#fun fact: technically a colony and not a single organism!

[findingtarshish]

hello i was looking through ur oc tag to refresh myself and i have GOT to know what "She stole her gender from aliens" from dahlia means. tell me more :3c

THANK FOR ASKING I am always happy to be annoying about my ocs. An unskippable cutscene commences.

So. The aliens in question are called the Profusion, and me using a plural here is actually not entirely accurate; there is only one Profusion, comprised of trillions of cells linked through a vast telepathic network. Each cell is perceived by humans as an individual cosmic monster, but in reality, it is just a facet of an galaxy-spanning organism not unlike a fungal colony. They view killing humans not as genocide, but disinfection: they're just cleaning up a particularly stubborn bacterial stain.

Dahlia used to fight them to defend humanity, but she was exposed to the nucleus of a Profusion cell and absorbed; the Profusion used her as a weapon to kill others, enhancing, brainwashing, torturing, and cloning her until she was a vicious killing machine, but their hubris was their undoing: the hybridized Dahlia was so powerful, that she ripped herself out of the Profusion and went on a killing spree, eventually finding their homeworld of Communion (analogous to the brain of the organism) and destroying it, obliterating the overwhelming majority of the creature. What remains of the Profusion is scattered and aimless, devoid of a unified will. Many of her peers were horrified when they discovered she'd done this, but Dahlia maintains that it was murder, not genocide- its a point of significant contention among them.

After all this was over, Dahlia had to reevaluate. Her original body was gone; she was nothing but a copy of a copy, a pale imitation of her original self. She clearly wasn't human anymore. Human ideas of gender don't really apply to her anymore. While her preferred form looks a lot like her original body, she could not longer assume cis-ness.

Dahlia was born as a woman, and ended up considering herself a woman, but there was a horrific meat monster phrase in there that she can't really ignore. In the end, even though her captors are long gone, she will carry the Profusion with her forever.

Fun fact: since her current body is a clone made from a Profusion cell, she's technically a single celled organism! She can shape her cytoplasm at will, allowing her to alter her shape however she wishes. She can do the same to others, resulting in a type.of immensely powerful Vicissitude she calls Sarcomorphosis. Many of the remaining Profusion worship her as a Goddess of Destruction, and they're not entirely wrong to do so: her power is nothing short of godlike.

#anomaly #oc posting #omg thank you for asking #so mu h lore in this here brain #especially about my poor fucked up mewmew #cw body horror #cw torture

[iamnmbr3]

love how much mental gymnastics you guys have to do to make out that mobius is a bad person. he is literally the only one who believes in loki from what we've seen and is putting his job on the line to help him. as someone who has adored loki since 2012, he has committed a lot of hideous crimes, his anger was only influenced by the sceptre (he was not mind controlled), and he was literally about to assault mobius. should mobius have just let loki hit him?? you guys are mental lmao

1) “You guys”?? Last time I checked I was one person. Are you under the impression that I am a colony of super-intelligent bees stacked on top of each other under a trench coat? Well. I suppose since I’m a stranger and you know nothing about me, technically that could be (bee?) true.

2) Given your behavior I can certainly see why you aren't able to understand why what Mobius is doing is wrong since you seem unable to behave in a moral, ethical, and kind manner and seem to feel compelled to be cruel and to try to control others. Perhaps you should consider a career with the TVA.

3) Seriously though. Regardless of whether my interpretations are correct or not, this isn’t an appropriate ask to send. You need to learn to cope with strangers on the internet having different opinions from you on a range of subjects. I’m not attacking anyone who has different opinions from me because that would be stupid and also not nice. This is a fictional tv show. It’s not even that serious. Why would you think it’s ok to send harassing messages filled with insults to a stranger because they posted something online about a fictional character that you disagree with? I really hope you wouldn’t do that in real life. It’s abominable behavior. If you truly find yourself unable to control your anger over insignificant things like someone having a different opinion from you about a character in a comic book movie, I do suggest you see a professional.

4) I don’t really have to do much mental gymnastics at all. From his first appearance in the first trailer Mobius has mocked and humiliated and denigrated Loki. He’s also made a lot of incorrect and insulting statements about him - that he likes to talk (not true, from his first appearance he is defined by his silence), that he likes to lie (also not true. his deceptions work because they are unexpected) and that he frequently stabs people in the back. He doesn’t believe in Loki. He believes that Loki can be useful to him. We have seen no evidence of Mobius showing sympathy or empathy towards Loki, advocating for his rights, having any issue with him being ensalved or hurt, or caring that he ws just recently tortued by Thanos. He also has no compunctions about shocking him or hurting him. Mobius is Loki’s captor and just because he doesn’t want him to be killed doesn’t make him his friend.

