VN Ren'Py Superhuman [v0.99999 Beta] [WeirdWorld]

[shujuku]

Where? Do some come with the Strength Eaters that infect Liz and Amber, and I didn't notice?

If you remember Ella with Heat and the others digging deep into the earth they uncover two shackled monsters, one of those was the Strength Eater

 

[SasugaRyzeSama]

Yeah, because everyone knows Ella doesn't lie, and it's not as if someone might obfuscate their reason for doing something if that reason could be perceived as a vulnerability, especially if they're an abuse victim.

I suggest you take a step back from this and think clearly. If you go looking for reasons to hate someone, you'll find them.

So her lying or not depends on specific situation and it outcome to fit into your opinion about her? ok. I don't hate the character, it's well written and entertaining, just evil.

 

[Grimnir098]

So her lying or not depends on specific situation and it outcome to fit into your opinion about her? ok. I don't hate the character, it's well written and entertaining, just evil.

Yes... whether someone is likely lying is completely dependent on the specific situation. Why are you acting incredulous? Do you not understand how and why people lie, or something?

If it's so obvious Ella wasn't lying here, then you can just explain why.
I don't understand why you continue to digress so you can undermine my character.
Actually, I know do why, it's because you have no argument but you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

[TheShelly]

If you remember Ella with Heat and the others digging deep into the earth they uncover two shackled monsters, one of those was the Strength Eater

I have no clue what youre on about. Are you referring to Goliath and Valravn? Who is 'Heat'? Do you mean Cole?

 

[JmTrad]

It's early December where the update at.

Superhuman fandom when it's update month

 

[LusterDemon]

If you remember Ella with Heat and the others digging deep into the earth they uncover two shackled monsters, one of those was the Strength Eater

Bro is playing UltraAnimal

 

[Forget Me Not]

Superhuman fandom when it's update month
View attachment 4289402

You're goddamn right. WEIRDWOOOOOOOD!!!!

 

[thegibusman]

Would Jake have won if he had more prep time?

 

[KyngC]

Would Jake have won if he had more prep time?

Deryl would always be an issue he couldn't plan for. Maybe he could escape without Mc defeating though

 

[harem.king]

Man, remember when all the Ella haters raged about how "she killed children" (exactly the same age as her) back in the day.
and it was pure speculation that she killed them.

then we find out what happened that year, it wasn't even ella who killed them.
she was literally possessed by a higher entity that called ella a failure and said it will harvest those people as resources to upgrade/fix ella with.
then ella literally stabbed herself (after using willpower to wrench partial control back) to disrupt her evolution/fixing (giving up power in the process) in order to end the possession early to stop it from killing her friend

None of the ella haters who wrote entire essays about how Ella is "literally Hitler" for MuRdErInG ChIlDrEn ever apologized nor admitted they were wrong.
They just pivoted into other excuses for hating her.

 

[obibobi]

Would Jake have won if he had more prep time?

Yes and no, no further questions.

 

[DrakoGhoul]

Man, remember when all the Ella simps raged about how "she didn't killed children" (exactly the same age as her) back in the day.
and it was pure speculation that she didn't killed them.

then we find out what happened that year, it was ella who killed them.
she was literally not possessed by a higher entity beforehand that called ella a failure and said it will harvest those people as resources to upgrade/fix ella with. Something she knew before hand
then ella only stabbed herself (after not trying at all) to disrupt her evolution/fixing (giving up power in the process) in order to end the possession early to stop it from killing only her friend and no one else

None of the ella simps who wrote entire essays about how Ella is "literally jesus" for sTaNDiNG uP to the bIG bAD possessor ever stop dick riding nor admitted they were wrong.
They just pivoted into other excuses to not blame her for being there in the first place.

 

[dragonlord6789]

I'd say you were correct if Authority was the control over everything. However, the existence of Order and the other "higher" powers, as well as the twin gods render that pretty unlikely. Authority, just like all the other apostles, supposedly comes from one of the twin gods splitting themselves, and isn't the parent of the other apostles.

Authority is quite literally authority in the same sense that a ruler has authority over their subjects. That is the simplest definition of authority there is.

