220 réponses à ce sujet

[GreenDragon37]

Pwener2313 wrote...

No, Im not, but I do believe in facts....

Oh, well Cerberus isn't evil. They saved the council in Mass Effect: Galaxy (although my council in human exclusive so....). Even then, Ash is racist (hated her for it and let her die) and Cerberus saved the human race.

I really don't understand the hate everyone has for Cerberus. So they wiped out a few colonies in ME1, so what? They saved the human race from extinction, that seriously counts for nothing? Thay found a way to bring people back from the dead. They made the first ever "good" AI in our extinction cycle. They reproduced a better Normandy and even better.... they believe the Reapers exist and are willing to fight them, and that is *all* of them if the doc's conversation with Shepard in Overlord is any indication.

We owe Cerberus not just Shepard's life, but that of every human and probably the whole galaxy if they hadn't brought Shepard back. People really want to crawl back to the idiotic council? or the traitorous Alliance after abandoning everything Shepard said and did? What is wrong with everyone? Why not stay with a group that believes you, appreciates you and funds you? Cerberus may not be as black as white as the Alliance or the council, but that's the beauty of it. They are in the middle, and that's where they should be. Isn't Batman (yes, Batman) in that line for everyone else in Gotham when he started out? Cerberus may no be a bunch of saints, but they at least tried, unlike the council who dismissed everything, and the Allaince who abused of Shepard's specter status to benefit themselves.

Give Cerberus a chance. I hated them in ME1, but I understood what was needed to be done. Sometimes, the road that looks like the wrong path, is actually the right one.

Sorry, I believe in the long-term effects, and Cerberus getting Reaper tech... that ain't gonna fly. Cerberus is "evil", they performed horrible acts. In ME 2, they are showing you what you want to see. Sure, they helped... once. And only because they care about themselves, not the galaxy. To Cerberus, the rest of the galaxy can burn in hell so long as Humanity remains on top. They don't care about the galaxy, it's all about power. I don't espect xenophobes and I sure as hell don't repect terrorist xenophobes with the intent on putting everyone under the jackboot of Humanity.

People always tout this, "Human dominance is a good thing." But if you look at our own past, Cerberus is no different than the Nation Socialist German Worker's Party. Hiding bull behind a smile. I gave them a chance, and I still don't trust them. The Alliance is flawed, but I'd rather take the Alliance over Cerberus. They aren't in the "miidle". We know what their goals are. And I won't allow someone like that to be the "High Lords" of the Galaxy.
Like I said, Space ****s.

[Pwener2313]

You know what the Alliance's true goals? No, you don't.

[GreenDragon37]

Pwener2313 wrote...

You know what the Alliance's true goals? No, you don't.

Alliance: To protect Earth and all her colonies and be the face of Humanity.

Cerberus: Pretty much the same, except it adds in a Human Dictatorship run by Cerberus over the entire galaxy and having a largely Anti-Alien doctrine with loads of propoganda. "Aliens exist to serve man, not rule him." Essentially, a "Space Chantry"(Dragon Age) without a religious base.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 20 mars 2011 - 07:15 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Cerberus isn't evil, insane, or anti-alien. Yes, they can be ruthless in pursuit of their objects, and yes aren't an "official" organization. Yet that is their strength. They aren't held back by corrupt politicians and bureaucracy. They're doing what needs to be done to defeat the reapers and forge a stronger humanity.

[GreenDragon37]

ReconTeam wrote...

Cerberus isn't evil, insane, or anti-alien. Yes, they can be ruthless in pursuit of their objects, and yes aren't an "official" organization. Yet that is their strength. They aren't held back by corrupt politicians and bureaucracy. They're doing what needs to be done to defeat the reapers and forge a stronger humanity.

They've proven to be pretty anti-Alien. That's one of their bases. And they have done heinous and insane acts. Also, Al-Queda isn't an official organization run by politican and beuracracy. I guess that makes them the good guys?

[LordAnguis]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

You know what the Alliance's true goals? No, you don't.

Alliance: To protect Earth and all her colonies and be the face of Humanity.

