Tumgik
#vox supreme
thebibliomancer · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
I like how even if you consider the first time she did this an asspull, her rationale for doing it again now is “well I’ve done it once, I can probably do it again”
She’s got precedent now.
9 notes · View notes
starrclown · 2 months
Text
Screenshot from @chaifootsteps
Tumblr media
Yes I can. Yes I absolutely can. I can absolutely like Vox and Velvette more than Valentino. You are not going to tell me that VALENTINO, THE RAPIST ABUSING ANGEL DUST, is on the same level as Vox and Velvette. Dude I've seen the first 3 episodes. The worst thing Vox has done so far is telling Sir Pentious to kill himself. Other than that all he does is dare to have a ego and hypmotise(?) the citizens of hell. Velvette, the worst she's done is yell at her models and be disrespectful at the Overlord meeting.
Note: I've seen the poster in the back with Velvette and Valentino. That poster implies that Velvette made the date rape drug used against Angel. If that's the case then THAT'S the worst thing Velvette has ever done.
See the differences in their crimes? Vox and Velvette are fucking SAINTS compared to Valentino.
Also, "They are all villains, not one is more evil than the other bc they litteraly work together and enable each other."
Do they tho??? Bro do Velvette and Vox even LIKE Valentino?? Cause the episode there all introduced Vox curses that he has to deal with Valentino and Velvette calls him a piss baby. Vox actually calms Valentino down. If he was enabling him then he would INCOURAGE him to get Angel back and shoot Charlie. Velvette doesn't even talk to the man, she litteraly make Vox deal with it.
By this logic, wouldn't Alastor, Charlie, and Angel be on the same level of evil? Charlie doesn't stop Alastor betting the shit out of Sir Pentious and Angel tells Alastor to CONTINUE.
Just because the Vee's are a group does NOT mean they are on the same level of evil.
(Not hate to the person on Twitter by the way. But I find it stupid their saying that all or the Vees are on the same level of Evil.)
- ⭐️StarClown⭐️
133 notes · View notes
Text
On Thursday, Justice Neil Gorsuch released a 26-page opinion venting outrage about a legal dispute that does not exist, involving websites that do not exist. Yet this case, built on imaginary grounds, will have very real consequences for LGBTQ consumers, and for anti-discrimination laws more broadly. All of the Court’s Republican appointees joined Gorsuch’s opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
That said, the fake dispute that Gorsuch imagines in his 303 Creative opinion involves a reasonably narrow legal question.
In the past, Christian right advocates have sought sweeping exemptions from state and federal civil rights laws, rooted in their expansive notion of “religious liberty.” Often, these lawsuits claimed that the Constitution’s safeguards for people of faith allow anyone who objects to LGBTQ people on religious grounds to defy any law prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
303 Creative involves a much narrower dispute. The case centers on Lorie Smith, a website designer who wishes to expand her business into designing wedding websites — something she has never done before. She says she’s reluctant to do so, however, because she fears that if she designs such a website for an opposite-sex couple, Colorado’s anti-discrimination law will compel her to also design wedding websites for same-sex couples. And Smith objects to same-sex marriages.
As Gorsuch summarizes her claim, Smith “worries that, if she [starts designing wedding websites,] Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees.”
This is not a religious liberty claim, it is a free speech claim, rooted in well-established law, which says that the First Amendment forbids the government from compelling people to say something that they would rather not say. In ruling in Smith’s favor, the Court does not say that any religious conservative can defy any anti-discrimination law. It simply holds that someone like Smith, who publishes words for a living, may refuse to say something they don’t want to say.
The full implications of Gorsuch’s opinion are not entirely clear. In the past, religious conservatives have argued that artists and artisans of all kinds — including bakers, photographers, and floral arrangement designers — should also be allowed to discriminate under the First Amendment, because all artistic work necessarily entails some kind of expression. Gorsuch punts on this question, writing that “hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment,” are not present in the 303 Creative case.
And it is worth emphasizing that the particular kind of work that Smith does, writing words on a publicly available website, fits more snugly within the First Amendment than a similar claim brought by a wedding cake designer or a florist.
