82 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Omnicrat wrote...

1) ... I guess that makes sense... I know I would have mentioned the fact that the alliance has been passing a covert branch of the military off as terrorists and has been doing horrible things, but maybe thats just me.

They did do that. Just not in a single dialogue line.

2)  Then, wouldn't the alliance president/premier/PM know who tim is?  Wouldn't he be able to wipe out cerberus, or at least assasinate tim for his betrayal?

Maybe, maybe not know who TIM is. Probably not be able to do much if he does know: the point of TIM waiting so long before making a break would be to be able to make a successful break. Being stomped immediately after would not be successful, so it would be very unlikely (and stupid) if Cerberus didn't take steps to prevent a counteraction by the Alliance.

On the 'if he does know who TIM is' side, the PM could have a number of reasons for not doing so, ranging from the benignly practical (he knows, but can't find TIM and Cerberus, and since TIM isn't a secret identity of a public person but a full-time manager in Cerberus, there's little gain in looking for him by his real name when he could easily have legions of false names), the compromised (Cerberus itself remains a dirty huge secret to the Alliance and a great theat to galactic diplomatic standing, and so while TIM and Cerberus accept (even encourage) the Alliance to publicly oppose it and take 'regular' measures, direct action against it's leadership could trigger automatic retaliation by Cerberus by simply airing it's store of dirty secrets and causing far more harm than good to the Alliance leadership), to the conspiratal (the PM does know, but either doesn't care/want to stop Cerberus because it's still secretly useful, or may even be a Cerberus link within the Alliance him/herself).




On the 'if the PM doesn't know' side, it wouldn't be unknown or unprecidented for a military conspiracy already outside of normal accountability to hide itself from the civilian leadership. The reasons may vary from 'they wouldn't understand the real value and would shut us down, but we're needed', to 'they're politicians, and they'll put politics before necessity, so don't give them the chance', to actually getting agreement from the politician himself: 'Mr. President, if you ask we will tell, but do you really want to ask and have to keep another dark necessity a secret for the rest of your life?'

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Setting aside the debate regarding the nature of the Alliance. Not only is it pure speculation on both our parts, but this isn't really the right forum to get into a deep discussion about the flaws and functionality of democracies, modern or otherwise.

Happy to discuss that with you in PM's if you would like though.

Don't mix the silly gameplay mechanic with the story. In the Codex it is explicitly said that operating military ships comes at enormous costs. Civilian spacecraft use cheeper and slower propulsion systems.

And the sole premise of creating the Alliance was that space colonization was too costly even for individual Earth's nations. It wasn't formed in a merger of self-sufficient self-established colonies into a federation. It's an empire, plain and simple.

And your "dedicated mining colony" can't outcompete a "not dedicated but Elfdel-Ashland affiliated mining colony". That's simple economics.

You keep assuming that said mining colony (a) has to compete, and ( has nothing to offer that the affiliated mining company doesn't.

The colonial mining company has a couple advantages that you might be overlooking.

First, it is colonial. Not only does that mean it is operating outside tax jurisdictions, but it is operating independantly of whatever nation /politcal entity its workers left. Freedom for some is compensation which could offset actual profits.

Second, on the assumption that being colonial was the primary intent, and mining is just a way of getting established and/or financing its growth, they don't neccessariy need as much. They are looking to be self sufficient and thus are likely fabricating their own equipment rather than buying.

Third, stronger than any nationalistic ties, the affiliated company will have company politics to deal with. Unrestrained by the laws of nations, companies often treat their employees worse in the name of higher profits. Extreme examples of this can be seen in ME1.

Fouth, they have the minerals. Existing corps are by nature more risk averse. More importantly there is no evidence of any such established operations running in the Traverse. Older existing ore bodies will likely be much more depleted, meaning higher grade ore in the colonies that is cheaper to processs and has better yields.

I think you've mixed up threads. This discussion you're taking about has been going in the "Is TIM really evil?" thread.

