piece that put it in check - but likewise, the red king will never be able to capture the white queen, because that would require the white queen to move next to the red king, which is obviously suicidal.
This position leads to perpetual check, with neither player able to finish the game. Emma cannot checkmate Morgan without getting too close and getting killed - Morgan can't kill Emma because she's smart enough to keep her distance.
However, there is a scenario in which it would be possible for white to checkmate red. It is illegal to move your king into check. Therefore, if another white piece threatened the square where the white queen is standing, the red king cannot capture it, and red would lose.
So it sure is a good thing for Morgan that Emma is working on Heartbreak all by her lonesome. Would be terribly inconvenient if she acquired a partner of some kind.
"Check" in poker means something different than in chess. In chess, allowing for a bit of simplification, it's a threat. In poker, more specifically Texas Hold 'Em as is being played here, to "check" means to pass on betting anything for the round, without folding. If all players check during a round, then the next card will be revealed - in this case, the fourth card, the "turn".
In this game, something extraordinary has happened: the "flop", that is, the three cards revealed after the initial round of betting, when players only know the two cards they themselves have been dealt, contains three of the four queens in the deck.
This means that there are very few hands that are any good - really, it's only the four-of-a-kind with queens that's important. This is because any player can use the cards in the flop (and beyond) to construct their hand, therefore all hands this ante are at least three-of-a-kind. Pairs become full houses, but no flushes, straights, or three- or four-of-a-kind hands that are not queens can be constructed.
So the game is on, and the question is this: who, if anyone, has the queen?
Morgan checks. She does not raise the bet. Does this mean she doesn't have it? Surely if not, she would've folded, right? Or does she just want you to think that? But if she had it, she'd have raised, right? Or is that too obvious?
And there's nothing to prevent her opponent, Emma, from doing the same. A sort of... perpetual checking. (In this case, slightly less perpetual - the game will end after the final card, the river, has been revealed.)
Oh, would you look at that. She did have it. Hope you didn't bet against her.
In this case, the check represents Morgan being put in a dangerous situation, and allowing Emma to gauge how lucky she thinks Morgan is. There's only one way out - for both of them. Whoever has the queen wins - and maybe neither of them do. If Morgan is lucky, she's toying with Emma. If not, she's trying to expose her to the other players by tricking her into betting. Either way, she's given Emma just enough rope to hang herself with. It's a move that cannot be outsmarted, because the intention behind it hinges entirely on something random and unknowable - what card Morgan is holding.
As a final note, we can consider these two checks in concert. Both revolve around a single queen threatening to steal the game, while in actuality provoking repetitive gameplay.
But in chess, the queen belongs to Emma. And the flop doesn't "belong" to Morgan - as I said, it can be used by any player at the table. And we don't see Morgan's two hole cards; it's only when she has a winning hand that we see the queen. It's entirely possible she won't have it. So in chess Emma always "has the queen" and can win, if she knew to play with the flop. In poker, Morgan might have the last of four queens, and wins instead.
Only if Emma learns to play Morgan's game can she win on her own.
That is, unless Morgan was lucky enough to draw the queen. Then, it's a tie... and on to the next game.
About Those "Checks"...
Emma's is, as you can probably tell, a chess game - the white queen, representing Emma, has just put the red king, representing Morgan, in check.
In chess, for clarity's sake, a "check" happens when a piece is in a position to capture the opposing king. In this case, the white queen threatens the red king along the left-down diagonal line.
When the king is in put in check, that king's player is compelled by the rules to make a move which will take the king out of check. In this case, the king can move left, right, up... basically anywhere that is not on that particular diagonal.
That's all fairly basic - Emma has put Morgan in check, and now Morgan must respond, but there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Where it gets interesting is when we consider this position not only in terms of the next move, but also how it would develop. Which is to say, it wouldn't.
You see, the white queen cannot put the red king in checkmate and win the game, because if the queen literally corners the red king, cutting off all avenues of escape, it is still legal for the red king to capture the piece that put it in check - but likewise, the red king will never be able to capture the white queen, because that would require the white queen to move next to the red king, which is obviously suicidal.
