beerpig

Member
Aug 12, 2023
143
306
If you put it in a realistic context, isn't that normal to antagonize someone who've been proved to steal something which has a big sentimental value to you ?
In a realistic context, there's a huge range of reactions, from letting it be to beating the thief to death. Most of those things are not the right thing to do; nor is to assume guilt on one thing because of another thing.

You might find her way of achieving "justice" a bit too harsh
My issue is clearly not harshness, but hypocrisy and stupidity (as she's being assumptive).
Also note how even you put quotation marks around justice, because you likely know that Isabelle's "justice" is not justice.

but putting her in the same bag as Kate
This is subjective, of course, but... frankly? For me, Isabelle is in a bag *below* Kate.
Kate is simply evil and selfish; that sort of person who causes you harm for her own benefit, as small as it might be.
Isabelle however is assumptive. She is that sort of person who causes you harm even when she doesn't benefit from it, because she did not think the things thoroughly. And sometimes she even causes harm that she claims to not intend, such as when the locket fell in the river.
In the specific case of their petty fight, I tend to side with Isabelle. Even then, overall Kate is clearly less harmful than Isabelle.

meh. You can't be reasoning well
Or perhaps you are the one not thinking on this thoroughly.
Let it sink for a moment.
 

CNR25

Member
Jan 7, 2020
482
579
This is subjective, of course, but... frankly? For me, Isabelle is in a bag *below* Kate
Honestly, i was gonna answer seriously and maybe have an interesting debate with you but
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

All of this is out of a porn game but if it's really your way of thinking you should start to ask yourself some good questions.

( I will just add on a side note that seeing a person steal your thing in a video is not an assumption, and the MC saw lindsey and tells Isabelle )
 

beerpig

Member
Aug 12, 2023
143
306
Honestly, i was gonna answer seriously and maybe have an interesting debate with you but I don't want to debate with someone who genuinely think that kidnapping, raping, drugging, enslaving people is better than overreacting over a theft.
Kate is evil. Sure. Now look at Isabelle in the locker event:
✔ Willing to kill an innocent cat out of petty revenge.
✔ Pissing on the face of someone after what's effectively sexual abuse towards that person.
✔ Killing someone by drowning, as a consequence of her actions.
The only atennuating factor in this shit is that it was Maxine's homunculus, not Maxine herself, but Isabelle had no way to know it.

When it comes to sexual abuse, both are peas of the same pod. But I don't recall Kate effectively killing someone, or willing to kill an innocent critter.

If someone is tempted to say "but isabel has gucci intenshuns!", go join Hell's paving corps. And ask yourself if Isabelle would take someone else's intentions into account before "IMMA DOIN JUSTEESSE!"

Also note that, as I said, in the specific case of her petty fight with Kate, I tend to side with Isabelle. As in: I'm not excusing Kate, far from that. I'm saying that Isabelle clearly causes overall more harm than Kate does.
(I wonder if, pre-time loop, Isabelle wasn't in a jail.)

( I will just add on a side note that seeing a person steal your thing in a video is not an assumption, and the MC saw lindsey and tells Isabelle )
The assumption in question is that Lindsey stole Isabelle's locker, not the chocolate hearts. This is clear by context and you're making a fool of yourself.

[I don't believe that I'm recommending this in a thread about a porn game, but: for anyone interested, check . Then look at Isabelle.]
 
Last edited:

CNR25

Member
Jan 7, 2020
482
579
Kate is evil. Sure. Now look at Isabelle in the locker event:
✔ Willing to kill an innocent cat out of petty revenge.
✔ Pissing on the face of someone after what's effectively sexual abuse towards that person.
✔ Killing someone by drowning, as a consequence of her actions.
The only atennuating factor in this shit is that it was Maxine's homunculus, not Maxine herself, but Isabelle had no way to know it.

When it comes to sexual abuse, both are peas of the same pod. But I don't recall Kate effectively killing someone, or willing to kill an innocent critter.

If someone is tempted to say "but isabel has gucci intenshuns!", go join Hell's paving corps. And ask yourself if Isabelle would take someone else's intentions into account before "IMMA DOIN JUSTEESSE!"

