397 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

RedTracer7 wrote...
Well, if my Tropes are to be believed, I'm apparently quite the 'Cerberus Defender.    I've found civil discussion furthers a conversation far farther than other methods.

As to your other points, you make some good ones.  I wrote out a rather long retort just now, only to have it lost when my browser had a hiccup.  I don't have the heart to repost it, so I'll give you this one.  The Actual Text also seems to lean in your favor.

Well to be honest, I admit, this post has a bit of me poking at the less civil and more outrageously vocal Cerberus fans, basically the ones like Zulu who just think Cerberus is the hottest thing since sliced bread.  I'm actually perfectly fine with you being Pro-Cerberus as long as you're willing to hold a civil debate where we can argue points back and forth the topic without falling into flames and insults.  It's just that Bioware seems to making it easier and easier to say "Cerberus sucks, go Alliance!".  Which is odd considering how much trouble they went to to try and make Cerberus more palatable in ME2 so we wouldn't throw a fit over why we couldn't immediately turn traitor.

Ouch...wow, the actual text IS pretty bad.  Damn.

[mosor]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Every single one of those points can be spin doctored. And, knowing this forum, will soon be. Prepare for spin spin spin. Deny deny deny. I swear, the trolls on this board are all aspiring political handlers.

The OP tried his best at spinning Cerberus in a negative light. Bound to be people who counter spin. The truth is Cerberus isn't some bunny hugging organization that sings kumbaya and marvels at double rainbows. No struggle for survival is won only by making friends. You need to be strong too. 

They're the ones who get their hands dirty trying to advance humanity to dominance. Someone has to play dirty to beat the reapers and other threats to humanity, and in this universe, that's Cerberus. It's not pretty, but it's necessary and most people don't have the stomach to do whats necessary.

[RiouHotaru]

@Mosor: It's not an issue of spinning in a negative light. Clearly each of these incidents is an example where Cerberus used human (and alien) lives to further their own goals. Now, if these people were say, volunteers, I wouldn't have an issue. It'd still be morally uncomfortable because it involves testing on sentient and sapient beings, but at least they'd have given consent. The problem is Cerberus kidnaps people or pays slavers for these folks and then just tortures them with not even the slightest consideration to their well-being or whatnot.



Also, at what point do you say the ends no longer justify the means? 1,000 lives? 10,000 lives? 1,000,000? I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere, right?



...



Right?

[mosor]

RiouHotaru wrote...

@Mosor: It's not an issue of spinning in a negative light. Clearly each of these incidents is an example where Cerberus used human (and alien) lives to further their own goals. Now, if these people were say, volunteers, I wouldn't have an issue. It'd still be morally uncomfortable because it involves testing on sentient and sapient beings, but at least they'd have given consent. The problem is Cerberus kidnaps people or pays slavers for these folks and then just tortures them with not even the slightest consideration to their well-being or whatnot.

Also, at what point do you say the ends no longer justify the means? 1,000 lives? 10,000 lives? 1,000,000? I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere, right?

...

Right?

Regarding survival of the species, the ends always justify the means. Even with the worst case scenario that you become morally wretched, it's better to be alive. At least our children will have a chance for life and be free to persue the morality of a saint if they wish. Personally I'd sacrifice billions to save a 1000 if the alternative was extinction.

Of course doing what is necessary but morally reprehensible makes you uncomfortable. You'd have to be psychotic not to feel uncomfortable and psychotic people don't care about doing what is necessary anyway. You have to be mentally strong.

As for bias, of course you have an anti-cerberus bias. You point out their crimes, some without full knowledge of what exactly happened. Others like project overlord you pin on Cerberus, when it's really the fault of an over zealous Dr. Archer.

[chapa3]

I really do not see the scientific point of having marines mauled to death by threasher maws. You can replicate that with crash dummies for the crying out loud.

[JamieCOTC]

I suppose one thing could justify all of what Cerberus has done. The fact that they've known that the Reapers were coming for years, maybe even decades. Hey, maybe Shepard isn't even the first SPECTRE they roped into getting involved in all of this.