Before this case was argued, I wrote that if Lorie Smith had been approached by a same-sex couple and refused to design a wedding website for them, and if she had then been sued for refusing to do so, then she would have a very strong First Amendment defense against such a suit. As the Supreme Court said in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” And that includes the right of a web designer to refuse to write words on a website that they do not wish to write.
But none of these events have actually happened. And, for that reason, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the case.
THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT THIS FAR
The frustrating thing about this case is that it involves an entirely fabricated legal dispute. Again, Lorie Smith has never actually made a wedding website for a paying customer. Nor has Colorado ever attempted to enforce its civil rights law against Ms. Smith. Indeed, in its brief to the Supreme Court, Colorado expressed doubt that its anti-discrimination law would even apply to Smith.
Yet Gorsuch’s majority opinion repeatedly paints Smith as a hapless victim, oppressed by wicked state officials who insist that she must proclaim a dogma that she denies. As he writes in the very first paragraph of his opinion, “Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe.”
This claim is simply untrue. Colorado has not brought any enforcement action against Smith, or taken any other step to compel her to say anything at all — or to design any website that she does not want to design. Nor has anyone ever sued Smith for allegedly violating Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.
Indeed, in one particularly amusing turn, Smith alleged during an early stage of this litigation that she was approached by a man about doing some design work for his wedding to another man. Yet, after the New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant contacted this man, she learned that he never reached out to Smith — and that he was married to a woman.
These facts matter because federal courts, including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to decide hypothetical cases. As a unanimous Supreme Court held in Texas v. United States (1998), “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” So the Court should have told Smith to go away and come back when she had a real dispute with the state of Colorado.
303 Creative, moreover, is the second time Gorsuch has taken such liberties with the truth in order to rule in favor of a religious conservative. Almost exactly one year ago, Gorsuch handed down the Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), a case about a public school football coach who, after games, would walk to the center of the 50-yard line and ostentatiously kneel down and pray before students and spectators — often while surrounded by players, community members, and even members of the press.
Indeed, in her dissent in Bremerton, Justice Sonia Sotomayor included a photo of Coach Kennedy holding such a prayer session, as a throng of uniformed football players and other individuals kneel with him, and as people holding video cameras look on.
And yet, Gorsuch’s opinion in Bremerton claimed that Kennedy merely wanted to offer a “short, private, personal prayer,” and then Gorsuch ruled in favor of Kennedy based on this fabricated version of Kennedy’s actual conduct.
Needless to say, this is aberrant behavior by a Supreme Court Justice — and really by six Supreme Court justices, since all of the Court’s Republican appointees joined Gorsuch’s decisions in 303 Creative and Kennedy.
152 notes · View notes
Text
SIR PENTIOUS FANS STAY WINNING
IM GOING INSANE
I LOVE THIS LITTLE GUY SO MUCH ADJSHJSHDHAVKKAIGAUAVIAVAKGBLABTCWXUVLHVLAVOTCAIXAUAUCAICIFC
27 notes · View notes
ptsdangeldust · 2 months
Text
was talking to the gf about how lucifer is like not remotely like the other lords of sin ?? like he’s supposed to be prideful but he’s anything but. he has a massive inferiority complex, really. he’ll brag about himself but he doesn’t seem that into it really.
i mean, if anyone’s prideful here it’s… alastor……… HMMMMMMM
11 notes · View notes
morepopcornplease · 4 months
Text
once again struck by how actually unfathomably grotesque and dismissively inhumane abortion is
11 notes · View notes
ofsavior · 28 days
Text
.
3 notes · View notes
dontfightyourwaralone · 5 months
Text
0 notes
aaronjhill · 2 years
Link
THE PROFOUND PESSIMISM OF CLARENCE THOMAS Leftist analysis of conservatism is often so profoundly wrong. I wonder about this discussion of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Is it accurate? Is it true? What do they get wrong? What do they get right?
0 notes
beababoobies · 2 months
Text
HAZBIN SIZE HEADCANONS
Tumblr media
ft Adam, Vox, Husk, Luci, Sir Pent. NSFW.