Also note that, as I said, in the specific case of her petty fight with Kate, I tend to side with Isabelle. As in: I'm not excusing Kate, far from that. I'm saying that Isabelle clearly causes overall more harm than Kate does.
(I wonder if, pre-time loop, Isabelle wasn't in a jail.)


The assumption in question is that Lindsey stole Isabelle's locker, not the chocolate hearts. This is clear by context and you're making a fool of yourself.

[I don't believe that I'm recommending this in a thread about a porn game, but: for anyone interested, check . Then look at Isabelle.]
Again, you're way too disconnected from reality and clearly you seem to believe too much in your own weird moral compass.

(Isabelle did not kill any cat so i'll not even answer to that )

There is a clear difference between someone killing by accident ( and it was a response to the second theft she was experiencing) than a person ruining someone's life out of PURE sadism. I'm not saying Isabelle is an angel, but she's functional human being with some emotional management issues, which are probably linked to her sister's death. I think it's pretty common to react violently when people are stealing from you TWICE, and one of your family member commited suicide because of those bullying-type of behaviors.

Again i'm not willing to put any effort beyond that point as it should be common sense to understand that.

But alright brother, i'm sure you're willing to maintain these kind of ideas IRL, a rapist, kidnapper, sadist, is a better person than someone with anger issues.

And i'm the fool... :eek:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: inquisitorhawke96

beerpig

Member
Aug 12, 2023
143
306
Again, you're way too disconnected from reality and clearly you seem to believe too much in your own weird moral compass.
Weren't you claiming that you "don't want to debate", while distorting what I said? Did you change your mind?
But let's bite it. We're talking about characters in a work of fiction; but yourself was the one bringing up "in a realistic context". Well, in a realistic context you do not have access to the thoughts of someone else, and yet you're defending a character based on their... "intentions".
Yeah, but apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality. And the Moon is made of green cheese, right.

(Isabelle did not kill any cat so i'll not even answer to that )
It's easy to ignore the fact that she was considering to kill Spinach, to the point that she voiced it to the MC, right? Because it contradicts what you want to believe.

There is a clear difference between someone killing by accident ( and it was a response to the second theft she was experiencing) than a person ruining someone's life out of PURE sadism.
Because a person killed by accident is less dead than one killed by sadism, right?
Oh wait, Kate is not a murderer. Unlike Isabelle :ROFLMAO:

The difference that you see is in Hell's pavement. It's intentions - something that not even Isabelle herself cares about (for different reasons that I don't), as shown by when she slaps Lindsey.

People should be not judged by "intenshuns", but by their impact on the world around them.

I'm not saying Isabelle is an angel, but she's functional human being with some emotional management issues
"Emotional management issues" is a cool way to justify "being a dumb fuck and causing harm towards the others."

I think it's pretty common to react violently when people are stealing from you TWICE,
If we're going to play this card - that it's fine for people to cause harm to others, as long as they have some "emotional reason" to do so - I'm pretty sure that we could explain Kate's behaviour based on her background. Perhaps daddy not giving her enough attention, or some other dumb shit.
But nooo, that should be only applied when convenient. Never in a fair and just way. Right? Rules for thee, not for me.

Again i'm not willing to put any effort beyond that point as it should be common sense to understand that.
What you're calling "common sense" is "to justify harm based on esoteric shit like intentions". I'm not buying it.

But alright brother, i'm sure you're willing to maintain these kind of ideas IRL, a rapist, kidnapper, sadist, is a better person than someone with anger issues.
A rapist, kidnapper, sadist (Kate) is a less worse person who also engages in sexual abuse, also locks someone against their will, also traumatises someone else (with the MC - the pig-ghost), also shows signs of sadism (against Spinach), and is a murderer ;)

And i'm the fool... :eek:
Yes.
 

Dogorti

Engaged Member
Jan 23, 2021
2,889
11,537
Weren't you claiming that you "don't want to debate", while distorting what I said? Did you change your mind?
But let's bite it. We're talking about characters in a work of fiction; but yourself was the one bringing up "in a realistic context". Well, in a realistic context you do not have access to the thoughts of someone else, and yet you're defending a character based on their... "intentions".
Yeah, but apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality. And the Moon is made of green cheese, right.


It's easy to ignore the fact that she was considering to kill Spinach, to the point that she voiced it to the MC, right? Because it contradicts what you want to believe.


