132 réponses à ce sujet

[Sajuro]

That guy was sleeping with Hackette's wife and he thought the admiral didn't know, that was just Hackette's way of telling the guy to ef himself.

[ADLegend21]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I was bored and in a Mass Effect mood, so I loaded one of my "complete" saves and went back to the Shadow Broker base to check stuff out. I read through the entire dossiers again and suddenly had this question occur to me.

We know that, from Admiral Hackett's dossier, some Alliance personnel sent him a message requesting permission on capturing and taking Shepard into custody (after she resurfaced on Omega). I'm not going to go into the details as I assume you all have read the dossier and know why the Alliance would want to bring Shepard in (besides, this isn't the thread for it). In any case, why did Hackett deny the Alliance's request? Was it because he and Shepard have a friendly relationship and as such it was his rather "emotional" response to the Alliance? Or does he simply disagree with them, for whatever reason?

I realize this isn't something we know for sure (at least not currently), but it's always fun to speculate. I'm also interested to hear your thoughts.

Becuase Hackett doesn't want the Alliance tortuing his child  knows that Shepard knows what their doing.

[Pwener2313]

^WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!?

[Kristofer1]

Hackett doesnt want humanities hero to be arrested pure and simple. The savior of the citadel arrested working for a terrorist organization. that would look really bad.

[Casuist]

jbblue05 wrote...

If Cerberus and the Alliance were really enemies, the Alliance would have took steps to apprehend Shepard.

If Cerberus and the Alliance were really affiliated at a high level.

1) Anderson would have known about it.
2) The Shadow Broker probably would have known about it.
3) Hackett's actions concerning the Toombs mission make little sense.

[jbblue05]

Casuist wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

If Cerberus and the Alliance were really enemies, the Alliance would have took steps to apprehend Shepard.

If Cerberus and the Alliance were really affiliated at a high level.

1) Anderson would have known about it.
2) The Shadow Broker probably would have known about it.
3) Hackett's actions concerning the Toombs mission make little sense.

1)Anderson is not as high ranking in the Alliance ias you think  he's just a rear admiral
2)TSB may or may not have infiltrated the Alliance yet.  Liara just tells you TSB has top level access to the Asari, turian, and salarian governments
3)Toombs made little sense

[Halo Quea]

It's a little more complicated than "Shepard is a hero, Shepard is the only one doing anything, or Shepard is too bad ass to bring in"



Shepard is a walking, ticking, BOMB of controversy. Shepard knows so much, maybe too much about EVERYTHING right now. But a better question would be, "What happens AFTER you bring Shepard in?" Interrogation is senseless, what useful information could he have? You already know what he knows. Moreover, Shepard isn't an information broker, if you asked him what he's been doing for the last two years he'd tell you. Shepard's problem has always been that he can't find anyone to listen.



Even more still, Shepard has been keeping everyone's dirty secrets. More honestly, Shepard's been burying them......... LITERALLY. Is that even a bone worth choking on? You're going to bring the bomb in your house? The bomb that will reveal it all, give names, dates and locations?



Have any of you been following the Bourne Series? Not just the movies, but the books? Shepard is also an excellent scapegoat if things go incredibly wrong. I mean he's right there and ready to catch the blame for all of it. Two years can't be accounted for, that's PERFECT. You could pin anything on Shepard and make it stick.



This isn't about symbolism or the need for humanity to have a hero. This is about keeping a guy who can blow down your house of cards with a puff as far from you as possible. If everything goes right you can pin medals on him and take credit for having him in your service. If things go south you can discredit him, court marshal him, execute him as an enemy of the state, cover up your own guilt. It happens all the time.

[lovgreno]

Hacket is supposed to be a bit of a shady person who you never realy know what his agenda is if I understood the the writers correctly. I guess Hackett suspects that Shepard is doing something important even if he find it hard to belive all that talk about "reapers" so he tries to help Shepard. Indirecly and discretely of course, as he likes his life and political credibility enough to not risk being involved with everyones enemy Failberus.

[Interactive Civilian]

lovgreno wrote...

Hacket is supposed to be a bit of a shady person

???

[citation needed]

[DPSSOC]

Halo Quea wrote...

It's a little more complicated than "Shepard is a hero, Shepard is the only one doing anything, or Shepard is too bad ass to bring in"

Shepard is a walking, ticking, BOMB of controversy. Shepard knows so much, maybe too much about EVERYTHING right now. But a better question would be, "What happens AFTER you bring Shepard in?" Interrogation is senseless, what useful information could he have? You already know what he knows. Moreover, Shepard isn't an information broker, if you asked him what he's been doing for the last two years he'd tell you. Shepard's problem has always been that he can't find anyone to listen.

Even more still, Shepard has been keeping everyone's dirty secrets. More honestly, Shepard's been burying them......... LITERALLY. Is that even a bone worth choking on? You're going to bring the bomb in your house? The bomb that will reveal it all, give names, dates and locations?

