Birdnman993
Well-Known Member
- Dec 6, 2021
- 1,902
- 3,170
- 397
She is Ashe's aunt, if I'm not mistaken, Evelyn's sister. I think they mentioned her in the chapter after the party.
For the people who thinks that Victoria is the blackmailer, i have a question:
You have the choice to avoid Kate. If you do, the blackmail still happens, right? Then she's not a possibility for me, because she wouldn't have a reason for that, right?
This is a honest question because i didn't refuse Kate, so i don't know the possibilities here. The DEV can make an infinite list of blackmailers for each choice/path you make? yes, but i doubt it.
You have the choice to avoid Kate. If you do, the blackmail still happens, right? Then she's not a possibility for me, because she wouldn't have a reason for that, right?
This is a honest question because i didn't refuse Kate, so i don't know the possibilities here. The DEV can make an infinite list of blackmailers for each choice/path you make? yes, but i doubt it.
Last edited:
Speaking of Kendra, Stella seems like the kind of woman (based on what we saw at the end of episode 4) that would enjoy watching Evelyn get railed by her sister. Also Victoria and Evelyn being a CQ route relationship would be interesting, especially if they work at the same place (I don't remember if it was stated where Victoria works). Another interesting CQ route event could be Victoria "taking" Kate back from Ashe.
She's Evelyn's sister. Evelyn says something about them not having a good relationship or something like that
I cant get it to run. It only seems to allow other versions to run it on this version of Joiplay. And the ones I tried and don't want to use anymore I don't know how to uninstall from it. Man why is this so complicated sometimes or I'am I dumb?
doovel
Active Member
- Nov 13, 2023
- 579
- 949
- 226
It's potentially inline with her cuck-route personality. It would be a terrible (for Ashe) reveal, but it's definitely within the realm of possibilities. Would explain some of her fucked up behaviour.
It would be quite diabolical for the dev to use Rachel like that. So.. probably it's her?
Dessolos
Board Buff
- Jul 25, 2017
- 19,738
- 27,831
- 936
honestly if Rachael ends up being the blackmailer which I hope isn't the case. I'm gonna have to pull out my simp card. Cause I will still want to like her as my 2nd favorite LI. Tho that isn't hard to do in this game , as only a handful of characters in this game I consider someone id romance a main LI rest is content
For me Content = Fiona , Natasha , Isabella , Kate , Mc's mother, Cleo any other random girl I forgot about
LI for me = Vanessa , Rachael , Zoey
Unsure about = Spike , Lexi , Delilah
For me Content = Fiona , Natasha , Isabella , Kate , Mc's mother, Cleo any other random girl I forgot about
LI for me = Vanessa , Rachael , Zoey
Unsure about = Spike , Lexi , Delilah
Buletti
Engaged Member
- Nov 7, 2023
- 2,051
- 3,471
- 349
Come on Mate, Delilah is also pretty hot
The outfit she is wearing for the big party looks pretty sexy and her business Dress suits her also very well. I was just as surprised as Ashe how good she looks in it.
SizeQueenShrine
Member
- Sep 25, 2020
- 259
- 604
- 162
Ha! I bet Natasha will get nice redeeming arc in latter parts of the story and she's gonna catch and lock up the blackmailer, anyway, if situation goes out of hand.
Nah, you are wrong here. Blackmail isn't really coercion, especially when it comes to reputational blackmail.
If blackmailer doesn't act like terrorist (ie. threatens your life or life of members of your family in order to push you into becoming his tool of destruction or demanding evil doing from you) and whole blackmail is based just on knowledge of true information you would prefer to stay private, it isn't really coercive. Because unlike your life or health you don't own exclusive rights on what other people should know or not know about you. You can stop people telling lies about you, which damage your reputation, but not the truth.
Truth-based kind of reputational blackmail isn't really coercive and is based on your choice. If blackmailer knows the truth, he or she can go public with it anyway, and if you agree to pay for silence, you're just paying for prefered postponement of getting it leaked. So, you can pay to buy some time and prepare your damage control, you wouldn't have chance to set up, if not that warning. If blackmailing person wouldn't be greedy and go public for free straight on, you couldn't control even that time shit hits the fan.
Nobody is obliged to help you keeping up your appearances. And it's your problem, if you're not open about yourself and need to mask up in order to function in society. When you aren't, your potentially giving much power over yourself to other people, which is dumb thing to do.
Duplos should get out of the closet!
This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever read, holy christ.