[RiouHotaru]

mosor wrote...

Regarding survival of the species, the ends always justify the means. Even with the worst case scenario that you become morally wretched, it's better to be alive. At least our children will have a chance for life and be free to persue the morality of a saint if they wish. Personally I'd sacrifice billions to save a 1000 if the alternative was extinction.

Of course doing what is necessary but morally reprehensible makes you uncomfortable. You'd have to be psychotic not to feel uncomfortable and psychotic people don't care about doing what is necessary anyway. You have to be mentally strong.

As for bias, of course you have an anti-cerberus bias. You point out their crimes, some without full knowledge of what exactly happened. Others like project overlord you pin on Cerberus, when it's really the fault of an over zealous Dr. Archer.

Yes, I confess, I have an anti-Cerberus bias.  But in this game there really isn't room for middle ground in ME2.  Either you have to be with Cerberus or against them.  Also, I don't think there's necessarily mental strength involved.  Many of these projects the scientists clearly showed a complete lack of moral fiber whatsoever.

Also, Overlord IS TIM's fault.  He hired them to solve a problem and threw money at them, then threatened to end the project unless they produced viable results.  Did he expect them to just give up and say "I'm sorry TIM, we can't do it."?  I doubt that.  That Dr. Archer chose to take it one step too far doesn't excuse TIM.  He hired Archer after all.  And in his email he claims that "while he doesn't condone Archer's actions, our research will be pushed back several decades" as though Archer's actions were justified due to the results.  So clearly, despite saying "No that was bad", he didn't mind the fact it got the problem potentially closer to being solved.

Again, at best, TIM is grossly negligent and a poor human resources manager.  At worse, he's intentionally malicious in selecting whom he hires.

[Nightwriter]

Awesome! Now all my arguments are in one handy place. Thanks, R.

RedTracer7 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Admiral Kohoku
Another prominent crime in Cerberus' belt, they killed Kahoku for tracking them down, to keep him from exposing them (little good it did them, Shepard finds them and finishes the job).  However, the apologists like to claim that Kahoku was either a traitor or a "security leak" (under this silly theory that Cerberus is still a part of the Alliance).  But nowhere do the apologists explain the reasoning behind Cerberus purposefully luring his men out just so a thresher maw would ruin them.  There's nothing of importance in that system, and unless Cerberus was trying to replicate Akuze, this action seems almost purely for the lulz.

I have to disagree with the point you are making.  The fact that we do not know enough about Cerberus' intentions here means that we cannot draw an ethical conclusion from this incident.  Jumping to "they did it for the lulz" just shows that our information isn't complete.  It would be like writing a review for a book that you have not finished.  This is not to say, however, that Cerberus is thus justified in their actions.  We simply do not know.

Wow. A civil, intelligent Cerberus supporter! Kudos.

Actually, while it is designed to throw Cerberus in a negative light, I interpreted the "for the lulz" comment as a sort of "I really can't think of a reason good enough to justify luring marines into an unprovoked attack".

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

Awesome! Now all my arguments are in one handy place. Thanks, R.

RedTracer7 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Admiral Kohoku
Another prominent crime in Cerberus' belt, they killed Kahoku for tracking them down, to keep him from exposing them (little good it did them, Shepard finds them and finishes the job).  However, the apologists like to claim that Kahoku was either a traitor or a "security leak" (under this silly theory that Cerberus is still a part of the Alliance).  But nowhere do the apologists explain the reasoning behind Cerberus purposefully luring his men out just so a thresher maw would ruin them.  There's nothing of importance in that system, and unless Cerberus was trying to replicate Akuze, this action seems almost purely for the lulz.

I have to disagree with the point you are making.  The fact that we do not know enough about Cerberus' intentions here means that we cannot draw an ethical conclusion from this incident.  Jumping to "they did it for the lulz" just shows that our information isn't complete.  It would be like writing a review for a book that you have not finished.  This is not to say, however, that Cerberus is thus justified in their actions.  We simply do not know.

