310 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

The assertions that TIM has been indoctrinated are patently ridiculous. Even the claim that he was unknowingly being influenced does not hold water. His actions have all been to the detriment to Reaper objectives. Cerberus provided Liara and Feron with necessary intel to track down Shepard's body, nearly went bankrupt with the Lazarus Project and the SR2, then sent the Zombie Shepard to wipe out one of the Reapers' key agents in the collectors.

If TIM was unknowingly serving a Reaper agenda, it would have been easy for them to plant the ideas that A) Shepard wasn't important enough to divert a top agent, the Lazarus Project and SR2 would be a waste of credits, or C) The collector attacks were just a diversion.

There is ZERO evidence that TIM has been indoctrinated, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. He has literally done everything in his power to kneecap the Reapers' efforts.

[James2912]

SandTrout wrote...

The assertions that TIM has been indoctrinated are patently ridiculous. Even the claim that he was unknowingly being influenced does not hold water. His actions have all been to the detriment to Reaper objectives. Cerberus provided Liara and Feron with necessary intel to track down Shepard's body, nearly went bankrupt with the Lazarus Project and the SR2, then sent the Zombie Shepard to wipe out one of the Reapers' key agents in the collectors.
If TIM was unknowingly serving a Reaper agenda, it would have been easy for them to plant the ideas that A) Shepard wasn't important enough to divert a top agent, the Lazarus Project and SR2 would be a waste of credits, or C) The collector attacks were just a diversion.
There is ZERO evidence that TIM has been indoctrinated, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. He has literally done everything in his power to kneecap the Reapers' efforts.

Thats good I haven't read any of the books or comics but it would really suck if Bioware decided to go the cliche route and make TIM indoctrinated by the Reapers. I enjoy complicated characters and complicated scenarios TIM is making hard, controversial choices which is a breath of fresh air. Muddying the line between whats right and whats wrong makes the game more fascinating! The Council is an example of this they are not good and they are not evil, they are just another complicated faction in the Mass Effect universe that either you can identify with or hate, same with Cerberus. 

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ascension supported none of those claims.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Quotes please.

From the prologue of Ascension:

"They couldn't put their faith in the Alliance. A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"

In this case it really is a matter of 'if you are not with us, you are against us.' He doesn't want to work with the Alliance, but sees it as ineffectual and wants to work despite of and in spite of the Alliance, escewing democracy (public opinion), law, etc as burdons to be ignored or tossed aside.

I thought there was something in there about wanting Shepard as a figurehead too, but I must have been misremembering.

But before that, consider:

In "ME: Galaxy" Jacob Taylor saved the Council from a terror attack, and who was guiding him? Right, Cerberus Operative Miranda Lawson. Guess she went all rogue, just to get to the Priiize, while TIM was busy with his Asari "liaisons", but normally, the Council is still an enemy of Cerberus. Duh.

Yes, but Miranda isn't as ideologically fanatic as TIM. Likely it is one of the reasons she was picked to work with Shepard. Jacob, too, for the same reason. If TIM had sent hardline Cerberus fanatics, most Shepards would have cried foul and rebelled.

That is rather off topic from this thread though.. maybe something for the 'TIM' thread?

Modifié par Moiaussi, 09 février 2011 - 10:48 .

[Moiaussi]

James2912 wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

The assertions that TIM has been indoctrinated are patently ridiculous. Even the claim that he was unknowingly being influenced does not hold water. His actions have all been to the detriment to Reaper objectives. Cerberus provided Liara and Feron with necessary intel to track down Shepard's body, nearly went bankrupt with the Lazarus Project and the SR2, then sent the Zombie Shepard to wipe out one of the Reapers' key agents in the collectors.
If TIM was unknowingly serving a Reaper agenda, it would have been easy for them to plant the ideas that A) Shepard wasn't important enough to divert a top agent, the Lazarus Project and SR2 would be a waste of credits, or C) The collector attacks were just a diversion.
There is ZERO evidence that TIM has been indoctrinated, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. He has literally done everything in his power to kneecap the Reapers' efforts.

Thats good I haven't read any of the books or comics but it would really suck if Bioware decided to go the cliche route and make TIM indoctrinated by the Reapers. I enjoy complicated characters and complicated scenarios TIM is making hard, controversial choices which is a breath of fresh air. Muddying the line between whats right and whats wrong makes the game more fascinating! The Council is an example of this they are not good and they are not evil, they are just another complicated faction in the Mass Effect universe that either you can identify with or hate, same with Cerberus. 

