Not the OP, but I was looking for this exact question ;) thank you so much, it worked like a charm ♥

If you haven’t seen the show yet:

• Witches in that world have staffs with a living wooden creature on top, called “Palisman”. It’s basically a mix of an familliar and a tool / staff decoration. Most Palismen are shaped like regular animals like cats and birds and spend most of their time as inanimate objects sitting atop their respective staff, but there’s no actual restriction for how they have to look and whether or not they have to be attached to their staff all the time.

• The “giant head” creature is called The Bat Queen, and in the show it is eventually revealed that she was once a Palisman herself, albeit on a giant staff, so her owner must have been a giant too. But that was thousands of years ago and she has forgotten whom she belonged to. The human sitting on top is the main protagonist of the show and offered the Bat Queen to help her search for the truth if she ever wanted to find out who her former owner was. (It never happened because the show was brutally axed before that subplot had a chance to develop)

• Titans are… well… titanic in size once they’re fully grown, but that’s TOO big to wield something of the size of the Bat Queen as a staff topper.

Conclusion: she was the Titan’s toothpick, not a staff. And it’s probably for the best that she forgot.

I’ve seen this comic a couple of times elsewhere already but this is the first time I noticed the corks in Flapjack’s ears lol. Poor little guy XD

“Word of God” says it’s canon, but it can’t be in the same timeline as BotW because the story of AoC actively prevents BotW from ever happening. Then again, TotK retcons a bunch of stuff from BotW as well (like pretending the Guardians and Divine Beasts never existed or somehow “just disappeared” which still cotradicts the after-credits end scene from BotW) so personally I think that’s just an alternate timeline, too.

Or maybe the devs just didn’t put much thought into continuity.

deleted by creator

Ohhh dang, why didn’t I see that?! Thanks for pointing that out :D

I never understood that either. Patching unfair advantages in online multiplayer games, that’s fine and understandable, but who cares whether or not it is possible to “cheat” in singleplayer games?

Plus, any time they patch it, someone discovers a new way anyway. It’s a couple hundred Nintendo employees VS. literally millions of players of which thousands hack for fun and see it as a challenge to break the game in the most creative ways. They can not win this.

also don’t forget that placebo work even when you know it’s placebo

This right here. I’ve had problems with pain relief medicine simply not working since I was a child. A couple years back I started drinking caraway seed tea whenever a headache was JUST going away, and even tho I know dang well that caraway seeds do jack sh*t against pain, my body now somehow associates the taste with “ok, headache time is over” and I can drink that stuff to MAKE headaches go away.

100% placebo, 100% aware about it - still works.

PS: why caraway seeds? Because it is the least likely “tea” you can be offered in everyday context. If I had used something as common as charmomile or green tea, I think the effect wouldn’t have had a lasting effect.

Marvellous ♪

Ohhh nice! Thank you for the link ^^

Just to add another factor to the ongoing discussion: artistic talent isn’t uniform and never was. Just because only/mostly “immature” art survived from a certain century of human history, doesn’t mean that there literally was no realistic art present at the time. Since you mentioned the statues already…

These are from the same era (around 200 BC), but as you may have guessed, made by different artists =P The statue is called The Dying Gaul by the way.

As for painting examples, I guess the Rothschild Canticles^[1] book illustrations represent best what most people nowadays would call medieval art. Not exactly realistic, a little goofy … perspective? Never heard of it. Proportions? Who cares. And who needs shading anyway?! As long as you can still distinguish a human from a cupcake, it’s “eh good enough”.

I guess that was also what you meant by “immature” art, because it is the same art style as those goofy weird pictures of knights fighting giant snails and rabbits riding cattle into battle and the like.^[2]

That book is dated to be around 1500–1520 so it would be easy to assume that people at the start of the 15th century didn’t have a realistic art style yet. But you know what else was made in that same era?

The Mona Lisa (1503–1506).

One dorky meme-esque style, and one realistic, modest and easy-on-the-eyes style in the same century, probably even the same decade. But they were used by different artists.

Now you might be thinking that those art styles might have been intended for their respective purpose or something along the lines: that the goofy, simple art style was used for nothing but amusing little pictures, and the more realistic style was for “proper” art, because noone in their right mind would spend 100+ hours painting highly detailed nonsense just for sh*ts and giggles, right?

May I introduce you to Joseph Ducreux?^[3]

I guess most of you will have seen that meme by now, but this is a real painting made by a real artist - and it is far from the only one. Ducreux created an entire series of similar self-portraits in … unusual poses and situations.

… so yes, at least that one guy DID indeed spend dozens if not hundreds of hours (plus material costs) painting amusing nonsense for his own entertainement. He was, in a way, the victorian era equivalent of a shitposter (and I mean that in a good sense!)

Long story short: one can’t just claim that “they didn’t have X art style in Y century” because the truth is much more facetted than that. It is way more likely that each and every era of human history has had people with insane talent who were able to create art as realistic as possible with whatever tools their lifetime had to offer, and also a bunch of “eh good enough” art or stuff that was deliberately stylized for fun. How we percieve said art today depends mainly on what artworks have survived up until now, and/or how popular the surviving art is. (Everyone and their grandma knows about the Mona Lisa, but how many of y’all knew about the Rothschild Canticles?)

If we don’t know about any realistic art from a certain period of time, it doesn’t automatically mean that there was no realistic art. It may have been lost, forgotten or it exists but it’s just not popular enough to be well-known.

Wikipedia claims they’re quite popular.

whoever handed those out is probably a bigot

That explains so much. Their usual mental gymnastics have a similar “order” to them …

I have no idea, sorry. I just found that picture in an imgur dump.

Gesundheit.

If you mirror it tho, it makes even less sense:

Oh…yeah, that does look a lot closer to it. Thanks for pointing it out ^^ I’m going to edit the post.

deleted by creator

That’s an interesting zero-effort way to farm clicks… I guess coming up with some actual clickbait to boost engagement was too much work?

Eat them dry while maintaining eye contact to assert dominance.