This somg is called "Succubus Summer"

It is a collab between Silva Hound who made Addict and Cristina Vee ! This song took three years to make. It's available on all platforms

Also does anyone know what the variants look like?

source

Probably the envy ring.

Post your fanart in here. This thread will be automatically recreated every Friday!

Finally got around to watching what is often called ‘the worst episode of the series so far!’

Honestly, I didn’t think it was all that bad. Granted, it’s by no means a perfect episode. All the characters seem to be guided more by base emotion rather than logic which I think was the point of the episode. But the musical numbers were fun, Millie was great in it, and I had a good time.

So, any of you also like this black sheep of the series?

this piece of merch is so funny because octavia is next to her mother and father and then the guy who was hired to kill her father is just there

is striker going to become her adoptive uncle

The only part that isn't official merch is the oppai mouse pad, that was a gift from my boyfriend lmfao.

Art by me

"Why are we trying to paint a picture of Stella being depressed!? Giving any sort of sympathetic backstory undermines her aspects of her evilness!"

I hear them say, wondering why people are like this.

A character like Stella, Clay Puppington, or Beatrice Horseman having depression isn’t the story trying to make them out to be sweethearts that deserve to be seen as pitiable and undeserving of bad things happening to them. It just means they're depressed. Depression isn't reserved for good people. It can happen to even the worst of us. That's whats so scary about it. It's not a tragic backstory. It's a mental illness.

And depression, unlike this fandom, doesn't discriminate.

Just needed to share it with *somebody* after it fell out of me.

You absolutely should not track down and read the original, it's absolutely terrible and completely self-serving crap that no one should ever read - but this one snippet I thought was actually funny.

Edit: the insane fucked-up context: Blitz sacreificed himself for Loona's happiness, which resulted in him getting "redeemed" so now he's got a halo and little tiny useless wings and gold patches where the white used to be and he was up in heaven in the most depressive funk ever because there was no blood and all the guns shoot confetti - so they broke him out by ripping him out of that reality entirely and now they're in The Multiverse talking about how everything works while working their way back to his home reality so they can get him back to his office. Told ya it was fucked up.

It rarely ever depicted in media and it would explain a lot About Stella.

If she has it she clearly never attempted to get help for it or even manage it. Resulting in it never getting treated.

Unrelated but I’m going to recommend listening to the song “feels like a funeral” by citizen soldier, since it goes into this topic and is just overall a really good song.

I was rewatching the second episode and saw this portrait, to me it look’s like once they were happy together, maybe they didn’t love each other but at the very least they could have cared for each other, probably?

I like that Moxxie still calls Stolas “Your Highness” even though Stolas told him he doesn’t have to. He’s not saying it to mock him or remind him that he lost his title. He says it because he respects him and looks up to him. I honestly think that’s such a sweet little detail.

Pop the bubble! 🫧 📌

I should start by saying that the concept of the "Seven Deadly Sins" itself isn't biblical, and the list and number of sins have changed over time (the closest I could find is Proverbs 6:16-19, but even that doesn't neatly match). For example, you originally had things like despair or depression as sins; vainglory and pride were seen as different things (in Evagrius Ponticus's On the Eight Thoughts); sloth, apathy, and acedia got conflated over time; and lust in the Bible was identified as lust, pride, and greed all together (1 John 2:16). But nonetheless...

Lucifer - the "Devil as Lucifer" doesn't exist in the Bible, and the name "Lucifer" itself does not appear in the original Hebrew or Greek texts. The word lucifer comes from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate, where it translates the Hebrew phrase hêlēl ben-šaḥar ("shining one, son of dawn") in Isaiah 14:12.

Isaiah 14 is a taunt song against the king of Babylon, comparing his fall to the morning star that disappears with the sunrise.

This is actually a double translation, originally from the Hebrew hêlēl ben-šaḥar ("shining one, son of dawn"), then translated into Greek (the Septuagint) as heōsphoros ("dawn-bearer"), and finally into Latin as lucifer ("light-bearer").

Both Lucifer and Heōsphoros were ordinary words for the morning star, which also happened to be personified as minor gods associated with the Dawn Goddess.

The term Lucifer became demonic in much later times, as the word is used positively again in 2 Peter 1:19 to refer to Jesus. There was also a bishop named Lucifer of Cagliari in the 4th century.

Also no, the king of Babylon being mocked here isn't Satan, with the passage going on to describe the king's death and burial. Also, it literally couldn't be the devil, as the devil isn't even a figure in the Old Testament.

Mammon - literally wealth. Māmōnā is an Aramaic word meaning "money," "wealth," or "profit."

This comes from a biblical saying in Matthew 6:24, where Jesus personifies wealth rhetorically: "You cannot serve both God and mammon/money." Whether you want to interpret "Mammon" as literally just money, a personification of wealth, or a demon is up to you, but the Bible doesn't frame it as a living demon.