🐍SIR PENT.🐍
~ GIRTHY. Jesus Christ. Like 4 inches around. 
~ Not too above average, only around 6.5 inches.
~ Yes, that means 8 inches around and 13 inches if you’re counting both of them. 
~ Dark Black and fades to red from the base to the tip. 
~ Because he’s cold-blooded, his cum & precum is super cold! Which was definitely a bit of a jumpscare the first time you two went at it. 
~ uncut. 
~  Clean shaven, not really shaven. Just bare.
🖥️VOX🖥️
~ You know what a headphone jack/phone connector looks like? Now imagine that but ten times bigger.
~ 7.5 inches, but more on the thinner side around 2.5 inches in girth.
~ Pointed tip to hit the best places for you.
~ Light blue rings, Light grey otherwise with a dark blue tip 
~ His cum is definitely glow-in-the-dark. Sorry not sorry. 
~ There’s no cut/uncut here.
~ Clean shaven, not really shaven. Just bare.
~ Can vibrate! 
💢LUCI💢
~ Well, we all know where his height went. 
~ 4 inches around, 8.5 inches long. yup.
~ Goes from pearly white to red at the tip.
~ His cum is most definitely golden, being a former angel and all. 
~ uncut. I don’t even think there was such a thing as cut/uncut when he was created.
~ does it even matter what his cock looks like? Because all he wants to do is be your personal chair. Sit on his face and he’ll happily cum in his pants. 
~ A pretty white bed of a pubes at the very base. 
🕊️ADAM🕊️
~ Uncut. Don’t think this has to be said.
~ As he is formerly human, colouration just matches his skin tone, pale and slightly pink at the top.
~ Thick as fuck, like 5 inches around, more average in size, around 6 inches. 
~ His cum is golden, being a supreme angel and all.
~ Pubes that match his hair colour shaven into a small ring around the base because he can’t flex enough that he’s an Angel.
~ Can cum a bit of an absurd amount. He’s where we all came from anyways, apparently. 
~ Has a golden Jacob’s Ladder piercing from base to tip. 
🍻HUSK🍻
~ Again with the girth. He’s around 3.5 inches in girth, but also 7 inches long. 
~ Pubes? Nah, that’s just his fur. He’s not shaving that shit.
~ Muted pink all the way down but slightly redder at his tip. 
~ Definitely got a silver Ampallang piercing at the tip on a drunken dare. Doesn’t regret it. 
~ Circumsized. Got Circumsized in life and carries it with him for eternity in hell. 
~ Besides his cock, his wings are extra sensitive. Will he admit it to anyone? No, then they could use it against him. But they’re extra sensitive, and he loves having them pruned by his lover.
(I’m not doing Alastor because he’s AroAce, so please don’t ask for that, and I just… ain’t doin Val. Thanks!) 
786 notes · View notes
sunn1s1de · 2 months
Text
Vox: Yeah, a partner sounds nice, but a supreme enemy you can make out with in secret sometimes sounds a lot more hardcore.
184 notes · View notes
thebibliomancer · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
Oh hey it’s Phyla!
Hi Phyla! Recovered from Carol crushing you with a boulder and here to save her, I see? What a rollercoaster day Phyla is having.
7 notes · View notes
voxxygen · 1 month
Text
I think the fan concept of Vox having a shark tail is so COOL PLEASE HEAR ME OUT PLEASE
he programmed it himself ( the shark hyper-fixation rules supreme ) and keeps upgrading the design but the basics always stay the same
it’s like a staticky hologram and can pass through things most of the time but if Vox is agitated, it’s basically a tangible electric field !!!
it sparks when he’s upset, flicks when he’s annoyed, and yes…
it wags when he’s especially excited. he doesn’t know how to stop it and the Vees never let him live it down ( Val has a secret folder dedicated to moments where it happens but he’ll kill anyone that ever mentions it )
119 notes · View notes
Text
The Supreme Court’s announcement on Thursday that it will hear Moore v. Harper, a case that could concentrate an unprecedented amount of power in gerrymandered state legislatures, should alarm anyone who cares about democracy.