But in that case why did Ella tell the Mc Jake's powers are too focused on people, when he visited her at her orphanage? Authority only works on people and while Jake might not have been very creative using his powers, he was regularly using them. After all he only had a bit less power than the MC at the time. Her statement to the Mc at the orphanage didn't seem to imply a lack of effort in being creative but a lack of the proper mindset to use his powers. Which doesn't make sense if his powers only work on people.

 

[SasugaRyzeSama]

Yes... whether someone is likely lying is completely dependent on the specific situation. Why are you acting incredulous? Do you not understand how and why people lie, or something?

If it's so obvious Ella wasn't lying here, then you can just explain why.
I don't understand why you continue to digress so you can undermine my character.
Actually, I know do why, it's because you have no argument but you can't accept that you're wrong.

Utter lie, you know shit, and here's the requested explanation: If she wouldn't see a human life as worthless, she would not expend the human life seconds prior for "Wanna see something cool?".

I don't understand why you outright ignore points and arguments that strike true, digressing so much to undermine my character. Actually, I know do why, it's because you have no argument but you either A. leverage your enjoyment of the game/worldwiew at large on Ella not being evil, or are taking this personally and ergo defending yourself, not the opinion. (I told you I can do this better than you)

"Bro, Ella isn't evil bro, she has a master plan for good bro, trust me bro, I can't prove this cause' there exist no proof of this bro, but you must trust me bro" is just not an argument that convinces me, and prodding around that, picking at possible inconsistencies is just funny. Because A. offering your own fanfic about Ella overall "alignment" as truth without backing is laughable, and B. Children as young as 5 are capable of understanding the concept that ends do not justify the means.

I just prefer to believe my own eyes, WW words, and Ella herself, over you.

By the way to the above, did you know Ella states, to herself, that she must be evil, as in making a choice to be that way? I learned two days ago from her letters/diary. That in order to beat H.E.R.O. she must be devious and evil. What, did she lie to herself here too? In her own personal thoughts? Like you are lying to yourself here? Because what you're doing, it's not really convincing me, sounds more like convincing yourself.

 

[Grimnir098]

Utter lie, you know shit, and here's the requested explanation: If she wouldn't see a human life as worthless, she would not expend the human life seconds prior for "Wanna see something cool?".

Are you just not reading or something?
You ignore my response so you can respond to something I didn't even say.

I don't understand why you outright ignore points and arguments that strike true, digressing so much to undermine my character. Actually, I know do why, it's because you have no argument but you either A. leverage your enjoyment of the game/worldwiew at large on Ella not being evil, or are taking this personally and ergo defending yourself, not the opinion. (I told you I can do this better than you)

Except I'm not ignoring your points. I'm directly responding to them, unlike you. (I provided examples, unlike you, proving you cannot, in fact, do this better).
This is why "I know you are but what am I?" is a child's argument. Pathetic.

"Bro, Ella isn't evil bro, she has a master plan for good bro, trust me bro, I can't prove this cause' there exist no proof of this bro, but you must trust me bro" is just not an argument that convinces me, and prodding around that, picking at possible inconsistencies is just funny. Because A. offering your own fanfic about Ella overall "alignment" as truth without backing is laughable, and B. Children as young as 5 are capable of understanding the concept that ends do not justify the means.

More proof that you refuse to respond to my arguments.
My whole argument is simply that you do not have proof for the claims you're making. That Ella may have a master plan for good. That she may not evil. I'm pretty sure I even directly stated that the burden of proof is on you, for this very reason.

I just prefer to believe my own eyes, WW words, and Ella herself, over you.

You prefer to take things at face value, without caring for the context or the nuance, because they support your view.
I prefer to think critically about the information before me, because I care about the truth.

By the way to the above, did you know Ella states, to herself, that she must be evil, as in making a choice to be that way? I learned two days ago from her letters/diary. That in order to beat H.E.R.O. she must be devious and evil. What, did she lie to herself here too? In her own personal thoughts? Like you are lying to yourself here?

We've literally been over this before, when you brought up WW calling Ella an evil bitch. Evil is a word with a nebulous definition. Different people define evil differently. What WW thinks is evil, I might not. What Ella thinks is evil, I might not. Plenty of people think worse of themselves than is actually true.