There is a lot of overlap between them, so it is possible. On the other hand, there is a lot of overlap between them.

[Flamewielder]

Ret-con, just like the whole concept of heatsink ammo.

[Omnicrat]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

2)  Okay, that only works if they were just some terrorist organization alot of people didn't know about.  According to ME1, they were a rouge branch of military intelegence that just went rouge.  This, to me, seems contradictory to the portrail of Cerberus in ME2.

It's never been said that it was "a branch of military intelligence".

An extremest-terrorist-criminal-clandestine group that answers to a government, but has not a single documented peice of evidence that connects it to said gvernment is perfectly fitting the definition of said governmet's "black ops organization".

As for "going rogue", it's just an opinion of an NPC. Plus the word "rogue" can be thrown around with a more broad meaning than "uncontrolled".

http://social.biowar...0890/17#5029915

Hm.  It has been a while since I have played ME1, so I may just be mis-remembering.  Still, wouldn't the whole "The public sees them as terrorists" thing at least be mentioned?

[Omnicrat]

Digifi wrote...

I have a feeling that the comic, and then the upcoming DLC may make some of the history of the alliance and cerberus a plot point. You are right that the in game information is thin, which I think is intentional but I really believe we'll get a lot of answers in the next few months.

Right.  But do those answers (atlest somewhat) contradict what Cerberus was portrayed as in ME1?

[Zulu_DFA]

Omnicrat wrote...

Hm.  It has been a while since I have played ME1, so I may just be mis-remembering.  Still, wouldn't the whole "The public sees them as terrorists" thing at least be mentioned?

All right, you do have a point that in ME1 Cerberus seemed to have been like totally unheard of by the general public. In ME2 BioWare have added this whole "terrorists" thing, but it's not a ret-con. It's called "expanding the universe". Adding new facts that do not contradict previously established facts. Like the Blue Suns. In Revelation they seemed to have been around for a while, and a predominantly Batarian gang. Turned out they were initially a Human company, founded by Zaeed and his partner Vido. Then Vido betrayed Zaeed, co-opted Batarian gangs to expand business, and went under the radar himself.

Anyway, calling Kahoku's one-line rundown a "Cerberus history" is a bit of a stretch. In ME1 Cerberus was a complete enigma.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 24 janvier 2011 - 05:14 .

[SandTrout]

Omnicrat wrote...

My point was that the alliance knew who he was or how to find him or something, so (unless retconning has taken place) why didn't they go after him asap?

When did he become a threat to Alliance interests? Is he even considered a threat now? Why do you assume that when Cerberus made the break (assuming it did), that the Alliance knew everything about all their operations. TIM likely had created numerous safe-houses, and probably his mobile Citadel that he controls Cerberus from now, before the Alliance knew that he wasn't under their control any more.

To use a modern parallel, Osama Bin Laden was known to the CIA for a long time, but before he started targeting US embassies and blowing up Naval vessels, he was shooting down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan. By the time US intelligence identified him as a threat that needed removing, he had gone underground, hiding so that we could not find him. Hell, we even have a general idea of where he's hiding and we still haven't managed to come back with his head yet.

Operators like that can disappear very quickly and hide very well, especially from the organizations that their most familiar with.

[Omnicrat]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

1) ... I guess that makes sense... I know I would have mentioned the fact that the alliance has been passing a covert branch of the military off as terrorists and has been doing horrible things, but maybe thats just me.

They did do that. Just not in a single dialogue line.

2)  Then, wouldn't the alliance president/premier/PM know who tim is?  Wouldn't he be able to wipe out cerberus, or at least assasinate tim for his betrayal?

Maybe, maybe not know who TIM is. Probably not be able to do much if he does know: the point of TIM waiting so long before making a break would be to be able to make a successful break. Being stomped immediately after would not be successful, so it would be very unlikely (and stupid) if Cerberus didn't take steps to prevent a counteraction by the Alliance.