Wow. A civil, intelligent Cerberus supporter! Kudos.

Actually, while it is designed to throw Cerberus in a negative light, I interpreted the "for the lulz" comment as a sort of "I really can't think of a reason good enough to justify luring marines into an unprovoked attack".

...Dude, nightwriter WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?  And yes, I figured at this point we just need a running tally of each of Cerberus' offenses.  And yeah, Tracer was a blast to discourse with.

Also, thank you, that was what I was going for with the "for the lulz" conclusion.  There just doesn't seem to be any logical reason I could think of for luring a group of marines out to a desolate remote system and walk them right into a Thresher Maw nest.

...unless the marines wanted to kill it on foot for the credit reward *scarcasm*

[thegreateski]

RiouHotaru wrote...
...unless the marines wanted to kill it on foot for the credit reward *scarcasm*

and the achievement.

[angj57]

Well, I wouldn't call myself pro-Cerberus at all, I have a lot of problems with them--actually different ones than you mentioned. My biggest problem with them is accountability. But I am impressed by their sucesses-- clearly there are a lot of failures, but they seem willing and able to do things that the other organizations are not. Given the nature of the Reapers and the conflict with them, I don't see any alternative but to working with them. I try not to view them in a vacuum; instead I look at them relative to the other organizations of the galaxy and I don't see any viable alternatives to them.

[Nightwriter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...Dude, nightwriter WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?  And yes, I figured at this point we just need a running tally of each of Cerberus' offenses.  And yeah, Tracer was a blast to discourse with.

Also, thank you, that was what I was going for with the "for the lulz" conclusion.  There just doesn't seem to be any logical reason I could think of for luring a group of marines out to a desolate remote system and walk them right into a Thresher Maw nest.

...unless the marines wanted to kill it on foot for the credit reward *scarcasm*

? Well I have been in the "why would you destroy the Collector base" thread, arguing with Shand.

Who has just said that if the Illusive man wants to make Reapers he would be willing to help him abduct his victims and lead a team to kidnap elcor colonists.

The people in the thread have responded by saying this is inefficient use of resources.

Instead of, you know, abominable.

[KarumaK]

You listed quite a few shall we say... "Cerberus Activities" there, but you've yet to mention even one thing I can find a reason to object to.

My Shep supports Cerberus.

Modifié par KarumaK, 29 juillet 2010 - 05:41 .

[thegreateski]

Vorcha would be better.

[didymos1120]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Also, thank you, that was what I was going for with the "for the lulz" conclusion.  There just doesn't seem to be any logical reason I could think of for luring a group of marines out to a desolate remote system and walk them right into a Thresher Maw nest.

...unless the marines wanted to kill it on foot for the credit reward *scarcasm*

I assumed it was just a case of them finding out Kahoku was looking into the Banes thing, and that he was going to send a recon team into the system where Banes' body was found, so they quickly set up a ruse to draw his men into a trap that would make it look like they just had the bad luck to annoy a Thresher Maw while looking around. The Alliance would likely not be too happy about that outcome, and consider it a waste of lives, time and resources.  End of investigation, and no need to off an admiral. 

Presumably, the transmitter used to lure the Marines would have been destroyed remotely or fried itself or something. Or possibly, they were counting on agents to keep throwing bureaucratic roadblocks in Kahoku's way, so they'd have time to send out a team to doctor the crime-scene.  Unfortunately, Shep got Spectred and did Kahoku a favor and found the damn thing while it was still actively broadcasting, thereby setting off the whole chain of events that led to Kahoku becoming too big a pain in the ass to ignore and to Shep wrecking a number of their facilities.  Assuming you did that quest-chain, of course.

Not that that is any sort of justification whatsoever, but it is a fairly reasonable course of action to take if you're not the sort of person who's worried about getting blood on your hands.

Modifié par didymos1120, 29 juillet 2010 - 06:11 .

[angj57]

2papercuts wrote...

I was hoping that this was going to show why Cerberus are incompetent at everything.