Because what you're doing, it's not really convincing me, sounds more like convincing yourself.

I don't argue to convince someone else, especially on the internet. That's usually a futile endeavour.
I argue for the joy of it, to test my mind and my beliefs.
At this point, though, I don't think you're capable of offering that, at least on this topic. So many times you've completely dodged my points. You've made strawman arguments. Now you're even bringing up a point I've already countered, one you didn't bother to defend at the time.

 

[OnlineRando]

But in that case why did Ella tell the Mc Jake's powers are too focused on people, when he visited her at her orphanage? Authority only works on people and while Jake might not have been very creative using his powers, he was regularly using them. After all he only had a bit less power than the MC at the time. Her statement to the Mc at the orphanage didn't seem to imply a lack of effort in being creative but a lack of the proper mindset to use his powers. Which doesn't make sense if his powers only work on people.

Firstly, I must say I don't remember that conversation exactly, but there are some answers that come to mind.

For example, Ella could have meant that Jake was, indeed, too focused on people, in the sense that he can control monsters as well. And monsters, though not all, tend to be less intelligent and more powerful than humans, as well as seemingly stagnant in power, meaning that they're perfect to mold into his tools.

As for being limited by his mindset, as seen with Jarred, if Jake thinks he can't control someone, or that he's beneath them, he can't control them. So, by having a mindset that doesn't inherently place him at the top, he is limiting his power immensely. For all we know, the effects his confidence has on his power may not be as simple as 'works or doesn't', but a whole spectrum, in which he can only get the most out of his power if he well and truly believes he exists above everyone else.

In other words, Jake doesn't have the mindset of a ruler, and thus is limiting his usage of the authority one possesses.

 

[DannyLucifer]

Man, remember when all the Ella simps raged about how "she didn't killed children" (exactly the same age as her) back in the day.
and it was pure speculation that she didn't killed them.

then we find out what happened that year, it was ella who killed them.
she was literally not possessed by a higher entity beforehand that called ella a failure and said it will harvest those people as resources to upgrade/fix ella with. Something she knew before hand
then ella only stabbed herself (after not trying at all) to disrupt her evolution/fixing (giving up power in the process) in order to end the possession early to stop it from killing only her friend and no one else

None of the ella simps who wrote entire essays about how Ella is "literally jesus" for sTaNDiNG uP to the bIG bAD possessor ever stop dick riding nor admitted they were wrong.
They just pivoted into other excuses to not blame her for being there in the first place.

Ella simps should just go home at this point and bake their wife's boyfriend a cake for their anniversary

 

[SasugaRyzeSama]

Are you just not reading or something?
You ignore my response so you can respond to something I didn't even say.

Except I'm not ignoring your points. I'm directly responding to them, unlike you. (I provided examples, unlike you, proving you cannot, in fact, do this better).
This is why "I know you are but what am I?" is a child's argument. Pathetic.

More proof that you refuse to respond to my arguments.
My whole argument is simply that you do not have proof for the claims you're making. That Ella may have a master plan for good. That she may not evil. I'm pretty sure I even directly stated that the burden of proof is on you, for this very reason.

You prefer to take things at face value, without caring for the context or the nuance, because they support your view.
I prefer to think critically about the information before me, because I care about the truth.

We've literally been over this before, when you brought up WW calling Ella an evil bitch. Evil is a word with a nebulous definition. Different people define evil differently. What WW thinks is evil, I might not. What Ella thinks is evil, I might not. Plenty of people think worse of themselves than is actually true.

I don't argue to convince someone else, especially on the internet. That's usually a futile endeavour.
I argue for the joy of it, to test my mind and my beliefs.
At this point, though, I don't think you're capable of offering that, at least on this topic. So many times you've completely dodged my points. You've made strawman arguments. Now you're even bringing up a point I've already countered, one you didn't bother to defend at the time.