The case is perhaps the gravest threat to American democracy since the January 6 attack. It seeks to reinstate gerrymandered congressional maps that were struck down by North Carolina’s highest court because they “subordinated traditional neutral redistricting criteria in favor of extreme partisan advantage” for the Republican Party.
The plaintiffs argue that the state supreme court didn’t have the authority to strike down these maps, and rest their claim on legal arguments that would fundamentally alter how congressional and presidential elections are conducted.
Moore involves the “independent state legislature doctrine,” a theory that the Supreme Court has rejected many times over the course of more than a century — but that started to gain steam after Republican appointees gained a supermajority on the Supreme Court at the end of the Trump administration.
Under the strongest form of this doctrine, all state constitutional provisions that constrain state lawmakers’ ability to skew federal elections would cease to function. State courts would lose their power to strike down anti-democratic state laws, such as a gerrymander that violates the state constitution or a law that tosses out ballots for arbitrary reasons. And state governors, who ordinarily have the power to veto new state election laws, would lose that power.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch described this approach in a 2020 concurring opinion in a case concerning the deadline for casting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin, “the Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”
Four Justices — Gorsuch, plus Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh — have all endorsed some version of this independent state legislature doctrine. Meanwhile, four other Justices, the three liberal Justices plus Chief Justice John Roberts, have signaled that they will not overrule the Court’s many precedents rejecting this doctrine.
That most likely leaves the fate of American democracy in the hands of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who typically votes with Republicans in election cases.
This said, it is unclear whether this Supreme Court would implement the most extreme version of this doctrine — with a rigid rule that a state supreme court can never strike down a state election law, or that a state governor can never veto an election bill — or a less extreme one.
Last March, the Moore case appeared on the Court’s “shadow docket.” Although a majority of the Court voted to temporarily turn the case away — with Kavanaugh explaining that he voted to do so because the case arrived at the Court at the wrong time — Alito wrote a dissenting opinion saying that he would have immediately reinstated North Carolina’s gerrymandered maps. His opinion also suggests that he wants to give himself and his fellow Justices maximal flexibility to overrule state court decisions that he does not like.
So under Alito’s approach, pro-democracy state constitutional provisions might not cease to function altogether, they would only cease to function when Alito and four of his fellow Republican colleagues wish to suspend them.
Needless to say, the stakes in Moore are exceedingly high. The Court’s decision in Moore could potentially neutralize many states’ efforts to combat partisan gerrymandering. And in key swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — where Republicans control the state legislature and Democrats control either the governor’s mansion, the state supreme court, or both — Moore could give the Republican Party unlimited control over how federal elections are conducted.
THE INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE DOCTRINE, BRIEFLY EXPLAINED
The independent state legislature doctrine derives from a deceptively simple reading of the Constitution, which states that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” A separate provision says that presidential elections shall also be conducted in a way determined by the state “Legislature.”
One way to read these provisions — the way that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have suggested it should be read — is to say that only the body of representatives that is often described as a state’s “legislative branch” can set election rules. And that the executive branch (including the governor) and the judicial branch (including the state supreme court) may be cut out of this process entirely.
But the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected this theory. The issue first arose in Davis v. Hildebrant (1916), which upheld a provision of the Ohio constitution permitting the people of the state to veto state election laws via a popular referendum.
Davis reasoned that the word “legislature,” as it is used by the relevant provisions of the Constitution, does not refer exclusively to the elected body of representatives who make up the state’s legislative branch. Instead, it refers more broadly to any individual or body that possesses some part of the power to make laws within a state — what the Court referred to as the “legislative power.”
Davis explained that, under Ohio’s constitution, “the referendum was treated as part of the legislative power,” and thus “should be held and treated to be the state legislative power for the purpose of creating congressional districts by law.”
This is the only reading of the relevant US constitutional provisions that makes sense because, as legal scholars (and brothers) Vikram David Amar and Akhil Reed Amar explain in a recent paper, “state people and state constitutions are masters of state legislatures,” and not the other way around.