This is why I get frustrated with Cerberus bashing threads. I fully agree with the assesment of their moral principles. I also believe there are serious accountability issues with them. But I don't get why everyone insists they are incompetent because of their failures. So, sigh, I'll make a list of sucesses.

Normandy SR-1
Cerberus pushed the Alliance to work with the Turians and develop stealth technology, even though we know there was oposition, like the admiral who thinks they should have built a cruiser instead. Humans gets Turian tech, and we all know that Normandy worked out pretty well.

EDI
For all their failures, they are pretty much the only people in the galaxy who built and AI and got it to do what they intended it to do. EDI saved the ship and is equiped with anti-Reaper weapons, although we don't know much about those yet. She seems like an unqualified and impressive sucess for me.

Shepard
The fact that the Collectors and the Shadow Broker wanted Shepard's body seems to have totally slipped the Alliance and Council intelligence networks. But they did, and Cerberus denied it to them. They also brought him back via Lazarus, which seems wise to me as he combined both the ability of fighting the Reapers with credibility of someone who is well known and respected by many powers that be.

Discovery of the Collector's Activities
The Illusive Man knows that the Collectors are behind the abductions long before the Alliance figures it out. We know this because Anderson admits that Kaiden/Ashley were sent to Horizon to investigate whether Cerberus was behind them, showing that they were wildly off the mark.

Derelict Reaper
While the Council is debating whether the Reapers even exist, Cerberus actually finds one. Yes their team dies, but not before finding and extracting the IFF, and as far as we know, everyone is suceptible to indoctrination, so the team's death may have been inevitable.

Terminus Systems Activities
Something has to be said for being the only organization willing to work in the Terminus Systems. The Council refuses to even send a stealth ship in their when the future of the galaxy is potentially at stake. Any activity involving the Omega 4 Relay and thus the Collector base would have been impossible under the Council.

There are probably more. Normandy SR-2 works pretty well, and I could have added that, for instance. This is a *bit* of a thread hijack, because the topic being debated was their crimes and not their competence, but in any "Cerberus bashing" thread this always comes up and I wanted to put in my two cents. I certainly don't consider myself pro-Cerberus, actually I am kind of revolted by them, but I do consider them the best way of fighting the Reapers precisely because of their sucesses, which people always seem to overlook or trivialize. I actually think what makes Mass Effect 2 cool is being forced to choose how to deal with an organization that is on the one hand an effective ally but on the other hand ruthless and borderline-evil. If they are evil and stupid, it makes the plot a lot less interesting and kind of cheapens the game's atmosphere.

Modifié par angj57, 29 juillet 2010 - 06:05 .

[Nightwriter]

I try to judge each of Cerberus's actions individually when I can.

Bringing Shepard back to life - good.
Helping Shepard - good.
Being the only ones who believe the Reaper threat - ... slightly suspicious, but still good.

However, almost everything else they have done is unforgivably bad, and the bad things seem, to me, to come up too often to let the good things stick. They'll do something great and then they'll negate it.

Another thing that bothers me is that most of their "great results" don't come from the awful sacrifices they make.

Like, reproducing the Normandy, one of their best achievements - that was done through spy work and espionage-type manipulation mostly. No one was harmed.

I'd really like it if we found out that products like EDI or the technology that went into the Lazarus Project came from Cerberus projects where lives were lost, because I'm not seeing the direct results of their most controversial work.

[scotchtape622]

I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite thread on the Mass Effect 2 Official Campaign Quests and Storylines (Spoilers Warning) board.

[angj57]

Nightwriter wrote...

I try to judge each of Cerberus's actions individually when I can.

Bringing Shepard back to life - good.
Helping Shepard - good.
Being the only ones who believe the Reaper threat - ... slightly suspicious, but still good.

However, almost everything else they have done is unforgivably bad, and the bad things seem, to me, to come up too often to let the good things stick. They'll do something great and then they'll negate it.

Another thing that bothers me is that most of their "great results" don't come from the awful sacrifices they make.