I never went so far as to suggest he was literally indoctrinated. But we do know from ME1 that the Reapers do use inside agents, misinformation and divide and conquer tactics. TIM can be being manipulated without being indoctrinated.

I am still highly suspicious of the SB's ship, and the fact that none of its occupants question the helpfulness of the VI.

All that is very off topic though....

[jbblue05]

Moiaussi wrote...

From the prologue of Ascension:

"They couldn't put their faith in the Alliance. A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"

In this case it really is a matter of 'if you are not with us, you are against us.' He doesn't want to work with the Alliance, but sees it as ineffectual and wants to work despite of and in spite of the Alliance, escewing democracy (public opinion), law, etc as burdons to be ignored or tossed aside.

How does this prove he's against the Alliance?.

You are claerly interperting Cerberus in the most negative way as possible.

The prologue clearly states how the Alliance has to worry about its public image and if Humanity wants to truly advance that Cerberus was needed.

Modifié par jbblue05, 09 février 2011 - 11:05 .

[James2912]

I believe my government is a "A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"

But that doesn't mean I want to destroy it... Being critical of the government does not make you an enemy of the state at least where I come from.

[AkiKishi]

James2912 wrote...

I believe my government is a "A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"
But that doesn't mean I want to destroy it... Being critical of the government does not make you an enemy of the state at least where I come from.

But being a part of a subversive organisation does make you an enemy of the state.

[James2912]

[quote]BobSmith101 wrote...

[quote]James2912 wrote...

I believe my government is a "A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"
But that doesn't mean I want to destroy it... Being critical of the government does not make you an enemy of the state at least where I come from.[/quote]

Once again how are they "subversive," how are they trying to overthrow the state? 
But being a part of a subversive organisation does make you an enemy of the state.

Modifié par James2912, 09 février 2011 - 11:37 .

[Moiaussi]

James2912 wrote...

I believe my government is a "A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"
But that doesn't mean I want to destroy it... Being critical of the government does not make you an enemy of the state at least where I come from.

But do you actively engage in activities contravening your country's laws because of your belief?

There is a huge difference between being critical of government, and not accepting its right to govern.

[James2912]

Moiaussi wrote...

James2912 wrote...

I believe my government is a "A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"
But that doesn't mean I want to destroy it... Being critical of the government does not make you an enemy of the state at least where I come from.

But do you actively engage in activities contravening your country's laws because of your belief?

There is a huge difference between being critical of government, and not accepting its right to govern.

on the first one uhm well maybe... I mean of course not! 
And how do they not accept the Alliances right to govern? How are they trying to overthrow the Alliances government? In fact there is evidence to show they still work for that government.  See zulus thread on the subject. However this is starting to go way off topic...  This is suppossed to be about the Councils sins not Cerberus. 

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

From the prologue of Ascension:

"They couldn't put their faith in the Alliance. A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"

Where's is the enmity here? Dissatisfaction - yes. That's why TIM uses his power to take measures and attune the Alliance to his vision. Never ever he thinks of dissolving and replacing it with something else.

Moiaussi wrote...

In this case it really is a matter of 'if you are not with us, you are against us.' He doesn't want to work with the Alliance, but sees it as ineffectual and wants to work despite of and in spite of the Alliance, escewing democracy (public opinion), law, etc as burdons to be ignored or tossed aside.

"Not with us means against us" goes only to individuals. That Artyom Gavrikov guy was no more "Alliance", than Charles Saracino (that is: both are Alliance MPs, and both can be "corrupt by power" and whatever). Obviously there are political factions within the Alliance, and supporting one of these factions does not make Cerberus an enemy of the Alliance and vice versa. Cerberus is an enemy only to the alien appeasers. That said, TIM may not even consider the appeasers to be "enemies" of Cerbeus in the high moral sense. To him, they are Humans too, only a tad wayward. Nothing can be done about it, though, so, they have to be removed just like any other obstacles for the Alliance's rise to power.

Moiaussi wrote...

