Hmmm #dekubaku w/ fem!baku fantasy AU??
Princess Katsuki is known throughout the land as being unruly, feral, and brash. No one has /ever/ seen her smile, outside of a battle or a hunt that is. She most commonly has a sneer of disgust on her face, considering-
“I just want her to-
“I know, my dear,” the king-
“Shshshsh,” the Queen interrupted, placing her hand over her husband’s mouth and making their guard pause. They were passing the entrance to the royal garden, when a strange laugh reached their ears.
When they finally came across the source of the laughter, they were blown away.
Mitsuki couldn’t stay still, and made to confront the two, when Masaru stopped her.
.
.
“So, Katsuki,” Mitsuki smiled as they all sat around their grand dining table, waiting-
“Tch, I haven’t met anyone worth my time,” she scoffed, taking a swig of her beer before slamming her cup down on the table.
“Are you sure?” Mitsuki prompted, practically vibrating with anticipation.
“Not a soul,” their daughter grumbled, slumping in her chair as she took another drink. At that moment, the grand doors to their dining hall opened, making Katsuki nearly spit out-
The green haired gardener was escorted in, his eyes wide and face sweaty as he was lead to the chair opposite of Katsuki. The queen smiled wide as the food was served, watching the two younger people with barely contained-
“What’s wrong, Katsuki?” Mitsuki asked smugly, making her daughter glance over.
“Katsuki,” Masaru spoke up, making her freeze. “Aren’t you going to offer our guest anything?”
“I-I’m alright! Y-your majesty!” the green haired male stuttered, bowing his head at them both. “I-I can—“
“Well, we were discussing your future spouse,” Mitsuki said blasély, smirking at her daughter, “we figured he should be here.”
“How did you—!?”
“We have our ways,” Mitsuki smiled at them.
“Were you spying on me!?” she yelled angrily.
“No, we-“ Masaru began.
“If you had just /told/ us, we wouldn’t have had to-
“What was I /supposed/ to tell you!?” Katsuki shouted, slamming a hand on the table. “Hey, old hag, I don’t want to marry some stuffy prince or princess, I want-
“Katsuki,” Mitsuki sighed, shaking her head, “do you think if your father or I /cared/ who you married we would have let you chose who you want?”
“H-huh?” she blinked, looking confused.
“But, but I’m, I can’t, I thought I,” she stuttered, looking down at the table.
“I mean, really Katsuki,” Mitsuki chuckled, “if we really wanted you married so badly, we would-
“You didn’t think to tell me this earlier, old hag!?” she screamed in anger as the Queen’s face twisted.
“All this time I thought I had to marry—“
“If you had just used your brain, you would have—“
“K-Kacchan, calm down!”
“Mitsuki, ple-“
I hope you guys enjoyed!! This was supposed to be a short crack thing but oops, it got away from me lol. Anyways, if you’d like to support me, or request a thread, check out my k*fi!! 💕💕
https://t.co/RDsvyMIBOo
More from World
1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
Some argue that if the Senate declines to hold a legally questionable, resource-sucking trial, Trump would be getting a free pass. That assumes criminal authorities do nothing and citizens can't be trusted to evaluate. Censure and focus important work?
— Ross Garber (@rossgarber) January 22, 2021
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
@Ayjchan @K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia @Ayjchan @K_G_Andersen please note that there were 11 infections in the Beijing 2004 leaks, not 8.
The 8 you are mentioning are for the main chain of infection with 3 levels from one primary case in April.
But there were 3 more primary cases for a total of 11 cases.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia All were linked to the heavily contaminated CDC P3 lab (the top P3 in China at the time).
The cases are typically separated between:
- The February ones (Cui and Ren) which seem to have been covered up by the CDC Institute of Virology. Also we only have pseudonyms for these 2.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia - The April ones-9 infections (1+8, officially the 'Beijing-Anhui Apr-2004 breakout'.
The official Chinese report only focussed on the April infections - keeping very quiet about the February ones. Here is the main April chain of infection.
Here is are the 9 from Apr 2004:
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia And here are the 9 people infected in Apr 2004:
(4-22 in the title -> April chain with alarm raised on the 22nd):
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia The WHO eventually correctly mentioned 11 cases:
https://t.co/a1HvuT0C8z
The 8 you are mentioning are for the main chain of infection with 3 levels from one primary case in April.
But there were 3 more primary cases for a total of 11 cases.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia All were linked to the heavily contaminated CDC P3 lab (the top P3 in China at the time).
The cases are typically separated between:
- The February ones (Cui and Ren) which seem to have been covered up by the CDC Institute of Virology. Also we only have pseudonyms for these 2.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia - The April ones-9 infections (1+8, officially the 'Beijing-Anhui Apr-2004 breakout'.
The official Chinese report only focussed on the April infections - keeping very quiet about the February ones. Here is the main April chain of infection.
Here is are the 9 from Apr 2004:
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia And here are the 9 people infected in Apr 2004:
(4-22 in the title -> April chain with alarm raised on the 22nd):
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia The WHO eventually correctly mentioned 11 cases:
https://t.co/a1HvuT0C8z