Cerberus: Pretty much the same, except it adds in a Human Dictatorship run by Cerberus over the entire galaxy and having a largely Anti-Alien doctrine with loads of propoganda. "Aliens exist to serve man, not rule him." Essentially, a "Space Chantry"(Dragon Age).

No offense intended, GreenDragon37, but are you thinking clearly about the Alliance/Cerberus? Did you pay attention to the speeches by both Udina and Anderson if you kill the Council? Have you paid attention to the Alliance attitude towards aliens in general? Did you look at the C-Sec where Asari are Geth spies? The majority of the Alliance is made up of people who are 'anti-alien' and are enjoying their place as the Citadel's protectors due to Sovereign's decimation of the Citadel Fleet, whichever scenario played out in regards to the Destiny Ascension.
 TIM is up-front about his beliefs and doesn't apologize for it. As Miranda says, he'll be the first to admit he's no saint. But if you honestly think Anderson or Udina are 'saints', than I've gotta laugh. The Alliance is Earth's face in the galaxy, and let's face it: most people who are human that were around during the Shanxi incident don't have any wish to make nice with aliens. As it is, the only human we know of, until we read Pressly's report, that was open to aliens was Alenko, who would've had a reason to dislike Turians, at the least.
 Another thing to notice: The Nomandy crew disbands, and the Alliance is very happy about that. Joker himself says the Alliance brass had probably not been too happy with the aliens in Shepard's crew. This is apparent in the conversation you have with Rear-Admiral Mikhailovich.
 I like the Alliance and Cerberus; I see both as having something good. But the fact remains that in both games, Cerberus is a place of action, whether illegal or not. The Alliance is mired in politics one way or another, and if you didn't save the Council, the Alliance is on even more of a power trip. If you did, they're still on a power trip with their status as the majority of C-Sec and guarding the Citadel.

[Inquisitor Recon]

GreenDragon37 wrote...
They've proven to be pretty anti-Alien. That's one of their bases. And they have done heinous and insane acts. Also, Al-Queda isn't an official organization run by politican and beuracracy. I guess that makes them the good guys?

How have they proven to be anti-alien? Those "insane" acts were largely the result of incompetence among certain individuals who are now dead. They simply aren't comparable to the N***s, Al-Qaeda or any other group of scumbags.

[LordAnguis]

ReconTeam wrote...

Cerberus isn't evil, insane, or anti-alien. Yes, they can be ruthless in pursuit of their objects, and yes aren't an "official" organization. Yet that is their strength. They aren't held back by corrupt politicians and bureaucracy. They're doing what needs to be done to defeat the reapers and forge a stronger humanity.

Applause. Just because something isn't 'official' doesn't make it evil. All it means is that red tape and other BS can't hold it down. Yes, that means there's less of a 'moral guidance'. But if you play your Shepard morally, the Lazarus Team has to toe the line. This is a point that apparently, some people on here can't get. Neither Cerberus nor the ALliance is all good or all evil. They both have their flaws and their strengths.
 I've already given most of my argument in a response to GreenDragon, just as you did. Lovely individual, he is. I wonder if he knows Anderson is similar in nature to Cerberus in the 'apparent' ideal that Cerberus 'supposedly' has. Do they have a 'distaste' for aliens? Hmm. Well, my personal belief is that Cerberus's manifesto made it plain: a 'Cerberus' to guard the gates of Earth against any alien threat. Does that mean they will strike out at aliens? No. Does that mean they will react when aliens attack Earth? YES.
 Sorrry. Guess I didn't get all of my argument out. I've got more brewing, I'm sure, but I have my own sci-fi story to write, not one that's already taken. I've got to work on it while I still have some brains. Unless, of course, GreenDragon has already responded. Than I may have to respond.

[LordAnguis]

ReconTeam wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...
They've proven to be pretty anti-Alien. That's one of their bases. And they have done heinous and insane acts. Also, Al-Queda isn't an official organization run by politican and beuracracy. I guess that makes them the good guys?