Because a person killed by accident is less dead than one killed by sadism, right?
Oh wait, Kate is not a murderer. Unlike Isabelle :ROFLMAO:

The difference that you see is in Hell's pavement. It's intentions - something that not even Isabelle herself cares about (for different reasons that I don't), as shown by when she slaps Lindsey.

People should be not judged by "intenshuns", but by their impact on the world around them.


"Emotional management issues" is a cool way to justify "being a dumb fuck and causing harm towards the others."


If we're going to play this card - that it's fine for people to cause harm to others, as long as they have some "emotional reason" to do so - I'm pretty sure that we could explain Kate's behaviour based on her background. Perhaps daddy not giving her enough attention, or some other dumb shit.
But nooo, that should be only applied when convenient. Never in a fair and just way. Right? Rules for thee, not for me.


What you're calling "common sense" is "to justify harm based on esoteric shit like intentions". I'm not buying it.


A rapist, kidnapper, sadist (Kate) is a less worse person who also engages in sexual abuse, also locks someone against their will, also traumatises someone else (with the MC - the pig-ghost), also shows signs of sadism (against Spinach), and is a murderer ;)


Yes.
I think I forgot but who does Isabelle kill? Wasn't that in the river something more strange? I mean that being wasn't even Maxine.
 

beerpig

Member
Aug 12, 2023
143
306
The character writing between the asinine quests are actually solid enough to inspire such a heated debate. Honestly props to the dev for that but fuck the dev for his ridiculous quest structure.
Yeah, the characterisation is great for a game not even halfway done. Lots of writers struggle to make characters feel distinctive, without making them unidimensional; this game got it right.
Fully agree with the shitty quest structure - like, are we supposed to follow a specific quest order or not???
 
  • Like
Reactions: BanditoMarito

beerpig

Member
Aug 12, 2023
143
306
I think I forgot but who does Isabelle kill? Wasn't that in the river something more strange? I mean that being wasn't even Maxine.
Maxine's homunculus, in "Hurricane Isabelle".
The key here is that Isabelle had no way to know that it was a homunculus; from her PoV that was Maxine herself.
 

Dogorti

Engaged Member
Jan 23, 2021
2,889
11,537
Maxine's homunculus, in "Hurricane Isabelle".
The key here is that Isabelle had no way to know that it was a homunculus; from her PoV that was Maxine herself.
yeahh I remembered that, I forgot that his name was homunculus, but you had me confused lol. In any case, I agree Isabelle is no saint, I think that's kind of the point, but some of her fans make people believe that she is the nicest person in the world lol. those are flora and lindsey
 
  • Like
Reactions: beerpig

beerpig

Member
Aug 12, 2023
143
306
yeahh I remembered that, I forgot that his name was homunculus, but you had me confused lol. In any case, I agree Isabelle is no saint, I think that's kind of the point, but some of her fans make people believe that she is the nicest person in the world lol. those are flora and lindsey
The nicest person out there would be... Maxine.
Justice is cool and all, but you know what's even more important? The Truth. It's our duty and moral obligation to seek out the truth, even if it'll make us insane. Most people don't; and for those, Maxine selflessly sacrifices herself.
Would Lindsey take a watermelon slice into her arse for the sake of The Truth? No. Flora? No - she's busier playing with her squid. Maxine would, and she did.
[I'm joking. I love Maxine but serious now, Lindsey is probably the nicest of the cast.]
 
  • Like
Reactions: BanditoMarito

CNR25

Member
Jan 7, 2020
482
579
Weren't you claiming that you "don't want to debate", while distorting what I said? Did you change your mind?
But let's bite it. We're talking about characters in a work of fiction; but yourself was the one bringing up "in a realistic context". Well, in a realistic context you do not have access to the thoughts of someone else, and yet you're defending a character based on their... "intentions".
Yeah, but apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality. And the Moon is made of green cheese, right.


It's easy to ignore the fact that she was considering to kill Spinach, to the point that she voiced it to the MC, right? Because it contradicts what you want to believe.


Because a person killed by accident is less dead than one killed by sadism, right?
Oh wait, Kate is not a murderer. Unlike Isabelle :ROFLMAO:

The difference that you see is in Hell's pavement. It's intentions - something that not even Isabelle herself cares about (for different reasons that I don't), as shown by when she slaps Lindsey.