According to Merriam-Webster:
blackmail
noun
black·mail ˈblak-ˌmāl
Synonyms of blackmail
1: a tribute anciently exacted on the Scottish border by plundering chiefs in exchange for immunity from pillage
2
a: extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution
b: the payment that is extorted
Blackmail IS coercion, regardless of the circumstance. There is no distinction for "truth-based blackmail" or whatever the fuck you're on about.
People have a myriad reasons for wanting privacy. Wanting to hide aspects of a person's life is their right, and it's definitely not "giving power over them" to some random shithead who breached their privacy.Nobody is obliged to help you keeping up your appearances. And it's your problem, if you're not open about yourself and need to mask up in order to function in society. When you aren't, your potentially giving much power over yourself to other people, which is dumb thing to do.
Duplos should get out of the closet!
Last edited:
PhineasFlynn
Forum Fanatic
- Feb 1, 2020
- 5,651
- 7,700
- 738
Yeah, privacy...
How much of your friends, family members, our wife or mom, etc... know about your membership on this site or even of interest of this kind of games.
Privacy is one of most important things in live...
SizeQueenShrine
Member
- Sep 25, 2020
- 259
- 604
- 162
Yeah, the dictionary is blind to intricacies of moral theory and usually is reflection of dumbed-down lowest denominator mainstream outlook, so I wouldn't treat its definitions as ultimate truth. Not all threats have coercive qualities and not all coercion is unlawful. Check it out:
At first glance it is not hard to answer the question, “Is blackmail really illegitimate?” The only problem it
would seem to pose is, “Why is it being asked at all?” Do not blackmailers, well . . . blackmail people? And what could be worse? Blackmailers prey on people’s dark hidden secrets. They threaten to expose and publicize them. They bleed their victims, and often drive them to suicide.
We will find, however, that the case against the blackmailer cannot stand serious analysis; that it is based upon a tissue of unexamined shibboleths and deep philosophical misunderstandings.
What, exactly, is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of trade. It is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the trade is accepted, the blackmailer then maintains his silence and the blackmailee pays the agreed-upon price. If the blackmail offer is rejected, the blackmailer may exercise his rights of free speech and publicize the secret. There is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his right of free speech.
The sole difference between a gossip and a blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking—for a price. In a sense, the gossip is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer has given the blackmailee a chance to silence him. The gossip exposes the secret without warning. Is not the person with a secret better off at the hands of a blackmailer than a gossip? With the gossip, all is lost; with the blackmailer, one can only gain, or at least be no worse off. If the price requested by the blackmailer is lower than the secret is worth, the secretholder will pay the blackmailer—this being the lesser of the two evils.
He thus gains the difference to him between the value of the secret and the price of the blackmail. When the blackmailer demands more than the secret is worth, his demand will not be met and the information will become public. However, in this case the person is no worse off with the blackmailer than he would have been with the inveterate gossip. It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with slight contempt and smugness.
Blackmail need not entail the offer of silence in return for money. This is only the best known form. But blackmail may be defined without reference to either. Defined in general terms, blackmail is the threat to do something—anything which is not in itself illegal—unless certain demands are met.
Many actions in the public arena qualify as acts of blackmail, but, instead of being vilified, they have often attained a status of respectability! For example, the recent lettuce boycott is a form of blackmail. Through the lettuce boycott (or any boycott) threats are made to retailers and wholesalers of fruits and vegetables. If they handle nonunion lettuce, the boycotters assert, people will be asked not to patronize their establishments. This conforms perfectly to the definition: a threat that something, not in itself illegal, will take place unless certain demands are met.
But what about the threats involved in blackmail? This perhaps more than anything else, is the aspect of blackmail that is most misunderstood and feared. At first glance, one is inclined to agree that threats are immoral. The usual dictum against aggression, for example, warns not only against aggression per se but also against the threat of aggression. If a highwayman accosts a traveler, it is usually the threat of aggression alone that will compel obedience.
Consider the nature of threats. When what is threatened is aggressive violence, the threat is condemnable. No individual has the right to initiate aggressive violence against another. In blackmail, however, what is being “threatened” is something that the blackmailer does have a right to do!—whether it be exercising the right of free speech, or refusing to patronize certain stores, or persuading others to do likewise. What is being threatened is not in itself illegitimate; it is, therefore, not possible to call the “threat” an illegitimate threat.
Blackmail can only be illegitimate when there is a special foresworn relationship between the blackmailer and the blackmailee. A secret-keeper may take a lawyer or a private investigator into his confidence on the condition that the confidence be maintained in secrecy. If the lawyer or private investigator attempts to blackmail the secret-keeper, that would be in violation of the contract and, therefore, illegitimate. However, if a stranger holds the secret without contractual obligations, then it is legitimate to offer to “sell” his silence.
