Uploaded by GrimWeird 
1024x1446 JPG 441 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
Birds of Prey and Piracy.
Cosmos continues to rewrite the past actions of her collective gene pool - changing victims to perpetrators.
And through the new and improved actions of her past lives, she also gained the titles as Goddess of the Sky and the Storms, as well as all the Thunder and Lightning - for free.
Cosmos continues to rewrite the past actions of her collective gene pool - changing victims to perpetrators.
And through the new and improved actions of her past lives, she also gained the titles as Goddess of the Sky and the Storms, as well as all the Thunder and Lightning - for free.
Artist’s note: Queen novo surprisingly good as the Storm Queen. The Alternative history of Cosmos shure leaves quite a few interesting ideas to explore.
And To all of you who wanted Cosmos to absorb The storm king and C.o - you’re welcome.
Fluttershy: “who are you talking to?”
Cosmos - “Oh, you know, My adoring fans who want me to become even more villains in one.”
Fluttershy. “Who would ever want that?”
Cosmos: “Oh - you know who you are.”
amazingly enough, she’s breaking the 5th wall without breaking the 4th… changing the narrative.
You and me both mate. You and me both.
Though it seems like the artist is purposely dragging this on as if the character herself is bragging continuously. While I get the whole 4th wall breaking thing, it does like you said become repititive and bland, seeming to lack any buildup to anything.
I’ll drink to that mate! Even if you find it useless. You too take care and have a good one ;)
9 comments in and we haven’t budged an inch from where we started. This is useless. I’m gonna agree to disagree, you can keep doing this wine connoisseur-type thing if you want to, after all, who am i to tell you? Have a good evening man.
Really?, and who are you to tell me that it isn’t?
Who knows, perhaps it is not as shallow and simplistic as you think it is.
It aint that deep, fam.
But then again, who makes you the arbiter to deem the content as such? Where does it say that @FlutterButterButt
opinion and view of the content reigns supreme over what the content is/means. To attempt to proclaim it in a simplistic manner is to be ignorant of others opinions on the matter. And, even if it were that supposed porn acting, who’s it to say that people should or could not criticize it. Or that the content creators could improve upon their works to make a more appealing piece of media.
In the end what you are doing is proclaiming this to be a specific type of content made for a supposed “targeted audience” even if you do not have any definition whatsoever to define who that may be. All the while you use this as an excuse to exempt the content from any other form of criticism proclaiming it as being a “car compared to a plane” even if if said content may not be what you proclaim it is in the first place.
And it is lazy excuses like this that create the environments that disallow criticism of content further allowing said content to possibly degrade and worsen rather improve if in times of needing or requiring it.
Edited
Let me explain this simply to you: You are essentially criticising porn acting. Porn acting is never good acting, its 90% porn 10% acting. The purpose of porn acting is to get people horny. Would you go in the comment section of a porno and write paragraphs on paragraphs about how much better the acting could have been? Because that’s what you’re doing here. It’s not a movie, criticising it like it should have been a movie is not valid criticism.
Well here is the thing, the first thing wrong is that you are proclaiming it is a car even though there is no solid shape for it to be defined by. Secondly, to place it into a shape or format that you are claiming as such is to believe what you think of it. Not that it is the “right” or correct interpretation of it. That is not to say that I know what it is meant to be either. But such is why it is open for criticism, despite what you or the author may say.
It would be like you saying that Star Wars TROS is a masterpiece of a movie and that it was meant to be that “kind” of movie, even if it is a objectively problematic, flawed, and overall terrible film to install into a pre established franchise/universe with rules and other details that cannot be simply overwritten.
Also just because you proclaim that it is meant for a targeted audience is still to ignore the possibility of those not deemed that “targeted audience” coming upon it with opinions and thoughts of their own of it. That doesn’t make their opinions any less valid nor superior to anyone else’s when looking at the piece.
So why do you then have the superior opinion to declare what the content is and what it really means? A polished turd to you could be a masterpiece of beauty and appearance and that is all that matters. Even though in the end it is still objectively a turd at its center.
Edited
You’re criticising a car for not flying. You are making very valid arguments about how the car could fly much better and looks nothing like a plane at all.
But in the end, it’s a car…
It’s not supposed to fly…
Why are you complaining that it isn’t flying?
I get that you want it to, but it isn’t designed that way. It’s designed to please people who wanted a car. The people who wanted a car are very happy with it. You are consistently following the car to tell the guy who made it that it’s a terrible plane.
I have in no way said you aren’t allowed to say it’s a terrible plane, so I don’t really understand why you would tell me you’re going to have that opinion like it’s some sort of counter-argument, but I am saying your criticisms are misguided and your efforts are in vain. The car will never fly, it was not made to do so and they’re not taping wings onto it.
Realize you are not the target audience. Some people hate comic book structures. They don’t like the tropes and character types. That doesn’t mean their criticisms about them are relevant when compared to a novel.
Edited
Fetish or not, that lazy excuse does not exempt it from criticism no matter how hard you want it to.
Its the equivalency of artists, authors, screenwriters etc complaining about the supposed “trolls” bullying their content and being meanie meanie pants just cause. When in most cases there are valid criticisms about their work regardless of what they say.
Interpretation does matter after all, and their is nothing in the end that saying something as childish as what @FlutterButterButt
says that will stop people from having their opinions on the matter.
Edited
Here we go again…..another droning monologue piece (sort of, was shocked to not see a massive essay piece of writing in the description as per usual with a piece like this)
Once again there is Fluttershy sitting there, lookin like an absolute wanker. Doin absolutely nothing. I would honestly love for you to kill her at this point please. Seeing her at this point her presence merely screams “WTF are you even here for?”
That, and was that last little middle finger from her a jab at those criticizing u about the “mary sue” trope of this character? Cuz if that wuz the case than that’s quite a childish way of attempting to shrug off said criticism.
What’s next chief, an entire page dedicated to how the Yak’s became the taliban or something and terrorized everypony only to become the glorified butt cheeks/ body part of this glorified abomination?
U know what, don’t answer that, I wanna be surprised by this. See which pointless body part your gonna dedicate another bland page to along with whatever character the almighty “mary sue” warped them into.
At least the artwork is good though, I’ll still give you that.
Edited