People should be not judged by "intenshuns", but by their impact on the world around them.


"Emotional management issues" is a cool way to justify "being a dumb fuck and causing harm towards the others."


If we're going to play this card - that it's fine for people to cause harm to others, as long as they have some "emotional reason" to do so - I'm pretty sure that we could explain Kate's behaviour based on her background. Perhaps daddy not giving her enough attention, or some other dumb shit.
But nooo, that should be only applied when convenient. Never in a fair and just way. Right? Rules for thee, not for me.


What you're calling "common sense" is "to justify harm based on esoteric shit like intentions". I'm not buying it.


A rapist, kidnapper, sadist (Kate) is a less worse person who also engages in sexual abuse, also locks someone against their will, also traumatises someone else (with the MC - the pig-ghost), also shows signs of sadism (against Spinach), and is a murderer ;)


Yes.

You can try to justify your thoughts as much as you want friend, it won't change the fact that what you say makes no sense at all.

Let's summarize. In the end YOU still are claiming and defending that a person who rapes and enslave others ( Kate did that to 2 people, well, nearly 3 with the MC, the nurse and Isabelle ) for her own sadistic pleasure is a better human being than one who defends herself for having important stuff stolen from her.

Cause YES Lindsey DID steal the chocolate box, even if manipulated. But Isabelle can't guess that. Maxine DID steal her locker. But aight she's a monster because she pushed her in a locker and peed on her. (Is this the sexual abuse you're refering to ? If so... Well there's a clear bias of opposing this to tying someone innocent up, forcing them to act like a dog and using a strap on in their ass then their mouth) The fact that the locker slipped in the water wasn't intentional. And yes, despite you dismissing intentions characters have it is important. What is this reasoning ?? Go to court and tell the judges and lawyers that intentions aren't to be taken into account. That's why i said you're disconnected from reality. Once more, clear bias.

Again, the cat thing is not a valid argument at all but since you have none, you still have to use it. Spoiler, even if you side with her at the idea, she won't kill the cat. What ?? Someone could have overreacted out of anger and said bad things ?? Nah bro terrible person worse than the H :eek:

You are the definition of bias itself, not taking Kate's actions into account and acting like people should tend the other cheek when slapped. This is not how it works buddy.

Guys listen to this guy : If you rape, humiliate and debase people on a regular basis you're a better person than if you lock a thief in a locker and piss on them. I think this dude is sane. Definitely.

Still i'm curious why are you defending this idea. Better not overthink it, it's a porn thread after all. :unsure:
 
Last edited:

CNR25

Member
Jan 7, 2020
482
579
The character writing between the asinine quests are actually solid enough to inspire such a heated debate. Honestly props to the dev for that but fuck the dev for his ridiculous quest structure.
The character writing is indeed very good, the second best quality of the game after the drawings for me.

Still, there shouldn't be a debate on this precise matter. Sadly it's not really coming from the game events in themselves but rather from creepy ideas people are defending.
 

beerpig

Member
Aug 12, 2023
143
306
You can try to justify your thoughts as much as you want friend, it won't change the fact that what you say makes no sense at all.
If you have a hard time retrieving written information - as shown by the fact that you don't even know when people are talking about the stolen chocolate hearts or the stolen locker - perhaps I'm not the one to blame.

Let's summarize. In the end YOU still are claiming and defending that a person who rapes and enslave others ( Kate did that to 2 people, well, nearly 3 with the MC, the nurse and Isabelle ) for her own sadistic pleasure is a better human being than one who defends herself for having important stuff stolen from her.
Wrooooong~
I'm attacking Isabelle but in no moment I defended Kate. Stop making shit up.

Cause YES Lindsey DID steal the chocolate box
And in no moment I contradicted that.
I think that you really should improve your basic reading comprehension.

even if manipulated. But Isabelle can't guess that.
No, she can't "guess" that. But in no moment she questioned Lindsey to ask "why did you do this?" - she instead jumped at the gun, with her "IMMA GOING JUSTEEEEESSE", and slapped Lindsey. Acting without thinking, or without enough information to act, is itself immoral - it's how you get people harming each other while babbling "but my intenshuns were sooo good~ I should get a free pass to harm others!".