5) What should Mobius have done? Gee. I dunno. Maybe not be complicit in an organization that routinely murders people and is currently enslaving Loki. Loki is a prisoner who is being held against his will under threat of death and forced to labor without compensation. He has every right to fight back. Also he’s not lunging at Mobius. It looks like he’s trying to leave.

6) If Mobius is intended to be an antagonist then he’s a brilliant one and as of the latest trailer that seems to be more the intent, given the sinister framing and music. I hope they continue to go in that direction because that makes for a much more interesting narrative. As the protagonist Loki should have threatening antagonists to deal with

7) Where did I say Loki has never done anything wrong? I like him because he is a grey character. Also why do you single out my liking for Loki? I like Thor too because I also find him an interesting character. Thor has killed way more people than Loki and yet you don’t assume that I am ignoring that. Actually a lot of the Avengers have done sketch things, but only Loki seems to provoke people to swarm into others’ inboxes going ‘but you know he did bad things right??” Also Loki's whole motivation in Thor 2011 was to prevent a war and STOP violence, despite the fact that he comes from a warrior society where warfare is considered glorious. He is raised in a society that has genocidally hateful attitudes towards the Jotnar. Loki is actually much more reserved in his opinions (unlike Thor who openly talks about wanting to wipe them out, and receives no correction, indicating this is an acceptable attitude in Asgardian society). Only once Loki becomes consumed with hurt and self-hatred after he learns his own origins and has a suicidal mental breakdown does he try to destroy Jotunheim. Thor meanwhile murders dozen of Jotnar over an insult (something that is considered totally cceptable in his society). So why do you single out Loki? Loki then is captured, tortued, mind controlled and indoctrinated by Thanos and forced to attack New York. And that’s really it on the horrible crime front. Pretty mild by his society’s strandards. This is not to say he’s done nothing wrong, but it’s kind of weird of you to single him out when so many other characters in the MCU are also grey. And again. Why do you need to come into my inbox about it???

8) Ultimately these are fictional characters and I can enjoy them and interpret them however I want. To me Mobius is very clearly evil and part of an evil organization. I also prefer him that way because I find him much more narratively interesting as a clearly framed antagonist and villain. So I certainly hope that's the intent. That’s my prerogative. Similarly if Loki were irreeemdably evil and I just wanted to woobify him and engage in the fandom that way and excuse his every bad act that would be ok too. I can have fun however I want. It’s not healthy or appropriate for you to come in my inbox and try to police that.

#I feel like 'shocking someone and enslaving them are bad and not nice' is a pretty straight forward take.... #asks #this is wild. I wasn't even criticizing the show. I was criticizing a character in the show...who as of the recent trailer was definitely #being somewhat villain coded. we don't if he will be a villain or not in the actual show- I hope he is tho. #like what? #you're harassing me because I found the scene that's framed in a way that clearly shows the writers want us to feel sorry for the protagonis #t to be very effective in making me feel just that #what???

[rasoir-national]

The big Investment law rant one (1) weirdo was asking for

@ghostplantss​ oh no i'm sorry i know i've asked you so many questions already but? i smell tea against investment law?

You know, I was going to hold off on this one as not to go through another rambling so soon, but fuck it, I just got out of an investment law midterm, I’m barely coherent, all of Paris is on strike and cold as fuck right now and I got literally no sleep last night because my crush was crashing in my fucking bed because of the strike and they have someone but they keep flirting with me like crazy and I don’t know what to do and everything sucks so this should be fun.

What was I talking about ? Oh yeah, investment law. Strap in.

Let’s start at the beginning : investment law is part of the big happy family known as International Public law. What is international public law ? Well, if I had to sum it up in one image, it would be this :

What you have to remember is that you, I, and pretty much everybody, live in what’s called a judicial order. Our lives are framed by rules, and when we interact with each other, if there’s a doubt about the sense of those rules, then there’s an authority tasked with creating and enforcing those rules we can turn to. Now we obey that superior authority for a variety of reasons, but really, we do it because we have no choice : if we want to evolve and interact in the community that we’ve been given of that we’ve chosen, we have, by nature, to follow its rules. Basically, if that authority is a playable character, we are the NPCs : we are free to perform certain actions, but for the game to be playable, what we do has to be dictated by what the playable character does. This works because there is one will that orientates what is allowed to happen within the scope of their adventure.