How have they proven to be anti-alien? Those "insane" acts were largely the result of incompetence among certain individuals who are now dead. They simply aren't comparable to the N***s, Al-Qaeda or any other group of scumbags.

He's referring, I think, to the 'manifesto' available in the Codex in ME2 and the experiments on Rachni, Thorian Creepers, etc. in ME1. I don't count Thorian Creepers or Husks as actual alien beings. Creatures, yes. The Rachni were the clones which the QUEEN RACHNI wanted destroyed. In essence, his argument is useless. The Alliance paints Cerberus as evil and anti-alien due to the manifesto and their role in Kahoku's death. Personally, I wonder why Kahoku was so worried about a single team of marines when he's an ADMIRAL.

[GreenDragon37]

LordAnguis wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

You know what the Alliance's true goals? No, you don't.

Alliance: To protect Earth and all her colonies and be the face of Humanity.

Cerberus: Pretty much the same, except it adds in a Human Dictatorship run by Cerberus over the entire galaxy and having a largely Anti-Alien doctrine with loads of propoganda. "Aliens exist to serve man, not rule him." Essentially, a "Space Chantry"(Dragon Age).

No offense intended, GreenDragon37, but are you thinking clearly about the Alliance/Cerberus? Did you pay attention to the speeches by both Udina and Anderson if you kill the Council? Have you paid attention to the Alliance attitude towards aliens in general? Did you look at the C-Sec where Asari are Geth spies? The majority of the Alliance is made up of people who are 'anti-alien' and are enjoying their place as the Citadel's protectors due to Sovereign's decimation of the Citadel Fleet, whichever scenario played out in regards to the Destiny Ascension.
 TIM is up-front about his beliefs and doesn't apologize for it. As Miranda says, he'll be the first to admit he's no saint. But if you honestly think Anderson or Udina are 'saints', than I've gotta laugh. The Alliance is Earth's face in the galaxy, and let's face it: most people who are human that were around during the Shanxi incident don't have any wish to make nice with aliens. As it is, the only human we know of, until we read Pressly's report, that was open to aliens was Alenko, who would've had a reason to dislike Turians, at the least.
 Another thing to notice: The Nomandy crew disbands, and the Alliance is very happy about that. Joker himself says the Alliance brass had probably not been too happy with the aliens in Shepard's crew. This is apparent in the conversation you have with Rear-Admiral Mikhailovich.
 I like the Alliance and Cerberus; I see both as having something good. But the fact remains that in both games, Cerberus is a place of action, whether illegal or not. The Alliance is mired in politics one way or another, and if you didn't save the Council, the Alliance is on even more of a power trip. If you did, they're still on a power trip with their status as the majority of C-Sec and guarding the Citadel.

Yeah, I'm thinking clearly. Of course Anderson/Udina are going to give that speech if you killed the Council. You killed the Council! They are influenced by your actions, whatever you do. Heck, I let the council live and Anderson went along with it just fine... until ME2 when they side-line him (but that doesn't really change under any Council, Human or Alien). And I don't hate TIM for being un-apolegitic about his beliefs, it makes him a good character. However, don't expect me to like what he does, or agree completely with his beliefs. Also, have met everyone in the Alliance? Are all of them Alien-Haters? You have a lot of Humans on the Citadel who either like Aliens or appear to be pretty neutral. And the hate over the Turians is to be expected. They were the first species we met and we went to war. Thank goodness the Asari and the Salarians pulled the leash on the Turians.

And again, it's to be expected. The Alliance is a political organization as well as a military one. They jump on an oppurtunity, it's Human... err, whatever, nature. It's what we do. We get  a little power, and we go on a power trip. You think Cerberus would be different? Yeah, I hate what the Alliance did, but we do know that not everyone in the Alliance agrees with the Council and the Alliance higer-ups' views on the Reapers. Heck, even some of the higher-ups don't agree with the other higher ups. The Council and a lot of the Alliance wanna' act like nothing's wrong. Again, it's our nature.