Like, reproducing the Normandy, one of their best achievements - that was done through spy work and espionage-type manipulation mostly. No one was harmed.

I'd really like it if we found out that products like EDI or the technology that went into the Lazarus Project came from Cerberus projects where lives were lost, because I'm not seeing the direct results of their most controversial work.

I do agree with you. I suspect that some cells are more competent than others, and that some are also more reasonable and less psychotic than others. The closest example I can come to an awful action that gave them results would be Jack. What they did to her as a child was completely unforgivable, but they actually did produce a really powerful biotic (at least in cutscenes lol). She didn't turn out exactly how they would have wanted, but in the end, ironically, she ends up serving their goals on one of their ships.

But in the end, you are right, most of the crazy projects don't seem to do that much, while their sucesses seem to not be from their crazy projects. Although studying the Thorian may have been a better idea than people think-- it went badly for Exo-Geni, but the Thorian's connection to Shiala overcoming indoctrination should have been looked at more closely.

[Nightwriter]

angj57 wrote...

I do agree with you. I suspect that some cells are more competent than others, and that some are also more reasonable and less psychotic than others. The closest example I can come to an awful action that gave them results would be Jack. What they did to her as a child was completely unforgivable, but they actually did produce a really powerful biotic (at least in cutscenes lol). She didn't turn out exactly how they would have wanted, but in the end, ironically, she ends up serving their goals on one of their ships.

That is a good example, but since it was a rogue cell that did that, I don't think we can give Cerberus full responsbility for it. Whatever good Jack has done, it wasn't intentional on Cerberus's part.

Even then, they tortured far too many children with far too little reward. It might've been different if they had successfully produced uber-powerful Jack and gone on to use her to save countless lives, but they didn't.

They traumatized her into a wild criminal and sent her on a destructive rampage across the galaxy.

You can't even really justify it by saying she went on to save lives on Shepard's team. She's a great character, god love her, but she's not totally necessary. All she has is the biotic bubble moment, which you can use Samara for.

angj57 wrote...

But in the end, you are right, most of the crazy projects don't seem to do that much, while their sucesses seem to not be from their crazy projects. Although studying the Thorian may have been a better idea than people think-- it went badly for Exo-Geni, but the Thorian's connection to Shiala overcoming indoctrination should have been looked at more closely.

It killed me to destroy the Thorian. I stood there like Doctor Who:

"But it's fifty thousand years old! It's a relic! A - a historical marvel! It must be studied! Preserved! How could we kill such a creature!"

That's just like me and Doctor Who, really - fight through the minion hordes of the things that's trying to kill you and then say the thing must be preserved for knowledge's sake.

[Inverness Moon]

2papercuts wrote...

I was hoping that this was going to show why Cerberus are incompetent at everything.

The answer to that is obvious: BioWare needs plot devices.

I'm do support Cerberus's goals, but not many of their methods. I'm disappointed by what I'm hearing about the book, because it seems like it's just adding to Cerberus's failures, and making the TIM seem like just another bad guy.

I'm disappointed in BioWare, mostly because I think Cerberus's long list of failures compared to successes (that we know about) is bad writing on their part. I find it extremely hard to believe that Cerberus's only successes are directly related to Shepard.

Anyhow, BioWare said that TIM has the best and worst of humanity in him, so where is that best part that he is supposed to have? Or is he really just a one-dimensional character after all?

I'm just so disappointed. 

[Arijharn]

 I'm not sure whether I should feel disappointed that I'm not counted as one of those people who try to be civil in my responses, but I guess it doesn't really matter (I admit that I do get frustrated when I think someone isn't listening to me though, and maybe I'm not as diplomatic about it as I really should be).

Cerberus, I think, is weird. I think they're absolutely indespensible (apologies, I don't think I can spell tonight) and sure the moral grey problems gnaw at me, but in the end I can't see how they'd be effective without them. The problem is, as I think Rio succintly points out in one of his posts is that they don't seem to rely on volunteers. At the same time though, I personally find it unlikely that they abduct (or coerce) everyone into it because it seems to me at least that people start off in the organisations with moral ideals -- therefore it stands to reason that they probably do have a gamut of 'willing' recruits, at least initially.