Yet again and again you twist and lie, while being a typical trollo. Asked me a question, I answered, "Are you just not reading or something?", and then tangent about responding and answering while I do not. I did not disregard Valravn's rampage, you did, because innocent death is undeniably evil, and then your "nebulous definition of evil" argument trips over and die. I don't call you stupid, yet you literally started this lengthy exchange by calling ne that.
All the while claiming I have no proof of my stake, yet countless times the bitch behaves like the bitch is ought to. Mental gymnastics to enable hideousness and crimes over and over must be truly an enjoyable test of mind, it's ability to remove reason and logic to safeguard one's ego that is. The old saying "spit into a whore's eyes, and she will say it's raining" comes to mind when looking at your responses, over and over.

This is why "I know you are but what am I?" is a child's argument. Pathetic.

You used it first, I copied first half and did the same with the rest. What does that mean, that YOU are using child arguments? That you yourself are pathetic? Kinda shot yourself in the kneecap there champ.

But right you are, as another guy in the thread here said, convincing someone over internet is futile, especially if the one is just here to disregard, lie, play under the public and just having a wrong opinion to rile up others. I just pity those who need to interact with you at every day's basis if you consider Ella not evil, oh king of nuances and neutrality. That tells a lot about you.

 

[Saiyajin2205]

Man, remember when all the Ella simps raged about how "she didn't killed children" (exactly the same age as her) back in the day.
and it was pure speculation that she didn't killed them.

then we find out what happened that year, it was ella who killed them.
she was literally not possessed by a higher entity beforehand that called ella a failure and said it will harvest those people as resources to upgrade/fix ella with. Something she knew before hand
then ella only stabbed herself (after not trying at all) to disrupt her evolution/fixing (giving up power in the process) in order to end the possession early to stop it from killing only her friend and no one else

None of the ella simps who wrote entire essays about how Ella is "literally jesus" for sTaNDiNG uP to the bIG bAD possessor ever stop dick riding nor admitted they were wrong.
They just pivoted into other excuses to not blame her for being there in the first place.

 

[Grimnir098]

Yet again and again you twist and lie, while being a typical trollo. Asked me a question, I answered, "Are you just not reading or something?", and then tangent about responding and answering while I do not.

Are you having a stroke or something?

Q: "Yes... whether someone is likely lying is completely dependent on the specific situation. Do you not understand how and why people lie, or something?" (This is the only possible thing you could be responding to in the post you quoted when you give "the answer").
A: "If she wouldn't see a human life as worthless, she would not expend the human life seconds prior for 'Wanna see something cool?'"
How in the fuck does that answer my question?
Also, I already disagreed previously with the idea that she only killed the hobo because "wanna see something cool?" To present that without a counter argument to my counter argument is asinine.

I did not disregard Valravn's rampage, you did, because innocent death is undeniably evil, and then your "nebulous definition of evil" argument trips over and die. I don't call you stupid, yet you literally started this lengthy exchange by calling ne that.

I don't remember exactly what I said about Valravn's rampage so I'll respond to that now.
None of this "she killed innocents!" matters to me if she's killing innocents to save the world. If the world ends, all the innocents die anyway. Since we don't know for sure what her plan is and whether it's necessary, I'm choosing to reserve my judgement.
Maybe someone else said that in response to you, so I didn't feel the need to respond myself.

All the while claiming I have no proof of my stake, yet countless times the bitch behaves like the bitch is ought to. Mental gymnastics to enable hideousness and crimes over and over must be truly an enjoyable test of mind, it's ability to remove reason and logic to safeguard one's ego that is. The old saying "spit into a whore's eyes, and she will say it's raining" comes to mind when looking at your responses, over and over.

If it's mental gymnastics then you should be able to point it out, yet over and over you have failed to levy any credible counter argument.

You used it first, I copied first half and did the same with the rest. What does that mean, that YOU are using child arguments? That you yourself are pathetic? Kinda shot yourself in the kneecap there champ.

What you did is, in essence, the "I know you are but what am I?" argument.

I accuse you of resorting to evading my points and undermining my character because you have no argument.
(Remember when I levied 6 points in total against your argument that Ella is evil and all you had to say was basically, "well, WW said in a stream that she's evil,"? This is why I say you evade my points and have no argument.)

You then accuse me of basically the same thing, even though only one of those things (undermining your character) is true of me. (And even then, I claim extenuating circumstances, given how you're arguing).