Have any of you been following the Bourne Series? Not just the movies, but the books? Shepard is also an excellent scapegoat if things go incredibly wrong. I mean he's right there and ready to catch the blame for all of it. Two years can't be accounted for, that's PERFECT. You could pin anything on Shepard and make it stick.

This isn't about symbolism or the need for humanity to have a hero. This is about keeping a guy who can blow down your house of cards with a puff as far from you as possible. If everything goes right you can pin medals on him and take credit for having him in your service. If things go south you can discredit him, court marshal him, execute him as an enemy of the state, cover up your own guilt. It happens all the time.

I like the way you think sir/madam

[StarcloudSWG]

Hackett is also one of the three people involved in proposing Shepard as a Spectre candidate in the ME 1 Intro. I suspect that Hackett feels a> a mentor/student relationship with Shepard and b> feels that Shepard staying out in the field is a smarter move than Shepard arrested in a clandestine op and interrogated/debriefed for six to eight months.

Sort of an extension of the "privateer" program Jacob talks about after getting off Lazarus Station.

[Casuist]

jbblue05 wrote...

1)Anderson is not as high ranking in the Alliance ias you think  he's just a rear admiral
2)TSB may or may not have infiltrated the Alliance yet.  Liara just tells you TSB has top level access to the Asari, turian, and salarian governments
3)Toombs made little sense

1) Anderson is about the most decorated special forces officer in the service at the time of ME1, and one of three people involved in the decision of whom to put forward as the first human spectre. As of ME2, he is (often) the highest ranking human diplomat in the universe.
2)...and is in a position to place deep cover operatives as aide to the Fifth fleet commander. The idea that TSB doesn't have a considerable amount of knowledge about the alliance is not credible. We have direct evidence of his having considerable knowledge on Cerberus.
3) As you like. Notwithstanding what you understand or do not understand about the story, Hackett's actions w.r.t. Toombs are not consistent with the behavior of a Cerberus operative, since he was directly involved in Shepard's actions bringing to light heinous acts by that organization.

[Pro_Consul]

jbblue05 wrote...

Everybody knows Shepard is working with Cerberus. So why hasn't the Alliance make an example out of Shepard, Arresting Shepard would show the public they are loyal to the Council not an individual..

Only the Council can legally order the arrest of a Council Spectre. Since the Council never officially revoked Shep's Spectre status, there is nothing the Alliance can legally do to "show" anyone anything. Now if they want to try to snatch Shep in secret, good luck. Of course Hackett prolly wouldn't be too eager to do that, either, since it has such a huge potential to blow up if the secret is not kept. It's a really simple calculation. If Shep is truly, willingly working for Cerberus, then they can expose him and get the Council to take that last step of officially ordering his arrest. But if Shep is still loyal and only working with Cerberus out of necessity, then they now have an ear in a dangerous enemy's camp. Smarter to wait and see, taking no irrevocable action until they have better info about what is really going on there.

[Destructo-Bot]

Another point that was touched on:

Even if Shepard was successfully brought in, Anderson is going to hear about it. This is a man who risked being charged with TREASON and ENDING HIS CAREER and LIFE IN JAIL to get Shepard back off the Citadel when the Normandy was locked down. And now that he's most likely the most powerful political figure in the Systems Alliance, do you think he'll just stand by when that goes down?

So lets see:

Shepard is not going to be an easy mark to find in the first place. He's constantly on the move in the most advanced STEALTH WARSHIP ever built randomly roaming around the Terminus systems.

Shepard is not going to be an easy target to take into custody as he has some of the most advanced armor and weaponry available, along with the best team the galaxy has to offer. That would be a bloodbath.

Shepard is one of the most well-connected and politically protected individuals in the Alliance. He has the personal and unwavering support of humanity's councilor on the Citadel who has the political clout to get Shepard out of any tangle in the Alliance.

Shepard may still be protected as a SPECTRE. The council won't take one of their operatives being captured and interrogated lightly.

It is unlikely that Cerberus will simply let a 4+ billion credit operative go, TIM will likely respond in any way necessary to get Shepard freed.

These aren't the kinds of things you want coming back onto your head.

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 16 février 2011 - 09:19 .

[Moiaussi]

Besides, what is all this garbage about why the Alliance doesn't bring him in? He was on the bloody citadel meeting with the Council, and *they* didn't arrest him.



Other than that meeting, how does anyone suggesting this propose bringing in someone who is operating out of a fast stealth frigate, in territory considered hostile not just because of Geth and Collectors, but for more mundane political reasons too?

[Fiery Phoenix]

Moiaussi wrote...

Besides, what is all this garbage about why the Alliance doesn't bring him in? He was on the bloody citadel meeting with the Council, and *they* didn't arrest him.