I recognise people are repelled by Cerberus' actions (I am too), but they principally seek to defend humanity against unknown threats (as in, always try to have an ace up their sleeves) and the nature of unknown threats is of course, that they are unknown. To me, something has to happen to enable this to happen. 

I'll take Pragia as an example. As far as I know, there is nothing morally questionable about 'subjecting' children to psychologists although obviously something went drastically wrong. I don't think necessarily however that they're monsters ipso facto, but rather I think they just have this incredible fear of The Illusive Man (deserved or not). Everyone at Cerberus, from what I can tell, is incredibly afraid of his reach and however wrong their methods (lets not kid ourselves) I can understand as their motivation, their fear and how it drove them into making bad decisions.

However, the thing about Cerberus and it's 'failures' is just how incomplete the picture is regarding all our information regarding their projects. I know it's probably easy for people to just spin this as an 'excuse' but I implore you to stop and think about it. Consider Akuze (seemingly everyone's poster child of how 'evil' (and I use that word emphatically, because it would seem just so easy for BioWare to make them evil and entirely evil without any redeeming qualities), so much of that information is possibly suspect. Not to say that what Toombs experienced wasn't traumatizing but doesn't it seem utterly ridiculous that Cerberus only did it for 'giggles'? Whatever Cerberus' methods, even if they are harsh, it is done with reason... even if that reason may sound reprehensible. Because Toombs is incredibly traumatized, I find his word, as absolute truth to be suspect. How do we know, for sure that Cerberus deliberately set Thresher Maws onto the marine unit? Because Corporal Toombs said so? To explain in another way, even if we know that the Council are absolutely insane, can we realistically hold it against them when they didn't accept a known smuggler and 'undesirable element,' Colin Powell's evidence against Saren? I view it as being similiar enough in circumstances. I do not have a massive understanding of law or legal systems, but I find it hard to believe that a court would completely trust a traumatized citizen's word at face value.

I will concede however that Cerberus deliberately decoying Kahoku's special forces team into a thresher nest was a 'bad' thing, but that is Cerberus being a black ops organisation and not Cerberus being 'wrong.'

Anyway, I've talked enough as it is, but I will come back as soon as I am able too.

EDIT: I've made some adjustments so things make, well, sense... I think I need a nap or something. :]

Modifié par Arijharn, 29 juillet 2010 - 10:55 .

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

...Dude, nightwriter WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?  And yes, I figured at this point we just need a running tally of each of Cerberus' offenses.  And yeah, Tracer was a blast to discourse with.

Also, thank you, that was what I was going for with the "for the lulz" conclusion.  There just doesn't seem to be any logical reason I could think of for luring a group of marines out to a desolate remote system and walk them right into a Thresher Maw nest.

...unless the marines wanted to kill it on foot for the credit reward *scarcasm*

? Well I have been in the "why would you destroy the Collector base" thread, arguing with Shand.

Who has just said that if the Illusive man wants to make Reapers he would be willing to help him abduct his victims and lead a team to kidnap elcor colonists.

The people in the thread have responded by saying this is inefficient use of resources.

Instead of, you know, abominable.

I saw...I have to say, I did a double-take at that.  That was just sort of mind-boggling.

[RiouHotaru]

Arijharn wrote...

 I'm not sure whether I should feel disappointed that I'm not counted as one of those people who try to be civil in my responses, but I guess it doesn't really matter (I admit that I do get frustrated when I think someone isn't listening to me though, and maybe I'm not as diplomatic about it as I really should be).

Cerberus, I think, is weird. I think they're absolutely indespensible (apologies, I don't think I can spell tonight) and sure the moral grey problems gnaw at me, but in the end I can't see how they'd be effective without them. The problem is, as I think Rio succintly points out in one of his posts is that they don't seem to rely on volunteers. At the same time though, I personally find it unlikely that they abduct (or coerce) everyone into it because it seems to me at least that people start off in the organisations with moral ideals -- therefore it stands to reason that they do have a gamut of ideas.