On the 'if he does know who TIM is' side, the PM could have a number of reasons for not doing so, ranging from the benignly practical (he knows, but can't find TIM and Cerberus, and since TIM isn't a secret identity of a public person but a full-time manager in Cerberus, there's little gain in looking for him by his real name when he could easily have legions of false names), the compromised (Cerberus itself remains a dirty huge secret to the Alliance and a great theat to galactic diplomatic standing, and so while TIM and Cerberus accept (even encourage) the Alliance to publicly oppose it and take 'regular' measures, direct action against it's leadership could trigger automatic retaliation by Cerberus by simply airing it's store of dirty secrets and causing far more harm than good to the Alliance leadership), to the conspiratal (the PM does know, but either doesn't care/want to stop Cerberus because it's still secretly useful, or may even be a Cerberus link within the Alliance him/herself).




On the 'if the PM doesn't know' side, it wouldn't be unknown or unprecidented for a military conspiracy already outside of normal accountability to hide itself from the civilian leadership. The reasons may vary from 'they wouldn't understand the real value and would shut us down, but we're needed', to 'they're politicians, and they'll put politics before necessity, so don't give them the chance', to actually getting agreement from the politician himself: 'Mr. President, if you ask we will tell, but do you really want to ask and have to keep another dark necessity a secret for the rest of your life?'

1)  When is is alluded to that the alliance set up Cerberus to be viewed as a terrorist organization by its members/the public?

2)  This all makes compleat sense.  My problems with this part have been resolved.

[Omnicrat]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

Hm.  It has been a while since I have played ME1, so I may just be mis-remembering.  Still, wouldn't the whole "The public sees them as terrorists" thing at least be mentioned?

All right, you do have a point that in ME1 Cerberus seemed to have been like totally unheard of by the general public. In ME2 BioWare have added this whole "terrorists" thing, but it's not a ret-con. It's called "expanding the universe". Adding new facts that do not contradict previously established facts. Like the Blue Suns. In Revelation they seemed to have been around for a while, and a predominantly Batarian gang. Turned out they were initially a Human company, founded by Zaeed and his partner Vido. Then Vido betrayed Zaeed, co-opted Batarian gangs to expand business, and went under the radar himself.

Anyway, calling Kahoku's one-line rundown a "Cerberus history" is a bit of a stretch. In ME1 Cerberus was a complete enigma.

Wasn't the Zaeed story a retcon in and of itself?  Also, I view the simple lack of mention of Cerberus as a terrorist organization in ME1 to contradict their identity as a terrorist organization in ME2.  Maybe thats just me though.

[SandTrout]

The official line that the Alliance gives to its allies regarding Cerberus is that it's a terrorist organization. These entities (Specters, STG, Alliance Intel) know that Cerberus exists, but not necessarily its true relationship with the Alliance. Cerberus accepts that this is going to be the official line if their actions ever become public knowledge, as this is standard operating procedure for black ops that get revealed. This does not mean that Cerberus is known to the general public or even outside of the intelligence community. TIM doesn't have enough of an ego to care if he goes down in history along side Hitler and Stalin, so long as that history is written by by humans.

Modifié par SandTrout, 25 janvier 2011 - 05:57 .

[Omnicrat]

SandTrout wrote...

The official line that the Alliance gives to its allies regarding Cerberus is that it's a terrorist organization. These entities (Specters, STG, Alliance Intel) know that Cerberus exists, but not necessarily its true relationship with the Alliance. Cerberus accepts that this is going to be the official line if their actions ever become public knowledge, as this is standard operating procedure for black ops that get revealed. This does not mean that Cerberus is known to the general public or even outside of the intelligence community. TIM doesn't have enough of an ego to care if he goes down in history along side Hitler and Stalin, so long as that history is written by by humans.

... okay...

...soo...

Well, first of all, in ME2, it specifically says that the public has known Cerberus was a terrorist organization for a long time.

Aside from that asertion (which was wrong), what was the point of this post?  You have stated a rational explanation of Cerberus, but not fixxing some specified problem I or another post had with Cerberus history.  In fact, similar concepts have been said earlier, and you responded along side them, so I have no idea what the point of this post was...

