@apostate21263@NickBen12 Well i dunno about Soth but in gannondorf's instance, I would say GDorf isn't deep or complex but he fits his role in the story perfectly as a villian, in that regard he is a good character.
Jax on the otherhand... literally doesn't serve any purpose.
@apostate21263@NickBen12 I disagree, I think 99.99% of people would take time to reflect on their actions if they drove one person to suicide, let alone 2 people, let alone continue to abuse others.
I don't know who lord soth is but I assume he's just a villian like gannondorf?
@apostate21263@NickBen12 The thing is he doesn't have like ANY redeeming qualities, he's not deep or interesting or complex or even has a "good side" he's just an abuser with a tragic backstory.
Example, Walter White was bad but he was willing to put his entire life's work away just to save his brother
@NickBen12 Yeah if the show made a point to show that you shouldn't feel bad for jax then i'd understand but it goes out of it's way to CELEBRATE jax by showing us a montage of him and pomni still feeling bad for him sand his own VICTIMS feeling bad for him lol
@souriz_e It's not realistic in the slightest, most people would stop and think if they drove one person to suicide , let alone two, let alone continue to abuse people.
Jax isn't a deep or realistic character, he's an ireedemable POS the show spotlights on at the cost of the other cast
@jifferey Yup, Ragatha despite her traumas continued to be nice to people, Jax drove two people to suicide not only didn't think about his actions but also continued to abuse people
@Refresh_RM It's amazing how they made a character with ZERO redeeming qualities. Fucker drove two people to suicide and didn't once think that his actions have consequence, even worse, he CONTINUED to abuse people lmao.
Lo que casi nadie sabe más bien es que esto, como reliquia medieval, es totalmente falso. El cinturón de castidad de hierro para garantizar la fidelidad de la esposa mientras el marido andaba en las cruzadas nunca existió, es un mito que se montó mucho después. Lo enterró completamente el medievalista Albrecht Classen, que se leyó todo lo que se ha escrito del asunto y no encontró nada real, ni un sermón ni una ley de la época lo mencionan y algo así aparecería. La primera vez que aparece dibujado, hacia 1405, es en un tratado militar lleno de artículos de broma y fantasía, con un carro tirado por gatos incluido, y acompañado de un pie de chiste sobre "los calzones de las mujeres de Florencia". Es evidentemente una nota cómica.
Las piezas que veis en los museos son falsificaciones de los siglos XVIII y XIX. El propio Museo Británico admite que la suya es falsa, y la del Museo de Cluny que le atribuían a Catalina de Médici se analizó y resultó ser de principios del XIX, siglos después. Se fabricaron entonces, igual que la "doncella de hierro" y otro montón de aparatos de esos que andan por los museos de la Inquisición para vender una Edad Media bárbara y oscura y quedar ellos de modernos y civilizados por contraste y desde esa incomprensión, alimentar fetiches morbosos.
@nagol420@zunzetrider If thats the case then its justifiable but from the text messages Im not sure that's what happened, of course it was like 10 years ago so I could be wrong