I recognise people are repelled by Cerberus' actions (I am too), but they principally seek to defend humanity against unknown threats (as in, always try to have an ace up their sleeves) and the nature of unknown threats is of course, that they are unknown. To me, something has to happen to enable this to happen. 

I'll take Pragia as an example. As far as I know, there is nothing morally questionable about 'subjecting' children to psychologists although obviously something went drastically wrong. I don't think necessarily however that they're monsters ipso facto, but rather I think they just have this incredible fear of The Illusive Man (deserved or not). Everyone at Cerberus, from what I can tell, is incredibly afraid of his reach and however wrong their methods (lets not kid ourselves) I can understand as their motivation, their fear and how it drove them into making bad decisions.

However, the thing about Cerberus and it's 'failures' is just how incomplete the picture is regarding all our information regarding their projects. I know it's probably easy for people to just spin this as an 'excuse' but I implore you to stop and think about it. Consider Akuze (seemingly everyone's poster child of how 'evil' (and I use that word emphatically, because it would seem just so easy for BioWare to make them evil and entirely evil without any redeeming qualities), so much of that information is possibly suspect. Not to say that what Toombs experienced wasn't traumatizing but doesn't it seem utterly ridiculous that Cerberus only did it for 'giggles'? Whatever Cerberus' methods, even if they are harsh, it is done with reason... even if that reason may sound reprehensible. Because Toombs is incredibly traumatized, I find his word, as absolute truth to be suspect. How do we know, for sure that Cerberus deliberately set Thresher Maws onto the marine unit? Because Corporal Toombs said so? To explain in another way, even if we know that the Council are absolutely insane, can we realistically hold it against them when they didn't accept a known smuggler and 'undesirable element,' Colin Powell's evidence against Saren? I view it as being similiar enough in circumstances. I do not have a massive understanding of law or legal systems, but I find it hard to believe that a court would completely trust a traumatized citizen's word at face value.

I will concede however that Cerberus deliberately decoying Kahoku's special forces team into a thresher nest was a 'bad' thing, but that is Cerberus being a black ops organisation and not Cerberus being 'wrong.'

Anyway, I've talked enough as it is, but I will come back as soon as I am able too.

I'm sorry.  It's not that I'm ignoring you, I honestly didn't see you.  I guess the thing is that the loud, angry, somewhat trollish Cerberus fanatics tend to drown out the few more civil and thought-engaging individuals, like yourself.

And you're right, a lot of the screw-ups tend to occur right about when TIM decides to threaten to pull the plug or something, and suddenly the guys on the project scramble like madmen trying to get a result...which usually results in a royally massive screw-up which sends the whole project straight into epic fail territory.  Again, I think this just shows that TIM has a rather poor judgmental sense of character.

And you're right, perhaps I am leaving out the success, as the poster angj57 pointed out.  But like Nightwriter, I feel the individual successes do not outweight the individual failures.  And as I asked another poster, will the rest of humanity see the fruits of Cerberus' labor?  I mean, if you ask me, Cerberus is acting as the "front-line" of humanity...except that humanity isn't even aware there is a front-line or who's trying to represent them on it.  And given that TIM sees humanity and Cerberus as synonomous (I know for a fact I spelled that wrong) with one another, whatever benefits one benefits the other, even if the means to achieve that benefit are more than a little unsavory.

You can see why this doesn't sit well with me then.  Maybe the folks at Cerberus are more moral than we're seeing, Miranda herself DOES point out that Cerberus wants people like Shepard who are more about helping humanity than just being xenophobic.  In fact, I'm fairly certain Kelly Chambers IS the ideal Cerberus recruit.  Smart, intelligent, good-looking, supports humanity, but has a fair and balanced opinion of everyone else too.  Shame that what we usually see from Cerberus are the bigots, fanatics and 'ethics-for-sale' mad scientists.