But imagine now a game in which there isn’t one playable character, but many : maybe ten, maybe twenty... maybe 206, if the UN official count is to be trusted.

What I’m getting at with this godawful analogy is that the natural subject of international public law is not you or I, but those authorities themselves : the States. And right out of the bat, there’s a problem : because for it to be law, there has to be rules, and there has to be someone to enforce them. For an individual, that someone is the State ; even when we interact outside of one single state, the rules used are created by A State to tell us what law should then apply, and then enforce that law, be it because that’s your state of origin, or because you’re on that state’s soil... This works because there’s all of us, and then there’s a superior authority whose rules you have no choice but to refer to, even if it’s to break them. But the states ? There’s no one above them. On the international scene, every State is equal, and every State is sovereign. If a country wants to be bomb its entire population and turn its territory into a waterpark, that’s awful, but is there anything another State can do ? It’s not infringing on its sovereignity. It’s minding its own business. What are you going to do ? Who are you going to call to ? What right do you even have, as a State, to tell another State what it’s supposed to do on its own soil, with its own citizen ? No one gave you that right. There’s no one to go to to enforce that right.

Now this is where you tell me that I’m full of shit, because what about the Security Council ? What about the UN ? What about the International court of Justice ? Those are things that make rules, and can enforce them ! And you’re perfectly right. Because just like in the image above, if everyone is equal and there’s nothing to dictate how everyone is supposed to interact, then it’s just chaos. If there’s no one to give you rules, then you have to give them to yourselves. If it’s gotta be a multiplayer, then you gotta have some ground rules. But nothing exists on its own. Every rule, every organization, every power you might give up, you have to agree to. Nothing can be taken for granted. Nothing can be claimed against a State, if you cannot prove that they have agreed for you to be able to make such a claim.

That’s International public law : a process dating back several millenia during which what would become the modern States laid the groundwork on the way they would interact with each other to maximize their interests. Nowadays, a dispute between States can get solved in a court of law that they invented and invested with powers to do so, according to rules they have agreed upon. But I don’t think people really appreciate how recent this all is : until, well the 19th century really, the way to solve any dispute was War. Because whatever law there was, was law created by a State, a law they had no right to impose on another sovereign State that was its equal.

Now in that construction I just oversimplified for our amusement, what about us ? Us, the people ? Where do we stand in international public law ? Well... Nowhere. International public law is not for us. Our rules are given by the States. Again, if the States are playable characters, we are the NPCs. We don’t exist on the same plane as they do. Our way of interacting with the world is necessarily via playable characters. The rules the States give themselves may affect us, but they are not for us. They don’t give us any rights, or obligation. Every right or obligation we do get is through a State that may apply to us what they’ve agreed to with other States. What is, oh, I don’t know, the New York Convention on Children’s rights ? It’s a treaty between States. No more, no less. If your State didn’t agree to that treaty, and didn’t decide how it was going to enforce that treaty, then it doesn’t apply to you. It doesn’t exist. We, the people, can be objects of International Public law, but we are never its subjects. We do not act. We do not sue. We are NPCs.

That is, unless, you have money.

So, if you’re one of the two people who’ve read that far, what’s investment law ? On a basic level, nothing that sounds so wrong : if you’ve read my previous rambling about Immigration law, you know that a foreigner on a State’s soil has basically no rights unless those rights are given to them. But like I said, States have understood that it’s highly beneficial for them to act according to rules than to just evolve individually in total chaos. The idea if that if someone wants to invest in a territory other than their own, they’re getting a pretty awful deal : the State doesn’t have to protect their investment, their own State can’t do anything if something goes wrong, so all and all it’s really risky. Now that situation is not good for the States : ideally, you want as many people as possible investing money in the economic activity. So how do we make the situation mutually beneficial ? We agree, among States to protect each other’s investors if they invest on our soil. That’s what we call IT : investments treaties. They are international treaties, usually bilateral (BIT) in which States agree to lay the ground rules of the way they’ll treat each other’s investors. The basis of any international public law is reciprocity : I’ll agree not to expropriate your investors out of nowhere, and you’ll do the same with mine. If something goes wrong, I, a sovereign State, agree to give your investor the right to request arbitration between us, if you’ll extend the same courtesy to mine.

So at first glance, this is pure international public law : the investor gets certain rights in the process, but only because the States agree to it among themselves. The investor still doesn’t exist as a subject of international public law : these rules apply to them because their State has agreed to it.