In addition to being a legitimate activity, blackmail has some good effects, litanies to the contrary notwithstanding. Apart from some innocent victims who are caught in the net, whom does the blackmailer usually prey upon? In the main, there are two groups. One group is composed of criminals: murderers, thieves, swindlers, embezzlers, cheaters, rapists, etc. The other group consists of people who engage in activities, not illegitimate in themselves, but which are contrary to the mores and habits of the majority: homosexuals, sado-masochists, sexual perverts, communists, adulterers, etc. The institution of blackmail has beneficial, but different, effects upon each of these groups.
In the case of criminals, blackmail and the threat of blackmail serves as a deterrent. They add to the risks involved in criminal activity. How many of the anonymous “tips” received by the police—the value of which cannot be overestimated— can be traced, directly or indirectly, to blackmail? How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in “jobs” that call for cooperation, out of the fear of possible blackmail? Finally, there are those individuals who are on the verge of committing crimes, or at the “margin of criminality” (as the economist would say), where the least factor will propel them one way or another. The additional fear of blackmail may be enough, in some cases, to dissuade them from crime.
If blackmail itself were legalized, it would undoubtedly be an even more effective deterrent. Legalization would undoubtedly result in an increase in blackmail, with attendant depredations upon the criminal class.
It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Although this controversy rages with great relevance in current debates on capital punishment, it will suffice to point out that the institution of blackmail does both. It increases the penalty associated with crime, as it forces criminals to share part of their loot with the blackmailer. It also raises the probability of being apprehended, as blackmailers are added to police forces, private citizen and vigilante groups, and other anticrime units. Blackmailers, who are often members in good standing in the criminal world, are in an advantageous position to foil crimes. Their “inside” status surpasses even that of the spy or infiltrator, who is forced to play a role. Legalizing blackmail would thus allow anticrime units to take advantage of two basic crime fighting adages at the same time: “divide and conquer,” and “lack of honor among thieves.” It is quite clear that one important effect of legalizing blackmail would be to diminish crime, real crime, that is.
The legalization of blackmail would also have a beneficial effect upon actions which do not involve aggression, but are at variance with the mores of society as a whole. On these actions, the legalization of blackmail would have a liberating effect.
Even with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects. Homosexuality, for instance, is technically illegal in some instances, but not really criminal, since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, blackmail very often causes considerable harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, that is, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped by making the public more aware and accustomed to homosexuality. Forcing individual members of a socially oppressed group into the open, or “out of the closet,” cannot, of course, be considered a service. The use of force is a violation of an individual’s rights. But still, it does engender an awareness on the part of members of a group of one another’s existence. In forcing this perception, blackmail can legitimately take some small share of the credit in liberating people whose only crime is a deviation from the norm in a noncriminal way.
In reflecting on the old aphorism, “the truth shall make you free,” the only “weapon” at the disposal of the blackmailer is the truth. In using the truth to back up his threats (as on occasion he must), he sets the truth free, very often without intent, to do whatever good or bad it is capable of doing.
from Block's "Defending the Undefendable"
Duplos fit in with paragraph on closet homosexuality quite nicely, I think.When it comes to me, I agree with that viewpoint with one exception. Truth-based blackmail stops being passable in one condition. When society is going into ethnic cleansing/extermination mode, when state creates laws that allow to lawfully kill whole groups or demographics.
But since I don't see foreboding duplo-Holocaust in futa-world presented by the game on the horizon and Ashe is threatened only by loss of position on marital market and risk of deemed unworthy of serious relationship by bigoted, I'm ok with that.
Ah yes, Walter Block, the enlightened centrist who literally wrote "Moreover, the institution of child labor is an honorable one, with a long and glorious history of good works." I don't give a fuck about his opinions on these matters because his arguments disregard the human element.
Blackmail is coercion. Full stop. A person will set boundaries around themselves, which include personal information. It is your moral imperative to respect those boundaries. If you know that there are pieces of information they do not want made public, you respect their wishes. It's not your call to make to "set them free by telling the truth". Even in your closing statement you're doing what Block is: disregarding the human.
Blackmail is coercion. Full stop. A person will set boundaries around themselves, which include personal information. It is your moral imperative to respect those boundaries. If you know that there are pieces of information they do not want made public, you respect their wishes. It's not your call to make to "set them free by telling the truth". Even in your closing statement you're doing what Block is: disregarding the human.
