HOME | DD
RCBrock — Princess Shego
Published: 2010-06-03 11:52:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 12013; Favourites: 289; Downloads: 331
Redirect to original
Description
Every girl, no matter how evil dreams about being a Disney princess. A fourth picture of Shego of Kim Possible fame.Related content
Comments: 66
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Next will be Sailor Moon Shego - Green Pretty Soldier
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now you need to do one of Kim as a visiting princess, and the two get together to help end a quarrel between the two kingdoms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kinda reminds me a Princess Clara from Drawn Together. I approve!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you Tagawa, I appreciate when people comment on my earlier work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Earlir or not,still been good!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the power of imagination will make it happen
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
based off Shego's personality it's not likely unless she has a hidden pricness complex or something. But that's not likely either
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't know why, but when she's in a dress, I'm strangely attracted to her.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would think if she was out of that dress you would be as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not really. Her jumpsuit works for her, but it's not my style.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very nice.
Although I'm reminded more of the princess character (don't remember her name since I've seen the show only once) from Drawn Together than a Disney Princess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I dont remember her name as well. so no worries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Your pretty... nice that is. You might be a dude for all I know. But cute Icon at least
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well, I am a guy, a crossdresser. but thanks for the comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Princess Jessica, cant figure out where I got the female idea from.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well, in any rate, I was wondering, do you take request?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why sure. What can I help you with?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh cool. I'll note you the details
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
great pic of shego here she should be a princess
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
She always was to me. Though i think she would prefer being a Queen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And hopefully she'll ascend by kicking Maleficent's teeth in. 'Mistress of all evil' my ass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
She is and always will be. Maleficent Rule's.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Eh, its pretty definitive. The world is in black and white. Shades of gray are for people who cant sleep at night.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, but do the black people consider themselves evil? Strict morality may be pretty objective, but did Adolph Hitler think of himself as evil? All acts require rationalization, so for the one doing it, it seems like a good idea.
...I meant black as in "The world is in black and white". I didn't mean Africans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its a good thing you added that last part. This did not start off well. Yes, the self destructive individual will always justify there behavior by calling it right. But they do so by willfully ignoring what has historically been called wrong or evil. Yes Hitler claimed he was doing right. But by ignoring the ancient principle that to kill an individual who is not a threat to your life is evil. The argument you make, is the point I desire to come across. rationalization can be used both ways, throughout history the worst evils have been rationalized so that they can think of themselves as in the right. "The Ends Justify the Means" "The Needs of the Many out way the needs of the few" By the way... black people don't just live in Africa. Most of them are in Detroit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, you know what I meant. Of African descent.
I wouldn't say that Hitler ignored that particular ancient principle, because he always maintained that the Jews, blacks, gays, Polish, cripples, etc, were conspiring together to impurify the Aryan blood of Germany. It's a total psycho fruit loop way of thinking, but he did perceive them as a threat to the German people.
Anyways, pretty much every great ancient culture loved to run rampant and conquer various nonthreatening areas, so that Ancient Principle does start to run into some hazy areas. While it should be widely considered evil to kill someone who doesn't pose a threat to you, for them, it also had to be weighed against the perceived good of spreading their culture across the known world. I don't think the Romans ever thought of their empire as evil. They thought of it as educating and culturing the barbarians.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But still they murdered in the name of spreading their civilized culture. Again the rationalization of what in their culture was already considered wrong. That is my point, people throughout history have always done what they know to be wrong. In the name of the greater good. What I find annoying is when people refuse to acknowledge their bad behavior with the moral ambiguity of shades of grey. We are all capable of right and wrong. Good or Evil, we need to start calling people to task for their behavior less things spiral out of hand even more. Out of curiosity sake... am i having a philosophical conversation with a 12 year old or something else, With the Internet I never have any idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Naw, I'm 22. Yeah, the internet can get you twisted like that.
Bad behavior should always be acknowledged, but my point is, all societies committed these acts with an eye towards a perceived greater good, pushing them into a net positive when it comes to bad versus good action. No society ever thought "We're gonna kill these people. It makes us bad, but you know what? Screw it.".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, but they willfully disavow their own principles in order to achieve a (in most cases) selfish goal. Then after the fact rationalize their bad behavior by saying it was for the greater good. We no longer acknowledge bad behavior as we once did as a society. Which keeps corrupt politicians in places of power and celebrities continuing down a path of self destruction. Leading to a continuing degradation of the culture, and potential deaths that we as a culture are partially to blame for. If we don't start to call out destructive behavior when it presents itself. It will grow and consume us all. Do you think anyone who's reading this is thinking "What is this doing in the comments of Princess Kim Possible"? Or am I alone in thinking this is hilarious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I'm sure lots of people are wondering that.