But before that, consider:

In "ME: Galaxy" Jacob Taylor saved the Council from a terror attack, and who was guiding him? Right, Cerberus Operative Miranda Lawson. Guess she went all rogue, just to get to the Priiize, while TIM was busy with his Asari "liaisons", but normally, the Council is still an enemy of Cerberus. Duh.

Yes, but Miranda isn't as ideologically fanatic as TIM. Likely it is one of the reasons she was picked to work with Shepard. Jacob, too, for the same reason. If TIM had sent hardline Cerberus fanatics, most Shepards would have cried foul and rebelled.

Are you saying Miranda saved the Council out of kindness of her heart, unbeknownst to TIM?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 février 2011 - 02:19 .

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Where's is the enmity here? Dissatisfaction - yes. That's why TIM uses his power to take measures and attune the Alliance to his vision. Never ever he thinks of dissolving and replacing it with something else.

Complete disdain to the point of operating like he is the 'true' government, without any concern for a mandate other than that which he grants himself. He isn't trying to overthrow the government simply because he doesn't see the point. He considers it ineffectual and overthrowing it would only end up restricting his actions, since becoming a formal government means accountability.

A revolutionary backed by the will of the people is arguably a hero. One completely in disdain of the people, pretending to act on their behalf with no concern for their actual needs or desires is a despot.

"Not with us means against us" goes only to individuals. That Artyom Gavrikov guy was no more "Alliance", than Charles Saracino (that is: both are Alliance MPs, and both can be "corrupt by power" and whatever). Obviously there are political factions within the Alliance, and supporting one of these factions does not make Cerberus an enemy of the Alliance and vice versa. Cerberus is an enemy only to the alien appeasers. That said, TIM may not even consider the appeasers to be "enemies" of Cerbeus in the high moral sense. To him, they are Humans too, only a tad wayward. Nothing can be done about it, though, so, they have to be removed just like any other obstacles for the Alliance's rise to power.

Really? If that only applies to individuals, why was there an American Civil War? Why was there a Waco? Why was there an FLQ crisis in Canada? Why was Sadam using chemical weapons on the Khurds? Why strife in Ireland?

Need I go on?

TIM is acting as if he has (or at least should have) the power and authority of government, without the actual mandate. That is about as 'against the Alliance' as it gets. It would be different if he was setting up a new political entity for humans somewhere else, but he is working with Alliance worlds, manipulating Alliance politics.

More to the point, please explain how assassinating elected politicians is 'not against the Alliance?' I am pretty sure that shooting sitting members of government is well within the definition of 'treason.'

Moiaussi wrote...

Are you saying Miranda saved the Council out of kindness of her heart, unbeknownst to TIM?

Essentially, yes. We are WAY off topic now though.....

Modifié par Moiaussi, 10 février 2011 - 03:27 .

[StarGateGod]

only a sith deals in absolutes so OP are you  sith

[Moiaussi]

StarGateGod wrote...

only a sith deals in absolutes so OP are you  sith

But that was an absolute statement, implying that you are Sith... of course Sith also deal in lies and manipulation, so even though your statement was absolute, the OP might not be Sith.

[trobbins777]

Technically the council is a dictatorship.

[Pwener2313]

^dido

[James2912]

It really ticked me off how they thought shep had the right to pick humanities rep on the Council. Shouldn't the other 11billion+ humans have a say? Then I remembered the Council thinks its ok to have only 3 (now 4) races make rules for all the other races in Citadel space. In ME1 I thought that was because maybe those races were so much more culturally advanced than all the others, but it became obvious pretty fast that the other races were just humans with alien bodies as imperfect as any other species. No wonder the Terminus systems wants nothing to do with the Council. 3 races (humans seem to have little say) dictate the rules that all the others have to follow. IF you resist you might just be the target of a Council sanctioned genocide.

[Moiaussi]

trobbins777 wrote...

Technically the council is a dictatorship.

It only appears that way because we don't actually see the rest of the political system. The Asari have a pure democracy, the Turians have a meritocracy (although it is unclear who defines 'merit'.... the usual failing of a meritocracy), and the Salarians actually have clan/bloodline based government.

Since it is really nonsensical for the Councellors to have simply wandered onto the Citadel one day and appointed themselves, it is reasonable to assume they were elected and/or appointed by their respective home governments.

Note that Shepard 'recommends' a human councellor. It is not clear that there was no follow up process. Presumably there would have been an 'acting' Councellor, who would have had to have been approved formally by the Alliance.