That is, each state has the power to define, through its constitution, which body or group of bodies possesses the “legislative power” — the power to make laws. A state constitution can assign that power entirely to a body of elected representatives, but it can also give part of that power to the state governor, the state courts, to a redistricting commission, or to the people themselves through ballot initiatives and referendums.
Indeed, this is exactly how most state governments work. State constitutions — like the federal Constitution — typically permit the state’s chief executive to veto election laws. And they typically give state courts the power to resolve conflicts about how to interpret the state constitution and existing state election laws.
As the Amars write, “since the Revolution, every state legislature has been defined and circumscribed, both procedurally (e.g., What counts as a quorum? Is the governor involved in legislation?) and substantively (e.g., What rights must the legislature respect?) by its state constitution.”
The Court’s holding in Davis has been upheld many times since that decision was handed down. Most recently, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the Court upheld Arizona’s decision to use a bipartisan commission to draw congressional maps. In that case, the Court explained that “our precedent teaches that redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor’s veto.”
THE COURT’S DECISION TO HEAR THE MOORE CASE IS VERY ODD
Since four justices have already called for cases like Davis and Arizona State Legislature to be overruled or significantly altered, it’s not surprising that the Court decided to hear a case that could potentially do so — under the Supreme Court’s rules, four votes are needed to place a case on the Court’s docket of cases that receive full briefing and oral argument.
But it is surprising that the Court thought Moore was an appropriate vehicle to hear an independent state legislature doctrine case. That’s because, even if you accept Gorsuch’s theory that the state legislature and not the state judiciary bears “primary responsibility for setting election rules,” the North Carolina legislature explicitly authorized its state’s courts to hear gerrymandering lawsuits.
In other words, even if the independent state legislature doctrine is valid, North Carolina’s courts are still allowed to decide gerrymandering cases because the state legislature told them to do so.
North Carolina law provides that lawsuits challenging “any act of the General Assembly that apportions or redistricts State legislative or congressional districts” may be filed “in the Superior Court of Wake County and shall be heard and determined by a three‑judge panel.” This court’s decision may then be appealed to the state supreme court.
Indeed, North Carolina’s laws — again, laws that were written by the state legislature — provide detailed instructions on how state courts should behave when they determine that a legislative map is illegal. One statute requires state courts to “find with specificity all facts supporting” its conclusion that a map is illegal. Another provides that, after a state court strikes down a redistricting plan, it may not “impose its own substitute plan unless the court first gives the General Assembly a period of time to remedy any defects identified by the court.”
In its eagerness to hear an independent state legislature doctrine case, in other words, the Supreme Court appears to have taken up a case where there is no legitimate legal conflict. Even if state legislatures have exclusive authority to shape a state’s election law, the North Carolina state legislature used this authority to explicitly empower state courts to strike down gerrymandered maps.
And yet, it’s hard to imagine why the Court would agree to hear this case unless it is at least considering rolling back decisions like Davis and Arizona State Legislature.
75 notes · View notes
vox-tv-demon · 2 months
Text
Welcome to the HazbinVerse!
We have:
@ask-charlie-morningstar, the Princess Of Hell and leader of the Hazbin Hotel!
@ask-the-radio-demon, the deer demon that broadcasts killings across the world!
@askvaggie, the manager of the hotel and Charlie's girlfriend!
@ask-niffty, the cleaner and helper to Alastor!
@angeldust-fucks, the famous porn star who's here for some reason!
@huskthebarkeep, the bartender who's constantly drunk and depressed!
@vox-tv-demon, the television overlord who has a kid and a boyfriend!
@valentino-moth-man, the pornography overlord who has many kids and is the boyfriend!
@ask-velvette, the social media overlord who's a sassy lil bitch!
@ask-a-vox, another Vox!
@voxonlive, yet another fucking Vox!
@zestialtheoverlord, the oldest overlord there is!
@ask-lucifer-morningstar , ruler of Hell!
@ask-yourstruly-lilithmorningstar, Lucifer's wife!
@ask-rosie, leader of the Cannibal Colony and running Rosie's Emporium!
@alastors-radio-show, another Alastor!
@red-velvette-cakes, another Velvette!
