132 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Casuist wrote...

A continuing link between Cerberus and the alliance would manifest in multiple personnel shifts/communications. All it takes is one to make the link.

Perhaps that's why Anderson's actions in Retribution caused a political sh*tstorm?

[Casuist]

... which is an outstanding segue into the point that Grayson clearly had opportunity to reveal semi-official links as well, and did not. The simplest explanation in Retribution is the one given- cErberus agents and sympathizers are understandably involved in the Alliance. There is no evidence you have yet provided for such a link.



...and, on topic of the thread, there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations for his denial of the interrogation.

[Zulu_DFA]

Casuist wrote...

...and, on topic of the thread, there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations for his denial of the interrogation.

... and "he just trusts Shepard so much" is not one on them.

[Casuist]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Casuist wrote...

...and, on topic of the thread, there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations for his denial of the interrogation.

... and "he just trusts Shepard so much" is not one on them.

I'm not particularly sure why you think I should take credit for an argument I haven't made?

-Hackett knows bringing in Shepard, even if possible, may cause more problems than it solves, even without bringing the reapers into it.

-He's been in contact with Liara, and therefore has no reason to question either the circumstances/authenticity of shepard's death or his/her involvement with Cerberus. 

-He's in a good position to be aware of the threat, having fought against Sovereign... and even were he to be skeptical concerning the Reaper story there's more to lose from Shepard being right than to gain by Shepard being wrong... and, yes, "trust" enters into this subject.

-He doesn't really have authority to bring in a spectre on any official basis.

[Zulu_DFA]

Casuist wrote...

"trust" enters into this subject.

Doesn't Cerberus' being declared an "avowed enemy" enter the subject?

[Casuist]

Given point #2, that Hackett is aware of the nature of Shepard's involvement with Cerberus being circumstantial - no, it doesn't.

[Zulu_DFA]

Casuist wrote...

Given point #2, that Hackett is aware of the nature of Shepard's involvement with Cerberus being circumstantial - no, it doesn't.

Yeah, rrrrright... "circumstantial involvement with the terrorists"... There can't be nothing wrong to it...

[Casuist]

...might I repeat, once again, that following any contact between Shepard and Anderson or Shepard and virmiresurvivor, combined with the known contact between Liara and Hackett, that Hackett knows EXACTLY why Shepard is with Cerberus.



... not to mention, anyone paying much attention by midgame is going to be aware of the fact that Shepard is intervening against the colony disappearances. Since the Allliance is unable/unwilling to deal with the matter itself, there's ample reason to leave Shepard in place to do his/her thing for the sake of the colonists.

[Arijharn]

Pwener2313 wrote...

If Hackett had buried the Toombs story then he would have become a target and suspect. Because the project was over, he send Shepard to clean up the mess.

If you decide to kill Toombs (because he didn't lower his weapon... at least that was my rationale the one time where I executed him) then Hackett does pretty much bury it as far as I can tell. He remarks that it's a 'shame that no one knows what sparked Toombs off' but he doesn't particularly sound enthusiastic about it. For him; the case is closed... but you also don't find out about the Cerberus connection.

[Arijharn]

Casuist wrote...
In point of fact, Cerberus required Liara's intervention to make the final link.

I don't think 'required' is the right word, more like favour making, since at that point it seems like Cerberus knew well enough about Liara's ill-intentions regards the Shadow Broker, and probably considered: "Well, she wants him dead just as much as we do... lets throw her a bone and save some our own resources for something else."

Cerberus did independently find out all the data beforehand, although saying that they also couldn't pinpoint his location is a bit ridiculous, especially if they managed to get as 'far' as they did.

Casuist wrote...
In another point of fact... your assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. A continuing link between Cerberus and the alliance would manifest in multiple personnel shifts/communications. All it takes is one to make the link. And it is, after all, the Shadow Broker's information in ME1 that informs us that Cerberus' military wing ever had any connection at all to the alliance (which is pretty blatant evidence that he'd infiltrated to a substantial extent and was aware of events related to that connection being severed).