Except.

Except with time, international arbitration, which is the main way disputes between States and foreign investors are solved, has developed rules that say otherwise. Now, the investor doesn’t have the right to sue because the State said so ; this is their own right, given to them by the treaty itself. Now, an investor may even sue a State in a way they haven’t even agreed to be sued by using different clauses to import advantages from other treaties to which their State wasn’t even a party. Investor can now hop from treaty to treaty until they find a way to create the exact right that they want, that has never been given to them by any state, and that they apparently possess anyway, because they’re just as powerful as States. I can’t really give you any example that wouldn’t be atrociously technical, as arbitration awards are several hundreds pages long, but trust me on this : the investor can drag a State to court.

“Who cares ?” You might ask. Their rights, the State’s rights... Why does it matter ? Well, aside from the fact that it makes them unique as individuals, as the rest of us do not get to gain rights simply because a treaty somewhere says so - I know some asylum seekers who would be very happy to see the Geneva Convention applied directly to them instead of having to follow a State’s rules - it means that the investor can act exactly as if they were a State. Meaning that in court, they are parties, on equal footing. Meaning, if you’ve followed, that for a State to claim something against the investor... They have to have agreed to it.

Counterclaims are a way for the State that’s being attacked by an investor to turn around and claim they’ve been wronged by the investor. I have neither the time nor the skills to peel off the layers of neocolonialism that make investment law, but at this stage you’ve probably more than understood that BITs essentially exist between “developed” States and former colonies as a way for investors of the former to keep investing in the latter, theoretically contributing to its development but in reality funneling natural resources and profiting from cheap labour and looser regulations. If you know anything about capitalism, what happens next will not surprise you.

Sometimes, the State may act like a dick for no reason and deprive the investor of their investment. But most of the time, they do it because the investor has been acting like a dick and potentially causing some serious damage on its territory. Maybe they’ve ignored labour regulations and accidents happened. Maybe they’ve thrown bribes left and right. Maybe they cheated on their taxes. Maybe they were in charge of a petroleum concession and basically destroyed the entire eco-sphere of the region.

Well, if you’re a developing State and you find yourself in that situation, you better hope you have some good lawyers and some rainy days funds. Because the investor will sue you for infringing on their rights, and you’ve agreed to that, haven’t you ? Remember that treaty you signed ? And since it’s a treaty, you’re not just responsible before one investor, but before another State. And there’s a good chance that State is a lot more powerful than you are. You want to explain yourself ? Well fear not, you can make a counterclaim ; but you’re gonna have to prove the investor has agreed to be countersued. And since they’ve never signed a treaty...

Don’t worry, that doesn’t mean everything’s lost. Maybe the arbitrator will agree with you. It could happen. It has happened. Once. A single time in the history of investment law. In 2018. Remember that company that destroyed an entire region ? They’re called Burlington, and they now owe Ecuador a handful of millions for the damage they caused. Let’s give ourselves a hand, folks. We got one.

I realize how dry and theoretical this might all sound, especially since most people I interact with here come like me from a “developed” State and might not have seen firsthand the wreckage investors can leave in their wake. But once again, I have to come back to immigration law. The situation of migrants is not any different than the one of investors : they are guests on foreign soil, hoping to be nonetheless awarded protection. Except for some reason, one does not exist to the eye of International justice, while the other can drag a State to court over rights that were never technically awarded to them. I’m honestly not opposed to seeing the classic conception of International Public law evolve ; maybe it is time for individuals to gain a legal international existence. We certainly have a lot to gain in terms of rights. But for some people, that’s been a reality for over 50 years, because capitalism feels like they have something to offer that makes them deserving of superior recognition. We let the people with the greatest potential ability to do harm act with the least supervision and the most rights to their name. People like to use the phrase “two-tier Justice” for a lot of things, but this goes one step beyond : this is a case where a certain kind of justice is only accessible by a certain kind of people. Legal theory has very real consequences. But unless you’re fluent in legalese and can stomach thousands of pages of technical analysis, you do not know how quickly things move in the international scene for the rich and powerful. The States themselves don’t want you to know - otherwise, you might start to seriously question why you still have to obey their rules when others have hoisted themselves out of the cardboard box and are now staring them in the face. Imagine that.

So that was way too long and angry. Have a picture of my silly dog.

Good boy.

#law stuff #oh boy #i refuse to edit that #this makes probably approximatively 7% sense #enough for my investment law teacher to yell at me #ghostplantss jk you're a treasure