Maybe I misread something, or maybe you were just synopsizing the theory you think is correct, but I have no idea.

[Dean_the_Young]

Omnicrat wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

The official line that the Alliance gives to its allies regarding Cerberus is that it's a terrorist organization. These entities (Specters, STG, Alliance Intel) know that Cerberus exists, but not necessarily its true relationship with the Alliance. Cerberus accepts that this is going to be the official line if their actions ever become public knowledge, as this is standard operating procedure for black ops that get revealed. This does not mean that Cerberus is known to the general public or even outside of the intelligence community. TIM doesn't have enough of an ego to care if he goes down in history along side Hitler and Stalin, so long as that history is written by by humans.

... okay...

...soo...

Well, first of all, in ME2, it specifically says that the public has known Cerberus was a terrorist organization for a long time.

It's the difference between something being known to exist and  the public being aware. Al Qaeda existed before 9-11, and before the first World Trade Center bombing, but how many people actually knew or cared? Not many. Even governments didn't know as much as they wanted.

Cerberus is known, but it is indisputably low-profile, not just in the public eyes but in regards to covering its own tracks. A case in point is Corporal Toombs and Admiral Kohaku: unless Shepard saves the scientist to get him to testify, an independent inquiry can't find any evidence to support Toombs' claims, and Kohaku's death is completely covered up.

but not fixxing some specified problem I or another post had with Cerberus history.

Your problem isn't a problem because there is no mutually incompatible contradiction. SandTrout's post was reconciling your presumed problem.

There's nothing preventing Cerberus from being both a top-secret black organization that was beholden to the (and only to the) highest levels of the Alliance AND publicly designated and targeted as a terrorist organization by the Alliance and other governments.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 janvier 2011 - 08:41 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Omnicrat wrote...

Wasn't the Zaeed story a retcon in and of itself?  Also, I view the simple lack of mention of Cerberus as a terrorist organization in ME1 to contradict their identity as a terrorist organization in ME2.  Maybe thats just me though.

No, Zaeed & Vido is not a retcon. It's expansion of the universe. So is the newly added fact that Cerberus is regarded as a terrorist organization. It's ADDED, NOT REPLACING.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 25 janvier 2011 - 08:48 .

[Arijharn]

Cerberus is only really known of by people who Cerberus wishes to be known too (like Warden Kuril) or personal reasons (Jack). I mean, think about it, in ME1 you actually kinda had to go out of your way to find out about them in the first place.

[Zulu_DFA]

Arijharn wrote...

Cerberus is only really known of by people who Cerberus wishes to be known too (like Warden Kuril) or personal reasons (Jack). I mean, think about it, in ME1 you actually kinda had to go out of your way to find out about them in the first place.

Yeah, even in ME2, aside from the two articles in the Codex - "Cerberus" and "Illusive Man", both of which have a "speculation, citation needed" vibe to them, Cerberus gets publicly mentioned only once, and only optionally - if you have saved both Cpl. Toombs and Dr. Wayne in ME1.

There is also the in-game Drew Karpyshyn who wrote the in-game novel "Ascension". We, as players, of course, know, that it's "based on real events", that took place in real Drew Karpyshyn's real novel by the same title, but it seems that the in-game one has gone out of his way while depicting Cereberus to expand upon the "terrorists" perception of Cerberus.

[DTKT]

rouge!

[BellatrixLugosi]

Why does it matter if they weren't labeled as terrorists in the first game anyway. They acted like it at least. Seems that "Black Organization" is the favorite for labeling them

[Dean_the_Young]

'Terrorist' never really fit with Cerberus: for all their atrocities, they lacked a distinct presence and public intent. Terrorism was simply a provocative label that has never supported despite two games, two books, two comics, and even the whole of Cerberus Daily News.



