Comic Sans

I used all the Photoshop effects I could feasibly add at once. Didn't know that was a thing, actually. Maybe I'll stop the stoopid persona for legibility's sake.

you just haven't embraced the great .font yet. evangelize. evangelize. evangelize.

F O N T I S M on this day of October 3, 1998, Orbis time, our great nation, the .font of Comic Sans does declare fontism as its national ideology and state-supported religion. its great tenets are as follows: the typefaces of the world shall be defended; all state-supported .fonts must prosper; the state must appropriate itself all freeware fonts; shareware .fonts shall be bestowed upon other peoples in guise of vassalage to the great .font; Comic Sans is not a very bad font, Greece having used it in government documents (perhaps the first of our adepts). follow these five great tenets and the access permission to the .font dimension shall be yours.

Essentially, yes, all things are relative, but there are factual things in existence. However, from a purely material perspective, past traumas and deterministic factors that make people more affine to a certain thing rather than another create a sort of "narrative" depending on the context in which information is given to the listener. For example, if you look at neurological literature, (Link) it is possible to convince an individual of an event they know to be false under the right social and psychological pressures adapted to the person. The narrative makes an individual generate a context that may or may not be true. Some means of information are more trustworthy, but there is always an uncertainty, like in measurements, and that is only augmented by the right rhetoric. I maybe be mixing two distinct concepts, but I feel both are rather closely tied. Also, you're right, murder was not the word I was intending. "Killed at the hands of another human" is more just, because murder connotes intent. Edit: when I said "Yes!" up there, I was agreeing with you, in case it didn't seem so.

Yes! Many people will take a very Cartesian or Socratic view of controversies and assume that any set of two differing views will have a rational, dialectic solution. However, it can usually be seen that, by what I would only call "hardheadedness", people with views onto which they hold adamantly will not want to find a solution. Perhaps it's simply neurological that the view an individual is most "used to" will be the one he will subscribe to, with rationality only going so far. That goes without mentioning that beyond relativism, linguistics is a useful tool to give the impression of a single opinion being more widespread. Things aren't relative, things are narrative. It's all the same BS story, it simply changes depending on the context and whom you're speaking to. For some, killing is defense, or madness, or a duty. For others it is a crime. In all cases, a human being is murdered, but with a different spin on it every time.

Speech should never be restricted, but infringing upon the rights of others with it should. John Stuart Mill essentially promoted this in the 19th century, but it seems people like going to extremes sometimes and the point becomes lost. Why should it be unrestricted? Inherently, there is absolutely no reason for it to be besides basic human empathy, which is in itself also absurd when taken beyond the necessities of survival.

Love unto you, friend.

huh, i didn't realize! this is awesome. gonna check it out right now. edit: does anyone know if this is a specific format, or is it in-house?

100% warscore here. if such is your demand, i'm all for. but seriously, a peace offer dynamic would be the best, as long as there is no way to abuse of the defeated nation too hardly.

Hey! I realize some games have APIs that allow for interesting third-party programs. Now, I'm not sure how the code/database is structured (and maybe this has already been suggested—in which case, sorry) but it would be oh-so awesome to allow this. Perhaps it could be seen as a vulnerability? Depends how it's implemented. Of course, if developing such a thing detracts from adding content to the game, then never mind. In any case, it would be nice to see this implemented! Thanks! —sans, lol.

or he's trying to RP it off. pay up, pay up, pay up! just saying: i could use 1 mil too, House. just saying. don't mean anything by it.

in the essence of a republic as taken from its etymology, the res publica was the "people's thing". literally, it was the set of institutions available to aid in governing and that were accessible to the public. for example, rome was still technically a republic well into the 190s, because it maintained the public institutions and allowed the election of consuls (in principle). later, it became flagrant that it was in fact nothing but an empire, despite the fact that it had had caesars up until hadrian. in that sense, the republic could be given by the institutions it has, without it necessarily being a democracy, although it could not very feasibly be a democracy without being first a type of republic unless it was simply anarchy. in a way, our way of classifying the different manners in which people let themselves be governed is fallacious if we assume the different classifications are not miscible and when we are assumptive of them being conceptual truths. tl;dr the guv'ment 'n' shit. dunnit matter. gimme food.

how 'bout this one, eh? maybe should've used a different font, but why not. you know you want to: https://i.gyazo.com/c8e436b3a00b49321a3ca154d4d38f65.png

in the same vein of thought, what about peace treaties? could such a mechanic be feasible where both parties (or more; i don't know what diplomacy is) accept a flexible trade-off at the end of a war? Think of EU4, even though there are not all that many parallels to be made between that and P&W. then, small entities could be extorted into losing their cities! all's well that ends well.

i might try to get into this whole "money" thing. but i think i'd need money for that. cheers to your enterprises in Veritum.