YOU don't think the potential trauma Ashe would have to deal with is a big deal. We've seen enough instances of her on the verge of a mental breakdown about her secret coming out to know that it's a massive deal for HER. You respect the human, not the "truth".
Last edited:
SizeQueenShrine
Member
- Sep 25, 2020
- 259
- 604
- 162
Nah. I don't think that's my moral imperative and I don't consider people are able to make such demands. You can respect their made-up boundaries, if you want to be extra-nice for them and you usually do it, if you want to stay welcome in their social circle, but it's not imperative. Far from it.
Yeah. Because people have tendency to drill far fetched demands into others. And when they do that or are trying, it's better to disregard them to keep your own autonomy.
I don't consider value of potential trauma Ashe would have, because her closet keeping strategy is untenable anyway. If she wants to date someone, she would eventually need to tell the truth. It's by not doing it, she creates trauma potential for herself.
For now, it seems that on certain routes, she prefers putting plug in her ass as told by stranger on the phone, than letting him gossip.
Right, you have no regard for others and see them as a means to an end. Which flies in the face of Kant's assertion that people are to be seen as the end itself, meaning you respect others for it's own sake instead of seeing them as utilities to benefit from. I'd rather take a respected ethical philosopher's perspective over this goober.
A person asking you not to reveal information about them is not a far-fetched demand. You can fulfill that request by simply doing nothing. I'm not saying always acquiesce to other people, I'm saying decisions need to be made with morality in mind, and morality is a uniquely human concept.
Once again, her closet keeping strategy is her business. If she wants to date someone, she'll evaluate their trustworthiness (like she did with Fiona) and reveal that information on her terms.
Your own hero Block says "Forcing individual members of a socially oppressed group into the open, or “out of the closet,” cannot, of course, be considered a service. The use of force is a violation of an individual’s rights."
Use of force = coercion.
Anyway, I'm not spending more time arguing morality on a fucking porn board. I pity the people who have to deal with your libertarian bullshit in real life.
Dessolos
Board Buff
- Jul 25, 2017
- 19,738
- 27,831
- 936
eh looks only matter at the start till I get to know the character for me. But yeah Lookwise Delilah probably my favorite after Vanessa. But honestly more surprised how Fiona looks dressed up for the party. Usually not into Fiona's looks but she looks damn good dressed up.Come on Mate, Delilah is also pretty hot
The outfit she is wearing for the big party looks pretty sexy and her business Dress suits her also very well. I was just as surprised as Ashe how good she looks in it.
SizeQueenShrine
Member
- Sep 25, 2020
- 259
- 604
- 162
In this case it's beneficial to other people that want or don't want to date duplo, if they know who the duplo is. Potential denunciation cuts dating costs and saves time for everyone. And when there is conflict of interest, who you should regard specifically?
Or you decide not fulfill it, if you think this is pointless or harmful to interest of others. It's up to you.
Yeah, but he still thinks society as whole benefits from this. So let's Ashe become a martyr for duplo minority to get normalized anyway.
Haha, that's the most popular of all questionable things people are doing here.
Ciaran8023
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2018
- 858
- 1,884
- 286
I think certain individuals seem to entirely forget the age old adage 'your rights end when the rights of others begin'. Everyone has a right to protect personal information about themselves, and no one has any right to deal with that information even if you happen to know about it.
Moreover, while we don't know the full extent of how vulnerable duplos are in society, the fact that we do have an example of someone getting bullied into suicide should be more than enough explanation to where dealing with Ashe's secret is a threat to her personal safety and the safety of the people around her.
Moreover, while we don't know the full extent of how vulnerable duplos are in society, the fact that we do have an example of someone getting bullied into suicide should be more than enough explanation to where dealing with Ashe's secret is a threat to her personal safety and the safety of the people around her.
Well, as I just pointed out, the last duplo that got "outed" ended up getting bullied and antagonized to suicide so there's not much to say about any 'normalization' and instead it would just create victims.
Buletti
Engaged Member
- Nov 7, 2023
- 2,051
- 3,471
- 349
I totally agree on Fiona. As Ashe said she was hardly recogniseable.
This party is really going to be awesome. Especially when everyone will get pumped with the sex drug.
I already cannot wait for the next update!
doovel
Active Member
- Nov 13, 2023
- 579
- 949
- 226
For some reason Vanessa has that Botox face (same with Natasha tbf), which is a complete turn off for me. And a little weird considering her mother doesn't have that at all. (And Vanessa is supposed to be young).
Delilah looks like a sweet girl, to be fair so does Rachel. We'll have to wait and see if they turn out to be blackmailers or just accessories though.