lovgreno wrote...
Shepard have no one else to support his/her work due to ruined reputation thanks to Cerberus. No, a soldiers work is to stay alive to fight another day. Risks are necesary but being killed means you failed to do your job.
Since plenty of people do support Shepard regardless of his association with Cerberus, including the Council, the first part is false.
The second is false as well. A soldier's job is to accomplish the mission, even at the cost of our lives. We work to minimize our loss of life, but losing a life does not make a failed mission.
If TIM cannot controll/manipulate/controll with brainchip Shepard s/he may very well become a serious threat to him and Cerberus. To avoid that risk it would be more cost effective to kill Shepard. History strongly indicates that they are that ruthless.
History also strongly indicates that they are pragmatic and even idealistic. TIM could have controlled/manipulated Shepard. He not only did not want to, he went to lengths to overrule Miranda, one of his most trusted agents.
Shepard is valuable to humanity regardless of what Shepard thinks of Cerberus and the Illusive Man. TIM admits this himself. Even if Shepard ignores TIM at the Collector Base, the reasons why TIM brought back an independent Shepard which had fought Cerberus in the past still apply.l
As the entire rest of the galaxy that knows of it treats Cerberus with caution and wariness (if not fear), we can very safely infer that Cerberus has reason for that reputation, even though we have not seen it ourselves.
And considering that when working with Cerberus is common sense.
Because Cerberus is effective. Glad we got that cleared up.
But the failiures of Cerberus different cells follow a very common pattern that repeats itself. Cerberus resources are big but not unlimited so a failiure draws resources that could have been used on better projects. Also if a cell makes enemies that makes a enemy for all of Cerberus. There is no reason for a victim of Cerberus to assume that the other cells are different than the one that harmed him. Again there is no reason to trust Cerberus agents when they say some cells are better than others.
You can't know which projects will be successful until you attempt them. You're invoking the hindsight fallacy. Cerberus's unique position allows it to be much better placed to conduct certain types of research that other public entities (the Alliance) can't, whereas replicated research others can do is a waste of their resources.
As Cerberus is a black entity, it doesn't have a public address for victims to track down. Most Cerberus victims don't even know that they're victims of a concentrated effort, let alone who was behind it.
We do have good reason to trust Cerberus when it says some cells are better than others: we ourselves are in a cell, and can make comparisons with other cells we have seen. If all cells are the same, then the logical approach is to take that all cells are similar to the one we know best, which is the Normandy SR-2.
True but more often caution helps you survive to fight another day. To play with unknown risks is to hope that your luck will last forever. It will not. Sending people charging headlong into the unknown is not a strategy that will last in the long run, but that is how Cerberus works as far as Shepard knows.
As a black operation, Cerberus does not need to survive forever. The benefits of what it does do can be passed to the Alliance: the costs of what it does are weighed down on Cerberus. This was the point of it as a black ops group in the first place. If/when Cerberus ever is taken down for the consequences of its actions, it will still have accomplished it's goals and can more or less be reconstituted to burn fast, make gains, and die again.