And yet, no one in C-Sec found out who Fade was.

Casuist wrote...
What Cerberus knew or did not know does not inform what the Shadow Broker knew.

True, but we can see what the facts were. In the end, Cerberus out-maneouvred the Shadow Broker, indirectly saw to his (it's?) death and potentially even knows not just who the Shadow Broker is (EDI monitoring the area? Team mate? Cerberus ship crew, Illusive man 'monitoring devices' on board) but has a Shadow Broker who might even be at least somewhat sympathetic to Cerberus... after all, Liara worked seemingly happily enough for them in the past.

[jkflipflopDAO]

I think it's the simple answer fits best here.



Hackett was at the battle of the citadel calling the shots for the human fleet. He saw Sovereign decimating the Arcturus fleets first hand. He knows Shep is right, and more of these things are coming. Humanity needs it's super-hero if we're going to stand a chance.



Shep pulls Hackett's butt out of the fire A LOT during the first game. He sounds genuinely surprised that you don't kill a single crazed biotic in that hostage situation. He knows Shep is humanity's superman.

[Zulu_DFA]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

I think it's the simple answer fits best here.

Oh, look, another dude chargin' wieldin' Occam's Excalibur! Let's see...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Hackett was at the battle of the citadel calling the shots for the human fleet. He saw Sovereign decimating the Arcturus fleets first hand. He knows Shep is right, and more of these things are coming. Humanity needs it's super-hero if we're going to stand a chance.

Shep pulls Hackett's butt out of the fire A LOT during the first game. He sounds genuinely surprised that you don't kill a single crazed biotic in that hostage situation. He knows Shep is humanity's superman.

That simplest answer? Lol. At least three baseless assumptions here, total lack of understanding of how the military works, plus disregard of the fact that much of Hackett-Shepard interaction in ME1 was optional, and therefore shouldn't be taken into account.

Now, behold the real simplest answer to why Hackett denied that request:

HE IS IN DENIAL!!!

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Casuist wrote...

"trust" enters into this subject.

Doesn't Cerberus' being declared an "avowed enemy" enter the subject?

Which noone has actually formally debriefed Shepard on, and despite no evidence linking Shepard personally to any actual acts of terrorism or treason other than possibly working with Cerberus?

If a trusted US agent with a history of working against the KGB, with very good reason from the nature of those operations to consider the KGB 'enemy' suddenly is spotted working with a KGB agent but there is strong information that they are working against a common enemy, the agent would likely be questioned and/or put on a 'watched' list, but it would be pure incompetency to outright charge them with treason, or even to make such an accusation.

It would be like arresting and charging any undercover agent simply because they are working with the enemy. And it isn't like Shep doesn't leave an info trail. He is still wandering about saying OMG, REAPERS! to anyone silly enough to listen for 5 minutes.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

If a trusted US agent with a history of working against the KGB,

Shepard is not a spy, he is a soldier.

It more looks like this:

A Delta Force officer claims that 9/11 attacks were a part of aliens' plan to invade Earth, then is sent to Iraq, where he is promply reported killed in action. Two years later he suddenly resurfaces in Somalia and is accompanied by suspected Al Qaida operatives.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 17 février 2011 - 11:56 .

[jkflipflopDAO]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

I think it's the simple answer fits best here.

Oh, look, another dude chargin' wieldin' Occam's Excalibur! Let's see...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Hackett was at the battle of the citadel calling the shots for the human fleet. He saw Sovereign decimating the Arcturus fleets first hand. He knows Shep is right, and more of these things are coming. Humanity needs it's super-hero if we're going to stand a chance.

Shep pulls Hackett's butt out of the fire A LOT during the first game. He sounds genuinely surprised that you don't kill a single crazed biotic in that hostage situation. He knows Shep is humanity's superman.

That simplest answer? Lol. At least three baseless assumptions here, total lack of understanding of how the military works, plus disregard of the fact that much of Hackett-Shepard interaction in ME1 was optional, and therefore shouldn't be taken into account.