Maxine DID steal her locker. But aight she's a monster because she pushed her in a locker and peed on her.
And killed her. By drowning. Oopsie, it's so convenient to not list it alongside the rest~
[As I said it was actually her homunculus, that is an attenuating factor; however Isabelle had no way to know it.]

(Is this the sexual abuse you're refering to ?
The info that you're asking to be spoonfed is easily retrievable from the context.

The fact that the locker slipped in the water wasn't intentional.
It was still the consequence of her actions. She's still killing someone, regardless of her "intenshuns" or zodiacal sign or the name of her sister or any other irrelevancy.

And yes, despite you dismissing intentions characters have it is important.
If we had access to her thoughts, perhaps we could judge her based on her "intentions".
But that doesn't work here, with a first person narrator. Nor it would in real life unless you have a crystal ball to know someone else's intentions (or if you're a liar claiming to know them).

What is this reasoning ?? Go to court and tell the judges and lawyers that intentions aren't to be taken into account. That's why i said you're disconnected from reality. Once more, clear bias.
You're conflating morality with legality. :FacePalm::FacePalm:
You don't even know what you're trying to debate. But yeah, I'm apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality... sure.

...anyway, since you brought legality up: in most countries she'd be still condemned. For example, in her native UK, it would be manslaughter. Her defendant could (and should) bring up the absence of malice in her actions to avoid elevating the crime to what's legally considered murder, but note that the difference is presence/absence of malice, not "intentions". Think on why.

Congrats for shooting your own foot. Twice.

Again, the cat thing is not a valid argument at all
It is because it shows that she's still willing to harm innocents in her pseudo-justice.

but since you have none
I do have arguments as shown over and over. Things don't magically stop existing because you want to pretend that you don't see them.

Spoiler, even if you side with her at the idea, she won't kill the cat.
Refer to the above.

What ?? Someone could have overreacted out of anger and said bad things ??
She is not just "overreacting out of anger and saying bad things". She is planning it.
["Since you brought legality up", part II: legally that's called premeditation. It is an aggravating factor behind crimes. Still, I'm discussing this from a moral point of view, not a legal one.]

Nah bro terrible person worse than the H :eek:
A person who causes more harm to the others around them.
And we know how Kate turned out in the end. The MC mentions it (I think that it's at the start?)

You are the definition of bias itself, not taking Kate's actions into account
Now you're just lying, given that I mentioned Kate's actions over and over and over.

Guys listen to this guy : If you rape, humiliate and debase people on a regular basis you're a better person than if you lock a thief in a locker and piss on them. I think this dude is sane. Definitely.
Still "conveniently" omitting that she killed someone. Or planned to kill Spinach, even acknowledging her innocence. Riiiiiight. But I'm totally the one being biased~.

Still i'm curious why are you defending this idea.
It's blatantly obvious that you don't even know what I'm defending. (Or what you're defending yourself.)
I'll spoonfeed it for you. I'm saying that:
1. People like Kate cause harm.
2. People like Isabelle cause MORE harm than people like Kate.
3. People should be considered "good" or "bad" based on the result of their actions, not on irrelevancies like intentions.

Better not overthink it, it's a porn thread after all. :unsure:
Have you ever considered that one of the joys of fiction is that you can experience things that never happened, and get to know people who don't exist?

That is why everyone is here - you can become a chad who fucks 9001 women by playing a game, you can follow your darkest fetishes (rape included) without actually harming someone else, you can even live what would never happen in real life.

Discussing what happens in a fictional work, including the morality of the characters - yes, even in a porn game! - only comes naturally from that.

Unless you think that those threads are better suited for "ANDRAID HWEN? WHY DEVELOPER ARE OF HATE PHONE USERS?" spam. ...I wouldn't be surprised if you do.

I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pornusnik

CNR25

Member
Jan 7, 2020
482
579
If you have a hard time retrieving written information - as shown by the fact that you don't even know when people are talking about the stolen chocolate hearts or the stolen locker - perhaps I'm not the one to blame.


Wrooooong~
I'm attacking Isabelle but in no moment I defended Kate. Stop making shit up.


And in no moment I contradicted that.
I think that you really should improve your basic reading comprehension.