[Moiaussi]

James2912 wrote...

It really ticked me off how they thought shep had the right to pick humanities rep on the Council. Shouldn't the other 11billion+ humans have a say? Then I remembered the Council thinks its ok to have only 3 (now 4) races make rules for all the other races in Citadel space. In ME1 I thought that was because maybe those races were so much more culturally advanced than all the others, but it became obvious pretty fast that the other races were just humans with alien bodies as imperfect as any other species. No wonder the Terminus systems wants nothing to do with the Council. 3 races (humans seem to have little say) dictate the rules that all the others have to follow. IF you resist you might just be the target of a Council sanctioned genocide.

They only say, essentially, 'who do you recommend? Your opinion would carry a lot of weight."

We don't know that there was no additional process, and it makes no sense if there wasn't. Of course it likewise makes no sense that Udina seems to have as much authority as he does as an ambassador. There is no impication he ever checks with home either.

[Arijharn]

Yeah, but your opinion only carries great 'weight' with them themselves (aka; the sitting Council), and only because you just saved their sorry asses. That's not the same as saying that your opinion would hold great 'weight' for the Alliance or it's constituents. Shephard can elect the Councillor then and there if he (or she) so chose, which to me, while useful doesn't particularly scream electoral due process.

[Wulfram]

The council asks for a list of candidates, which to me strongly implies that it's the council itself which chooses it's members. Choosing someone who didn't have the support of the member species' government would be stupid though.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

"They couldn't put their faith in the Alliance. A bloated coalition of government officials and disparate military branches, the Alliance was a clumsy, blunt instrument weighed down by laws, convention, and the crushing weight of public opinion"

In this case it really is a matter of 'if you are not with us, you are against us.' He doesn't want to work with the Alliance, but sees it as ineffectual and wants to work despite of and in spite of the Alliance, escewing democracy (public opinion), law, etc as burdons to be ignored or tossed aside.

Except the only person pushing a 'with us or against us attitude' is you. Not your excerpt, which implies nothing of the sort.


Simply because TIM thinks that the Alliance is imperfect instrument (and your excerpt isn't even saying he thinks it's a bad instrument, just that it can't be relied upon in this case) doesn't mean he sees it as an enemy.

[Dean_the_Young]

Arijharn wrote...

Yeah, but your opinion only carries great 'weight' with them themselves (aka; the sitting Council), and only because you just saved their sorry asses. That's not the same as saying that your opinion would hold great 'weight' for the Alliance or it's constituents. Shephard can elect the Councillor then and there if he (or she) so chose, which to me, while useful doesn't particularly scream electoral due process.

Since Shepard's opinion is said to have weight when the Council is dead and it's only the Alliance, I don't think that's correct at all, Arijharn.

That Shepard's nomination ends up as the deciding factor is a conceit to gameplay, but Shepard doesn't go 'you will be Councilor' and no one else questions.

[Arijharn]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Since Shepard's opinion is said to have weight when the Council is dead and it's only the Alliance, I don't think that's correct at all, Arijharn.

That Shepard's nomination ends up as the deciding factor is a conceit to gameplay, but Shepard doesn't go 'you will be Councilor' and no one else questions.

You have a point; but the new Council did just see themselves promoted and their influence vastly increased. Shephard is still a bit of a posterboy who did just stop a massive dreadnought noming on the Citadel.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Since Shepard's opinion is said to have weight when the Council is dead and it's only the Alliance, I don't think that's correct at all, Arijharn.

That Shepard's nomination ends up as the deciding factor is a conceit to gameplay, but Shepard doesn't go 'you will be Councilor' and no one else questions.

You have a point; but the new Council did just see themselves promoted and their influence vastly increased. Shephard is still a bit of a posterboy who did just stop a massive dreadnought noming on the Citadel.

The Council still have their respective member home governments to deal with (true even if the Council is solely Alliance). That means they still have to sell whoever is nominated to their own people. In the case of the Asari, there would presumably still have to be a vote as to whether humans should get in or not, even if the vote is a formality and not expected to fail.

Shepard's recommendation would carry a lot of weight, both with Alliance voters (him being human after all) and with those of the other races (him not only being a Spectre, but having been instrumental in the victory).

Of course his opinion carries weight. That is normal politics.