@ask-sir-pentious-hisshisslord, the snake overlord with the Egg Bois!
@molly-that-spider, Angel's twin sister!
@arackniss-that-spider, Angel's older brother and love interest of Pentious (I don't know how far they've gotten in their relationship)!
@the-don-henroin, Angel's bitch-ass dad who deserves to fucking die! :D
@baxter-science-fish, the scientist and Velvette's boyfriend!
@damian-morningstar, Lucifer's accidental son!
@collin-sheep, the fallen cherub!
@prince-of-envy, Charlie's ex and an Overlord!
@carmilla-carmine, weapon seller supreme!
@weapon-gatherer-odette, one of Carmilla's two daughters!
@furry-vox ... I don't know whether this is an OC or not, honestly. But it sure does exist.
@adamthefirstangel, the first angel! It's self-explanatory.
@ask-exterminator-lute, Adam's right hand!
@dragqueenspider, another Angel Dust!
@devilduckdad, another King of Hell!
@charliem0rningstar, another Princess of Hell!
@king-morningstar, Lucifer again!
@that-funky-spider, another Angel again!
@yumyumbodyparts, a cannibal kid!
Onto the OCs!
@alainthesquirrl, chef of the Hazbin Hotel!
@vincent-the-electric-moth, Vox and Valentino's son!
@mochi-the-shapeshifter, a worker for Valentino who can change her body!
@carmeltheassistant, Vox's right hand girl!
@asktheratz, a bunch of rats!
@hazbin-stealth-rat, another rat!
@cupid-the-killer, Vox's nasty-ass ex!
@specktivedemon, a Hotel resident!
@aroyaltailor, a tailor and also part of the Ars Goetia!
@mewhenautism, autistic cthulu apparently!
@siempreminta, a mysterious girl staying at the Hotel!
@sienna-lenora-raven, Angel Dust's little sister!
@lunar-the-moon-overlord, the overlord of the moon!
@fawndemonkiddo, a young demon child in Hell!
Please feel free to link this post in your pinned! If you have an OC I have forgotten or don't know about, please reply to this post so I can add them!
132 notes · View notes
vylad243 · 29 days
Note
AU where Lucifer gets a cold and he's visiting the V's, and sneezes giving them some of their human features back: Vox gets his head back--he keeps his hypnotic eye, and antenna and he has ports in the back of his head BUT, he has a head!! And HAIR!! Still has his claws, and everything else though.
Valentino loses some height but gains his original eyesight back, and he thinks that's a good trade off.
Velvette is the least changed (she was leaving the room), she grew a bit taller and a few tattoos she had in life appeared but that's it.
Lucifer thinks it's hilarious so he's like, can't fix y'all it's permanent. Sorry.
Vox is supremely happy about it--not noticing an uptick in other demons paying attention to him--and then if those demons were brave enough to give him candy or gifts, how they'd feature in Alastor's next broadcast.
Velvette thinks it's absolutely hilarious and has a bet going on with Valentino on how long it'll take for Alastor to absolutely lose it and kidnap Vox. She thinks it'll be before Vox gets asked on another date, Valentino thinks it'll happen during Alastor's rut, right when Vox gets asked on a date. They each have half a billion riding on this, and Vox is blind to it all, while Alastor is slowly becoming more and more feral.
Velvette saw Lucifer's runny nose and nope'd out of that shit.
Lucifer would absolutely find this shit hilarious and would just keep being like "man, really sorry. It is what it is though."
Not only would sinners find Vox's new face attractive, but the confidence that came with having an actual face would also make him even more attractive. Vox is smart enough to recognize the sinners who speak to him. He's also stupid enough to just think they pissed off Alastor by simply existing, or maybe that Alastor thought they were associated with him in some way and was trying to get revenge at Vox.
They both agree that Vox would think he pissed off Alastor somehow and that's why he was kidnapped.
Alastor's patience must be running very thin by now. His eyes is constantly twitching, he's ready to fistfight anyone who even LOOKS at Vox with a spark in their eye.
Velvette and Valentink are slowly increasing the betting pool by asking Vox's employees
60 notes · View notes