Other than that meeting, how does anyone suggesting this propose bringing in someone who is operating out of a fast stealth frigate, in territory considered hostile not just because of Geth and Collectors, but for more mundane political reasons too?

It's a complicated idea, with various variables scattered throughout. It leaves me thinking that Hackett may have some sort of long-term plan for Shepard, whatever that may be.

[Arijharn]

Casuist wrote...

While it's possible Hackett has Cerberus ties, there is no real evidence to show that is the case. Considering his actions/comments on Cerberus-related missions in ME1 and the lack of incriminating evidence uncovered in the shadow broker files, it is far more likely that he is NOT Cerberus and is simply what he appears to be (and he has ample reasons others have pointed out why to deny the abduction/interrogation request).

Oh I agree, there is no evidence that lies around and that's a good thing. Makes it easier (and more fun) to question Hackett's motives.

I do remember though that Hackett calls them 'Alliance Scientists' when talking about the missing science teams that Toombs is out killin' and this is after we've found out that at Cerberus used to be a Black Ops group. That doesn't really prove anything of course (it can go either way), but you'd think that as a ranking official in the Systems Alliance, he would give the order (as part of due process) for Major whats-his-face to question/interrogate Shephard, because Shephard is now known to collude with 'terrorists.' It's not personal, it's the proper discharge of his duties and responsibilities.

That 'request denied' thing sounds to me as just a perk of his seniority, but it also seems to me that he's intentionally not prosecuting it because of the Cerberus links (also consider that the Alliance has been remarkably unable to exorcise themselves of the Cerberus taint, which implies high level backing in and of itself -- and is precisely the reason why eventually Anderson felt he couldn't trust the Alliance to police itself).

Nothing concrete, but I think it's still pretty strong circumstancial evidence.

[AkiKishi]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

It's a complicated idea, with various variables scattered throughout. It leaves me thinking that Hackett may have some sort of long-term plan for Shepard, whatever that may be.

I hope he gets a bigger part in ME3 which he should because fleet actions are going to be more of a focus I think.

I don't really buy the Cerberus links because it would make more sense in that case to have the Marines go in heavy handed and destroy the evidence. Rather than Shepard who is more like a scalple than a sledgehammer.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 16 février 2011 - 10:12 .

[Phaedon]

Pwener2313 wrote...

Hackett is with Cerberus obviously. Anderson seems to be too.

Obviously.
The fact that both of these Alliance officers ordered operations against Cerberus makes perfect sense.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 février 2011 - 10:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

Hackett is with Cerberus obviously. Anderson seems to be too.

Obviously.
The fact that both of these Alliance officers ordered operations against Cerberus makes perfect sense.

Acceptable casualties to ensure the continued unmarred trust of such highly placed agents.

[Rivercurse]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

Hackett is with Cerberus obviously. Anderson seems to be too.

Obviously.
The fact that both of these Alliance officers ordered operations against Cerberus makes perfect sense.

Acceptable casualties to ensure the continued unmarred trust of such highly placed agents.

Acceptable casualties?  The Illusive man would have died if Kai Leng was 5 seconds later in coming around the corner....

[Zulu_DFA]

Casuist wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

If Cerberus and the Alliance were really enemies, the Alliance would have took steps to apprehend Shepard.

If Cerberus and the Alliance were really affiliated at a high level.

1) Anderson would have known about it.

Why would he? Clearly he isn't "whatever it takes" kind of guy, so he wouldn't need to know about the "darker" side the Alliance has to it.

Casuist wrote...

2) The Shadow Broker probably would have known about it.

It looks like he was always just one step away from knowing it.

Casuist wrote...

3) Hackett's actions concerning the Toombs mission make little sense.

Which part of them? Indicating that the Alliance scientists are targetted because they worked on a "classified project" on Akuze coinciding with the Thresher Maw attack? Or his promise to put Dr. Wayne on trial (if you save him), which is strangely not on the news in ME2 (if you kill Toombs)?

[Zulu_DFA]

Rivercurse wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

Hackett is with Cerberus obviously. Anderson seems to be too.

Obviously.
The fact that both of these Alliance officers ordered operations against Cerberus makes perfect sense.

Acceptable casualties to ensure the continued unmarred trust of such highly placed agents.

Acceptable casualties?  The Illusive man would have died if Kai Leng was 5 seconds later in coming around the corner....

Assertion that Anderson is with Cerberus is definitely false. It stems from that Shadow Broker's vid-piece, but all that vid piece really means is that TIM is spreading his "rumors" about Shepard, in preparation for the "Operation High Noon" on Horizon.

Assertion that Hackett ordered operations against Cerberus is simply a "lolwhut?"

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 16 février 2011 - 01:23 .

[Chuvvy]

Hackett's a true bro.

[wolfsite]

Or it could be as simple as Hackett trusts Shepard in dealing with the Reapers.  Sometimes simple is best