Now, behold the real simplest answer to why Hackett denied that request:

HE IS IN DENIAL!!!

Soldiers to Hackett is like tools to a mechanic.  They're there to get the job done - but you have to send in the right tool for the job. Suppose you had a tool in your toolbox that could fix anything. Even jobs you couldn't do before because your tools would always break. You just tell it what to do, and it happens. You'd probably take good care of a tool like that. 

[Zulu_DFA]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Soldiers to Hackett is like tools to a mechanic.  They're there to get the job done - but you have to send in the right tool for the job. Suppose you had a tool in your toolbox that could fix anything. Even jobs you couldn't do before because your tools would always break. You just tell it what to do, and it happens. You'd probably take good care of a tool like that.

That's why Hackett decided to allow "the terrorists" to have his fancy omni-tool, instead of ordering it to be brought back to him.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

If a trusted US agent with a history of working against the KGB,

Shepard is not a spy, he is a soldier.

It more looks like this:

A Delta Force officer claims that 9/11 attacks were a part of aliens' plan to invade Earth, then is sent to Iraq, where he is promply reported killed in action. Two years later he suddenly resurfaces in Somalia and is accompanied by suspected Al Qaida operatives.

He ceased being 'just a soldier' the momment he was transfered to N7, let alone appointed a Spectre. As a Spectre he is definately a field agent though, not a soldier.

And you are conveniently leaving out the part where an alien ship was not just actually involved in 911, but was defeated and the remains recovered from the ruins of the World Trade Centre.

Futhermore, although Al-qaeda didn't launch any further such attacks in the two years after 911, there had been no attempts to invade Afghanistan and shut them down either,merely to hunt for cells operating domesticly, meaning that even if the 'alien ship' really was built by Al-qeada, that there was no reason to believe they couldn't just be spending that time building a whole fleet.

Oh, and when the operative resurfaces working with the KGB, entire US-friendly foreign cities are depopulating outright leaving no trace of inhabitants.

I notice that you also conveniently changed 'KGB' to 'Al-Qaeda.' Is your new theory then that Shep isn't really a Cerberus agent, but is in actuality working for and with the Geth? (Note that the questions on Shep's loyalty come up before he recovers Legion).

[Wulfram]

Hackett would presumably have been informed that there were other plans afoot to find out what is going on with Shepard.

[Aurica]

Admiral Hackett probably trust Shepard to a certain degree & believes Shepard still has value.  No reason to take Shepard out when he/she done so much for the Alliance & will possibly continue to do so

Modifié par Aurica, 17 février 2011 - 03:19 .

[Casuist]

Arijharn wrote...

Cerberus did independently find out all the data beforehand, although saying that they also couldn't pinpoint his location is a bit ridiculous, especially if they managed to get as 'far' as they did.

...except that they didn't.... and if doding so was as easy as you suggest then simply giving Shepard and Liara the information would have been more helpful. There is no reason to think that Cerberus could make the same connections as Liara on the matter (not that it's not possible in time, but assuming it based on one intercepted transmission is thin).

Casuist wrote...
And yet, no one in C-Sec found out who Fade was.

...which has more to do with c-sec's complacency than Harkin's subtlety. Not paticularly relevant, besides.

Casuist wrote...
True, but we can see what the facts were. In the end, Cerberus out-maneouvred the Shadow Broker, indirectly saw to his (it's?) death and potentially even knows not just who the Shadow Broker is (EDI monitoring the area? Team mate? Cerberus ship crew, Illusive man 'monitoring devices' on board) but has a Shadow Broker who might even be at least somewhat sympathetic to Cerberus... after all, Liara worked seemingly happily enough for them in the past.

Which again, doesn't preclude SB of being aware of Cerberus' history vis a vis the alliance. As I mentioned earlier, we have direct evidence the shadow broker IS aware of Cerberus' history with the alliance- those arguing for a continuing relationship RELY on it....

...but then, the irony and hypocrisy of these boards are a bottomless well.

Modifié par Casuist, 17 février 2011 - 04:34 .

