I've Talked A Lot About How The Phrase "Biblically Accurate Angels" Is Offensive And Inaccurate, Because

Galaxia's origins are very concerning, actually.

I'm pretty sure that by this point in time, everyone knows the basic gist of what Galaxia is: a sword. Meta Knight's sword, specifically.

Here's the thing though... despite at first not thinking much of it, the more I look into this, the stranger it gets, and I'm not about to keep the bizarre amount of information I've found on this specific topic to myself. Here we go...

The first time we saw Galaxia was in (the non-canon) Kirby Right Back at Ya! (though that's pretty common knowledge). In it, Galaxia was a "sacred" (or "holy", depending on how you translate it) sword forged by an ancient civilization (wait a second...), then to be stolen by NME and recovered by Meta Knight on his infamous mission with his (now deceased) friend Garlude. It is later explained that only those "worthy" can wield it without perishing, and though it is never explained what makes one "worthy", we've only ever seen Meta Knight and Kirby do it in the anime. It's partially implied that Garlude's daughter Sirica can also use it to an extent (though not completely?) but this is never explained and is probably not that important anyhow, so I'll skim over it for now.

The next time we get substantial Galaxia information is in Kirby and the Amazing Mirror, in which Meta Knight once again lets Kirby borrow his sword. Interestingly, it's not called "Galaxia", but rather "Master Sword". It looks a bit different too, so we can't be completely sure that it's the same one, but we can't assume it isn't either.

The thing that really caught my attention was the prefix "Master". In case you hadn't already caught on, this name (and the appearance of the sword, for that matter) is eerily reminiscent of the Master Crown, and it gets even stranger when you look at Magolor's (the wielder of the Master Crown) Ultra Swords in his Soul fight:

Oh.

This is the part where things start to fall into place. Does this mean that Galaxia is a Sword equivalent of sorts to the Master Crown? Does this mean that it too is controlled by Dark Matter? Does this mean that it could also potentially ruin Meta Knight's body at will and give him that oddly unsettling eyeball-mouth look? Does this mean that (dare I say it?) Galaxia ties back to the Ancients?

Wait... let's return to that Dark Matter thought for a moment. Void Termina also uses Ultra Swords, so do they change appearance in the Soul Melter version of the fight?

They're Galaxia-looking again! Void Termina also uses a mimic of the Master Crown in its battle, so that solidifies the theory that both artifacts might be connected somehow, perhaps through the Ancients or the Heroes of Yore (it would tie back to KRBAY's mentions of "worthiness" and "ancient civilizations" after all).

Great! It seems we have a really solid theory as to the origin of Galaxia, and all of our evidence is fitting together quite nicely! I sure do hope nothing incredibly confusing shows up out of nowhere and blows the entirety of these "clues" out of the water!

And so:

Apparently, Morpho Knight's sword briefly gains this appearance during one of its attacks. How does this tie into Galaxia and Meta Knight, you ask?

...I have no clue. It's Morpho Knight, what did you expect?

Conclusion: Oh no.

everyone is Square now

dedede's stance on nfts

sketched some Magolors today! fun fact when I was a kid & I first beat Return To Dreamland I literally thought I killed Magolor & he wouldn’t come back in any other games cuz he was permanently ded LOL

anyways I think under his hood he’s KINDA like Hyness but like. more cutesy? idk, I can’t imagine he has chameleon eyes bc his eyes are oval-shaped, and I don’t think he has Hyness’ nose either bc his face is too close to his scarf, there’s not rlly much room for it. So… he kind of looks like a cat tbh. Maybe this has some implication of like… Magolor being the Halcandran version of whatever Hyness is?? or Hyness being Halcandran himself? idk I’m not exactly up to date on my kirby lore

neil gaiman is an anti-anti

For those of you wondering if this is a joke: it is not

So… my boyfriend has gotten me into kirby recently and I was disappointed that there weren’t more depictions of meta knight as a bat. 

Seguir leyendo

this sequence of images is so mystical to me. it's like a prey animal noticing you

Should i tell you that satan is a completely different demon? He's on the side of god and looks like this:

Why is he on god side? Because he's based on the "ha-satan" of the hebrew bible/tanakh while lucifer is based on the devil in the christian new testament and "satan" of paradise lost

drew this because of that regular show meme from a year ago, specifically the "Benson watching Mordecai and Rigby summon satan unto the garage because they wanted some chips" one

do you know what is the magazine that the artwork "emerged" comes from? (related, i feel so robed that this design wasn't used for cherub, i mean, do really like SH Cherub, but imagined having this creature in your party)

This is credited in Digital Devil Apocalypse for a magazine called "M2 Discovery." Pretty difficult to find information about due to its fairly mundane name. Its covers all say "Discovery" in romaji but also render it in katakana as "ディスカヴァリー" precisely (as opposed to ディスカバリー, which is how it is misspelled in DDA). It styles itself as a "Mediamix Magazine" (メディアミックスマガジン); the "M2" probably refers to this.

I couldn't find the issue with Emerge but this interesting cover popped up after I found the right spelling:

An issue, volume 26, from November 1996 with SMT2 Michael featuring a "Devil's Compendium" feature that's continued from the previous month's issue. Unfortunately, I can't tell you anything else about the magazine.

I'm personally not that hot on Emerge's cherub as a demon design, but I feel it wasn't intended to be one. Kaneko with some greater artistic freedom going wild.

UPDATE: Added Discovery Jan. 1997 Volume 28 featuring Emerge on the cover, found by Vesk.

A claim repeatedly brought up online, in some media, in antiquated “scholarly” works, as well as seemingly in the online lectures of a certain Canadian self-help guru who shall not be named here is that the „storm god slays chaos serpent” motif – so called “chaoskampf” - found especially commonly in the mythologies of ancient Middle East and Anatolia represents some allegorical tale about the fall of primordial matriarchy and associated religious figures, or a broader triumph of some abstract masculine principle over feminine. This assumption is entirely ahistorical, and its spread is only possible due to the fact that despite being among the oldest recorded stories of the world, the myths of Mesopotamia and culturally related areas remain largely unknown to the modern audience, making it easy for various dubious authorities to claim they contain what’s not exactly present in them. See, the problem is… the „chaos dragons” in most versions of this narrative aren’t even female. Additionally, most if not all of them aren’t vilified echoes of older figures, but merely antagonists devised for already popular gods and heroes and figures which belonged in both these categories at once to defeat. They’re not demonized “primordial earth and sea mothers” or whatever, they’re cheesy, hammy over the top saturday morning cartoon villains of their era. Like the titans in Greek mythology, Apep in Egyptian, and so on, the likes of Tiamat, Yam or Illuyanka never served a purpose different than that of an antagonist for an established figure. And, most importantly, only one of them, Babylonian Tiamat, famous for her role in the Enuma Elish (the epic describing the deeds of Marduk, the lead god of Babylon) and not much more, is female – and even Tiamat was likely developed based on older figures of such mythical antagonists, like Ugaritic Yam.