No, she can't "guess" that. But in no moment she questioned Lindsey to ask "why did you do this?" - she instead jumped at the gun, with her "IMMA GOING JUSTEEEEESSE", and slapped Lindsey. Acting without thinking, or without enough information to act, is itself immoral - it's how you get people harming each other while babbling "but my intenshuns were sooo good~ I should get a free pass to harm others!".


And killed her. By drowning. Oopsie, it's so convenient to not list it alongside the rest~
[As I said it was actually her homunculus, that is an attenuating factor; however Isabelle had no way to know it.]


The info that you're asking to be spoonfed is easily retrievable from the context.


It was still the consequence of her actions. She's still killing someone, regardless of her "intenshuns" or zodiacal sign or the name of her sister or any other irrelevancy.


If we had access to her thoughts, perhaps we could judge her based on her "intentions".
But that doesn't work here, with a first person narrator. Nor it would in real life unless you have a crystal ball to know someone else's intentions (or if you're a liar claiming to know them).


You're conflating morality with legality. :FacePalm::FacePalm:
You don't even know what you're trying to debate. But yeah, I'm apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality... sure.

...anyway, since you brought legality up: in most countries she'd be still condemned. For example, in her native UK, it would be manslaughter. Her defendant could (and should) bring up the absence of malice in her actions to avoid elevating the crime to what's legally considered murder, but note that the difference is presence/absence of malice, not "intentions". Think on why.

Congrats for shooting your own foot. Twice.


It is because it shows that she's still willing to harm innocents in her pseudo-justice.


I do have arguments as shown over and over. Things don't magically stop existing because you want to pretend that you don't see them.


Refer to the above.


She is not just "overreacting out of anger and saying bad things". She is planning it.
["Since you brought legality up", part II: legally that's called premeditation. It is an aggravating factor behind crimes. Still, I'm discussing this from a moral point of view, not a legal one.]


A person who causes more harm to the others around them.
And we know how Kate turned out in the end. The MC mentions it (I think that it's at the start?)


Now you're just lying, given that I mentioned Kate's actions over and over and over.


Still "conveniently" omitting that she killed someone. Or planned to kill Spinach, even acknowledging her innocence. Riiiiiight. But I'm totally the one being biased~.


It's blatantly obvious that you don't even know what I'm defending. (Or what you're defending yourself.)
I'll spoonfeed it for you. I'm saying that:
1. People like Kate cause harm.
2. People like Isabelle cause MORE harm than people like Kate.
3. People should be considered "good" or "bad" based on the result of their actions, not on irrelevancies like intentions.


Have you ever considered that one of the joys of fiction is that you can experience things that never happened, and get to know people who don't exist?

That is why everyone is here - you can become a chad who fucks 9001 women by playing a game, you can follow your darkest fetishes (rape included) without actually harming someone else, you can even live what would never happen in real life.

Discussing what happens in a fictional work, including the morality of the characters - yes, even in a porn game! - only comes naturally from that.

Unless you think that those threads are better suited for "ANDRAID HWEN? WHY DEVELOPER ARE OF HATE PHONE USERS?" spam. ...I wouldn't be surprised if you do.

I rest my case.
Such a condensed of bad faith, even the way you're writing smells the frustrated.

Honestly, i'm not going through it when the first lines are either ad hominem or misunderstandings from your parts ( for example when you think i said you defended Kate, i said you defend the IDEA of her being a better person then isabelle. Or even when your dissociating legality with morals when these two concepts are obviously linked. You should really think about extenuating circumstances by the way but this concept might be too complex for you to understand )

Your only argument which holds any value is the fact Isabelle could have killed Maxine. Then, if tomorrow you fight with a guy who just snatched your phone out of your hands and you unfortunately kill him by pushing him or anyting that could happen, will you think of yourself lower than a rapist and a slaver ?

You clearly have a vision too limited of things, just taking the details which go your way. I'll stick to my first feeling of not going further now, nobody wants to read an essay with probably big flaws. I'll just end this by asking you a question, answer truthfully.

If you were forced to be with a person, would you rather chose :
- Someone who is used to humiliate, degrade, rape people for his entertainment on a regular basis. A big maniac.
- Someone with anger issues, who also can hurt you badly if you hurt him. But who helps people around him and says he wants to make the world a better place. Maybe not using the good means tho.

Hmm ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BanditoMarito
3.70 star(s) 183 Votes