This position leads to perpetual check, with neither player able to finish the game. Emma cannot checkmate Morgan without getting too close and getting killed - Morgan can't kill Emma because she's smart enough to keep her distance.
However, there is a scenario in which it would be possible for white to checkmate red. It is illegal to move your king into check. Therefore, if another white piece threatened the square where the white queen is standing, the red king cannot capture it, and red would lose.
So it sure is a good thing for Morgan that Emma is working on Heartbreak all by her lonesome. Would be terribly inconvenient if she acquired a partner of some kind.
"Check" in poker means something different than in chess. In chess, allowing for a bit of simplification, it's a threat. In poker, more specifically Texas Hold 'Em as is being played here, to "check" means to pass on betting anything for the round, without folding. If all players check during a round, then the next card will be revealed - in this case, the fourth card, the "turn".
In this game, something extraordinary has happened: the "flop", that is, the three cards revealed after the initial round of betting, when players only know the two cards they themselves have been dealt, contains three of the four queens in the deck.
This means that there are very few hands that are any good - really, it's only the four-of-a-kind with queens that's important. This is because any player can use the cards in the flop (and beyond) to construct their hand, therefore all hands this ante are at least three-of-a-kind. Pairs become full houses, but no flushes, straights, or three- or four-of-a-kind hands that are not queens can be constructed.
So the game is on, and the question is this: who, if anyone, has the queen?
Morgan checks. She does not raise the bet. Does this mean she doesn't have it? Surely if not, she would've folded, right? Or does she just want you to think that? But if she had it, she'd have raised, right? Or is that too obvious?
And there's nothing to prevent her opponent, Emma, from doing the same. A sort of... perpetual checking. (In this case, slightly less perpetual - the game will end after the final card, the river, has been revealed.)
Oh, would you look at that. She did have it. Hope you didn't bet against her.
In this case, the check represents Morgan being put in a dangerous situation, and allowing Emma to gauge how lucky she thinks Morgan is. There's only one way out - for both of them. Whoever has the queen wins - and maybe neither of them do. If Morgan is lucky, she's toying with Emma. If not, she's trying to expose her to the other players by tricking her into betting. Either way, she's given Emma just enough rope to hang herself with. It's a move that cannot be outsmarted, because the intention behind it hinges entirely on something random and unknowable - what card Morgan is holding.
As a final note, we can consider these two checks in concert. Both revolve around a single queen threatening to steal the game, while in actuality provoking repetitive gameplay.
But in chess, the queen belongs to Emma. And the flop doesn't "belong" to Morgan - as I said, it can be used by any player at the table. And we don't see Morgan's two hole cards; it's only when she has a winning hand that we see the queen. It's entirely possible she won't have it. So in chess Emma always "has the queen" and can win, if she knew to play with the flop. In poker, Morgan might have the last of four queens, and wins instead.
Only if Emma learns to play Morgan's game can she win on her own.
That is, unless Morgan was lucky enough to draw the queen. Then, it's a tie... and on to the next game.
in reference to this post
in reference to this post
"i'll pay the fine" is my favorite recurring line in of the Devil cause it encapsulates SO succinctly how any law that incurs a fine just doesn't exist for anyone who's wealthy enough. Morgan is CONSTANTLY incurring fines because she just doesn't care about following the law. obviously she's breaking the law when she's out killing people but it really shows that even in her daily "I'm totally a normal citizen" life she disrespects authority in any way she can get away with. she's not even that wealthy so this is probably where ALL of her disposable income goes. she lives frugally and pays her bills on time and all the surplus money is just "this is how much i can legally break the law this month" it's incredible to me.
"please help me budget this" "stop spending so much on the fine" "no"
Take direct action, make a difference
Regulators in Europe, India and Malaysia are scrutinizing X after exploitative images created with the Grok chatbot went viral on Elon Musk'
Reminder that the entire trajectory of Tumblr over the last 8 years was a result of Tumblr being removed from the app store due to people posting CSAM, so this really could work
Congrats if you survived this year because what the fuck was that