Now, I would like to address the Selfish Goals angle that you bring up. I'm a strong believer in the concept of "Look Out For Number One", AKA care about yourself, then worry about others. Once again, let's use the classic Nazi Germany example. Hitler made his people believe that the Jews, Poles, etc were hurting Germany's potential as a country. That most certainly wasn't true; he used it as an effective scare tactic to build support for his imperial agenda. But, if it was true, and Germany was suffering because of these outside forces, I believe they would have been perfectly within their moral rights to drive them out. Of course, this would require a moral wrong to be performed by the Jews and Poles. For this noticeable of a negative effect to be felt on Germany, they would have had to make certain conscious decisions against Germany's best interests, and they would have committed a wrong. Of course, they might commit that wrong in self-defense, because it may have been somehow detrimental to the welfare of these people for Germany to have a booming economy. It's all a matter of perspective. Everybody has a fairly defendable position on which to base their actions, if you base it on the Look Out For Number One principle. Bottom line is, history is written by the strongest. The people who win get to make their position historical fact, while the losers are usually lost in the wind. The possible corruption inherent in the winner's thoughts only becomes evident when they themselves cease to be the most powerful. When they lose that influence and overwhelming power, that offers the opportunity for contrary views to become evident. I believe the renunciation of these bad habits and decisions must be left up to the individual in control. He/She has to be able to make good moral decisions, first for his people, but also keeping an eye out for those around them. His people cannot be held responsible for fixing these, because if everything in life is great for them, then they will not perceive any problem, because they don't have the in-depth knowledge of the man in charge. Adolph Hitler made Germany into a booming success before the war. The economy was buzzing, the citizens were happy, and because of this, the German people did not pick up immediately on any moral corruption in the government, because it wasn't adversely affecting them.
Keep in mind that much of this is hypothetical thought, and I am not supporting what the Nazis did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your point about looking at for number one is understandable. But social courtesy in our society is made out of a selfish nature. But even if it was not, the act of charity and help we present to one another creates precedence. If a man falls off a boat, you though him a life jacket. Not because it helps you in the immediate. But creates the precedent that in a situation with the roles reversed. Another would do the same for you. As for Nazi Germany (It always goes back to Nazi Germany, no one ever uses China, Cuba or Africa as examples.) If the Nazi's believed the Jews were a hindrance towards there ascension towards greatness. They where certainly not a present threat towards their lives or property. They could not be driven out of the country for they were born there. It was their home. The same thing is happening in Israel today. "Jews get out of Palestine" They say. "Go Home", they are home. they were born there. This creates home. But again they ignore this president in order to achieve what they believe is their hindrance towards prosperity. Ignoring the very Social corruption that eats away at their society from the inside. A betrayal of the founding principles of western society. As far as History is written by the victors? Every Empire throughout history was unable to completely smolder out of disinters and critics. As we now have volume's of books telling of crimes committed in their names. But you are correct in your statement that it is the responsibility of the individual to govern himself. For if you begin to view yourself no longer as an individual, but mealy as a member of a collective. Then do you begin to see others, not as individuals. With thoughts, dreams and hope's. But merely as numbers, fodder, bags of meat to be used, discarded and left to rot. Much as all the great tyrants and dictators throughout history have done. Hitler did bring Germany from the depths of despair after WW1. But only because he broke and ignored every treaty and surrender document Germany signed after the war.
And I hope no one assumes your supporting what the Nazi's did. I don't think anyone is reading these but us two anyways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, a few people around here are under the delusion that I'm a Nazi. Of course, they're what some people call mentally challenged..
In terms of Look Out For Number One, you could still readily throw a life jacket to someone, just as long as it doesn't put you at equal or greater risk.
To be fair to Hitler, if he did break all those treaties, then did nothing with it, he would be remembered as a great leader, standing up to the injustices set forth by the rest of Europe. If he just used that massive military to create jobs and kickstart a dead economy, as opposed to trying to conquer the planet and eradicate most minorities, no one would question his tactics nowadays. He did what was necessary for the German people, we would say. In his case, his foundation of methods were great. His goals were batsh*t crazy.
Now, it is true that the losers do still get their points heard. That's mainly because the idea of Total Empire is dead nowadays. Look back at the Romans, and look what they did to Carthage. That is an ideal case of history being written by the victors. Carthage was a great civilization, almost on par with Rome. Rome turned their cities into dust, and burned their fields until nothing but ash was left. As a result, Roman history is maybe the most common ancient history subject, while info on ancient Carthage is significantly harder. Another good example is what the Greeks did to Troy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ahh you found another of the shego's. good job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>