[ArthurPenndragon]

It is possible that Hackett is trying to prevent the destruction of Alliance resources if they were to look for Shepard. It was stated in ME2 that the Alliance lost alot of ships and are streched too thin. Furthermore, Hackett knows what Shepard is capable of (all the missions that Shepard did for Hackett, stopping Saren and the geth, etc). To send resources, ships and soldiers to bring in Sheppard (one man that can bring down armies) would be a bad decision.



Just my $0.02

[gogman25]

Trust, respect, he's a spectre, he wouldn't be the easiest guy to capture either, he's surrounded by the most dangerous people in the galaxy, has an unreal ship, and he himself kicks major shcmut.

[landis963]

Hackett knows that Shepard A) is capable of taking on a large number of people, at once, with a squad of at least two people, has in fact drawn upon this ability multiple times over the course of ME1, C) probably received some intel from Anderson saying "let him/her talk to me/ the Council first, see what he has to say for him/herself." and D) probably realized, if not the greater threat of the Reapers, that Shepard averted a crushing defeat at the hands of the geth when he defeated the saren-husk and stunned Sovereign and thus would be indebted to him (exact nature of this debt would differ between playthroughs). Also, I am of the opinion that it is implied that Major Antella needed a deflation or two, given the ratio of flowery language in his letter to the harshness of Hackett's reply.

[Arijharn]

Casuist wrote...
...except that they didn't.... and if doding so was as easy as you suggest then simply giving Shepard and Liara the information would have been more helpful. There is no reason to think that Cerberus could make the same connections as Liara on the matter (not that it's not possible in time, but assuming it based on one intercepted transmission is thin).

...maybe because Cerberus had already 'given' them resources? They gave them transportation/logistical support (and Shephard the operational freedom to do as he or she willed). 

If you and I wanted the same thing to happen and such an outcome wouldn't matter on who actually enabled it, then frankly I might just let you use your resources to do it. What was Cerberus' goal? To weaken the Shadow Broker's powerbase. It doesn't matter to Cerberus how that happens just that it does... additionally the fact that chances are stupidly high that Cerberus now knows who the Shadow Broker is, and frankly that's incredibly useful information to have (and to potentially hold over someone's head -- especially the Shadow Brokers).

In the immortal words of the Librarian from Dawn of War: "Knowledge is power, guard it well."

Casuist wrote...
...which has more to do with c-sec's complacency than Harkin's subtlety. Not paticularly relevant, besides.

If you can't see (or refuse to see) the actual relevance to this, then perhaps you really are as slow as what your proclivity on using eclipses seems to suggest. Harkin is a bad egg who has been illegally co-opting into C-Sec's security network. If C-Sec is 'complacent' in removing this, then why isn't the Alliance in the form of it's most senior military officer (that we know of at least) also 'complacent' in the Cerberus connection?

Oh what am I saying, the answer really is... obvious. It's because you don't like the answer.

Seriously though, If we are to assume that Cerberus has the highest amount of penetration within the Alliance military, then it makes more sense for it to be Hackett than say one of his aides, because Hackett would be cleared to see all this as part of his duties, and so him opening top secret documents for example, wouldn't illicit the same sort of eyebrow raise as say an aide would.

Casuist wrote...
Which again, doesn't preclude SB of being aware of Cerberus' history vis a vis the alliance. As I mentioned earlier, we have direct evidence the shadow broker IS aware of Cerberus' history with the alliance- those arguing for a continuing relationship RELY on it....

...but then, the irony and hypocrisy of these boards are a bottomless well.

Has it ever occured to you that information that could say 'point-the-finger' at a continual connection between say Cerberus and the Alliance might not actually be stored anywhere? It might be a cabal of say powerbrokers who convene in person in ways that confound survelliance?

Zulu's theory isn't just Zulu's theory... many people have came to the same independant conclusions which must mean that there is circumstancial evidence that continues to lay suspicion, and lets face it... suspicion is the only thing we need.

...Of course, while irony and hypocrisy may indeed be a bottomless well on these boards, so too is narrow-mindedness.