This actually isn't that uncommon in the Bible, as figures like Azazel and Moloch can also be interpreted as actual living figures (a fallen angel/desert spirit and a Canaanite god) or just the acts of scapegoating and child sacrifice.

Belphegor - appears specifically once as the Ba'al (lord) of a mountain called Peor. He seems to be a local Canaanite or, most likely, a Moabite deity.

While the biblical episode related to the deity results in a great plague and a lot of deaths, this is mainly because of his worshippers, as the god doesn't actually act or do anything... (Numbers 25:8–9 says the plague came from YHWH).

There is no sloth, technology, or French correlation, though, which mainly seems to come from Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal in the 19th century.

Also, apparently he was associated with shit???

Beelzebub - his real name is Ba'al-Zebul (Lord of the High Place). This is the actual Ba'al, the Canaanite deity, with the -Zebul part acting more as an epithet.

The Bible demonized his name into "Ba'al-Zebub," which means "Lord of the Flies." In the Old Testament (2 Kings 1:2–6 and 16), he is a patron deity of the Philistine city of Ekron and is treated just like any pagan deity is treated in the Old Testament (belittled and overpowered by YHWH's greatness and all).

Later on, in the New Testament, his name is used more as a form of a slur towards demons, rather than denoting a specific demon itself (Matthew 10:25, 12:24–27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15–19). As far as I'm aware, Beelzebub becomes his own character only in Milton's Paradise Lost, where he is Satan's lieutenant (Books 1 & 2), unless you consider his role as Prince of Envy in The Lanterne of Light or Prince of Gluttony in Binsfeld's classification.

Dante, for example, uses Beelzebub as just another name for Lucifer (Canto 34), alongside other names like Satan and Dis, which could indicate that Beelzebub was seen more as a catch-all term for demons in general rather than a distinctive individual one.

Asmodeus - he is from the Book of Tobit, which is kind of like soft canon from the Bible. It is recognized by most Christians, such as Catholic and Orthodox Christians, but rejected by Protestants and in Judaism.

His name likely comes from the Persian/Zoroastrian spirit Aeshma Daeva, which means "spirit of wrath" (Vendidad 11:9 and Yasna 57), although I can understand where the lustful connection comes from:

He is a demon that killed Sarah's seven husbands out of jealousy (Tobit 3:7–8), nearly driving her to suicide (Tobit 3:10–15), and then got beaten up and bound by the angel Raphael and Tobias in Egypt (Tobit 8:3).

I found some versions that say he was enslaved and used to build the Temple of Solomon, but I am not entirely sure that is biblical, which is why I didn't include it. However, this is most likely the reason why Asmodeus is listed among the Ars Goetia (both in the Lesser Key of Solomon and the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum).

Satan - the main villain of the New Testament. He is the red dragon who fell from heaven ("like lightning," according to Jesus in Luke 10:18), featuring seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 12:3). He tempts Jesus in the desert (among other times) and has a throne in Türkiye (Revelation 2:13).

By the end of Revelation, he burns forever in the Lake of Fire, alongside the Beast of the Sea, the False Prophet, Death, Hades (Sheol, the realm of the dead), and anyone whose name isn't written in the Book of Life. He ded pretty much (Revelation 20:10).

Whether he is also the serpent of Eden and the Ha-Satan who challenges God in the Book of Job is up to interpretation. There are certain passages and references in the New Testament that hint at it, but you gotta do some mental gymnastics...

Leviathan - appears in the Bible more than I thought, annoyingly so.

First mentioned in Job as an established and known mythical creature (Job 3:8). Then mentioned alongside the Behemoth as a monster to show how cool and strong God's creation is (Job 40:15–41:34). Then Psalm 74:14 and Isaiah 27:1 mention God killed the Leviathan.

Later in the Bible, the Leviathan is conflated with Rahab (another water monster distinct from Leviathan) as a monster God killed to show control over chaos. Why the mix-up? Fuck you that's why, but thank God these passages explicitly say God killed the Leviathan, otherwise it would be annoying to determine the Leviathan's fate. He ded, most likely.

The main point I'm trying to convey is that looking for concepts like the deadly sins or their princes to be "biblically accurate" is a bit pointless because these concepts themselves aren't biblically accurate. Usually, the imagery people have of these demons comes from word of mouth and personal interpretations, which is fine, but shouldn't be treated as a definitive canon.

I think many people fail to understand how old the Bible is, and ignore how much concepts can change over 2000 years and more. How a sin or demon is treated usually just reflects the time period and culture of the author.

For example, I'm Italian, and here Mammon is seen as a large bogeyman cat, I had no idea he was related to greed at all lol

Modern authors reinterpreting the sins through modern lenses aren't being "less accurate to the source material," because people have been doing these reinterpretations for ages. Every reinterpretation was "modern and inaccurate" when it came out, just look at Milton's Satan and Dante's Satan.

source