'Cabal' is much more fitting.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'Terrorist' never really fit with Cerberus: for all their atrocities, they lacked a distinct presence and public intent. Terrorism was simply a provocative label that has never supported despite two games, two books, two comics, and even the whole of Cerberus Daily News.

'Cabal' is much more fitting.

Pure semantics. We don't really have an alternative word for a non-nation carrying out war against a country. Guerrilla, perhaps, but that doesn't describe them as enemy. A Cabal is merely a secretive oganization of plotters, but they could be plotting a revolutionary new fizzy drink. Cerberus goes beyond plotting anyway.

[Dean_the_Young]

We do have a word that fits cerberus. A cabal: cabals are more than planning, but action as well.



If it's semantics, it's meaningful semantics. Terrorism is a modern buzzword loaded with connotations and implications, and the more weight a word has the more important it is that it be thrown around accurately.



Cerberus isn't at war with a country. It isn't waging war against the populace of the countries. It isn't sparking or instigating mass terror, nor is it trying to.



You may think that cabal is not perfect, but terrorism is far, far worse.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'Terrorist' never really fit with Cerberus: for all their atrocities, they lacked a distinct presence and public intent. Terrorism was simply a provocative label that has never supported despite two games, two books, two comics, and even the whole of Cerberus Daily News.

'Cabal' is much more fitting.

Pure semantics. We don't really have an alternative word for a non-nation carrying out war against a country. Guerrilla, perhaps, but that doesn't describe them as enemy. A Cabal is merely a secretive oganization of plotters, but they could be plotting a revolutionary new fizzy drink. Cerberus goes beyond plotting anyway.

The Alliance is not a nation. And Cerberus does not wage war against it.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We do have a word that fits cerberus. A cabal: cabals are more than planning, but action as well.

If it's semantics, it's meaningful semantics. Terrorism is a modern buzzword loaded with connotations and implications, and the more weight a word has the more important it is that it be thrown around accurately.

Cerberus isn't at war with a country. It isn't waging war against the populace of the countries. It isn't sparking or instigating mass terror, nor is it trying to.

You may think that cabal is not perfect, but terrorism is far, far worse.

The problem is that there is a very fine line between any given act intended to cause 'terror' and any given act of war. 

What do you mean Cerberus isn't at war? It is very much in a Guerrila war. Eliminating leaders of a state you do not control in an attempt to gain control isn't exactly 'peace.'

Any given armed coup is also either a civil war (if the coup is led from within the country) or simply war (if led from without). How is it not war? They aren't treating any government they disagree with as a friend they simply disagree with or to negotiate with. They are treating them as an enemy to be opposed, by whatever means practical including force, the tactics of guerrilla warfare.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

The problem is that there is a very fine line between any given act intended to cause 'terror' and any given act of war.

There is, however, a very broad category for actions in and between 'terrorism' and 'war', and that category is 'criminal'.

What do you mean Cerberus isn't at war? It is very much in a Guerrila war. Eliminating leaders of a state you do not control in an attempt to gain control isn't exactly 'peace.'

Neither is it exactly war.

There is no trinary classification of peace, war, or terrorism.

Any given armed coup is also either a civil war (if the coup is led from within the country) or simply war (if led from without). How is it not war?

When your classification of war is either so flawed or so broad that the term is meaningless. Successful coups aren't civil wars: they simply don't have the scale.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The Alliance is not a nation. And Cerberus does not wage war against it.

Ok, so this thread is going to devolve completely into semantic garbage now. What exactly is the Alliance then? Would you prefer empire? State? Political entity? 

If Cerberus and the Alliance are the same entity, then why does Cerberus need to eliminate Alliance politicians that don't agree with it? You are suggesting that Cerberus is into attacking itself (not to mention treating the Alliance as a one party system).

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm not Zulu, nor do I stand by what he said, but in regards to your second paragraph: because other parts of the Alliance don't think that those lower alliance/national politicians are right for the Alliance, and should be removed.



The Alliance would hardly be the first government to secretly kill its own officials when certain people felt it was called for.