Yeah, Cerberus gets stuff done. But they perform heinous acts and do have an overall Pro-Human, Anti-Alien agenda. And I don't agree with it. Just because they help once you doesn't make them "good". Everyone is out for their own ambitions, Cerberus is just one of those groups.

[GreenDragon37]

ReconTeam wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...
They've proven to be pretty anti-Alien. That's one of their bases. And they have done heinous and insane acts. Also, Al-Queda isn't an official organization run by politican and beuracracy. I guess that makes them the good guys?

How have they proven to be anti-alien? Those "insane" acts were largely the result of incompetence among certain individuals who are now dead. They simply aren't comparable to the N***s, Al-Qaeda or any other group of scumbags.

Did you ever read the Manifesto? Did you ever play Haedes' Dog and Cerberus? Did you ever play Jack's loyalty mission, or Overlord? Pretty insane, heinous acts right there.

[LordAnguis]

GreenDragon, good points. I think its easy to think that they'd react either way due to Anderson/Udina in ME2. That, plus some of the info we can find via the net and wiki, suggest they'd be 'pro-human' anyways, and I mean in the kind that would be somewhat oppressive to non-humans.
In regards to your comments to ReconTeam regarding the Hades' Dog and other Cerberus missions in ME1 and Jack's Loyalty Mission: The Teltin Facility's own holorecordings suggest they went rogue. As for the ME1 incidents: The Rachni Queen herself was against her offspring due to how they'd been 'changed'. She wanted Shepard to kill them, and we did before and after Noveria. In regards to the 'Husks', I'll admit that's one that can't be considered as anything but an actual incident. The Creepers, on the other hand, was again something that got out of hand. But one thing you should note is that the Thorian Creepers came about originally thanks to ExoGenni, a corporation run from Earth.
Overlord is one that can't be explained. But one thing to point out: you get to choose whether to let it continue. So that is another morality choice for Shepard.
In the end, both groups have their faults and strengths. My Soldier Shepard is a Paragon who will return to Alliance service since he destroyed the Collector base. My Adept Shepard is going to be one who joins Cerberus, but doesn't believe in their 'anti-alien' rhetoric. That, or he'll attempt to bring Cerberus under his charge rather than TIM's. (I personally hope that's possible. That way, you get a major source of funding and research, you can eliminate the threat to the Council and Alliance, and you get a lot more resources).
Shepard's a man of action, and it's true the Alliance needs more. You're also right that the Alliance shouldn't share information over any line of communication that Cerberus can tap. Same as the Council. That said, if by the end of arrival or Mid ME3 the Council and Alliance are still naysayers, I'm gonna be laughing at pro-Council/Alliance posters.
Anyways, it's almost 2 .am. where I am, and if I keep typing I'll end up saying something nasty that I don't mean to say, especially since I happen to like keeping the peace. Pwener, I honestly think that trying to argue Cerberus's 'rightness' is not something to do, especially with die-hard Alliance warriors, which GreenDragon clearly is. Also, note to Pro-Alliance/Council individuals: die hard Cerberus fans might think Cerberus is the best. If you think the Alliance is better, than good. But if the Alliance is better, doesn't the Alliance tolerate the freedom of speech? Also, Cerberus, acccording to Kahoku, was a former Alliance Black Ops group. So you tell me, why are they suddenly terrorists? Is it because they were willing to cut corners? I do believe many present day government agencies in various countries are also willing to cut corners, yet they're not considered such.
Cerberus only gained it's independent funding after 'going rogue'. So the question is, why did they? Do you think TIM offered them money and that's how they came to be? Or do you think they were always there?
if your going to argue Cerberus versus Alliance, pay attention to everything said in-game both in ME1 and 2.

[GreenDragon37]

LordAnguis wrote...

GreenDragon, good points. I think its easy to think that they'd react either way due to Anderson/Udina in ME2. That, plus some of the info we can find via the net and wiki, suggest they'd be 'pro-human' anyways, and I mean in the kind that would be somewhat oppressive to non-humans.
In regards to your comments to ReconTeam regarding the Hades' Dog and other Cerberus missions in ME1 and Jack's Loyalty Mission: The Teltin Facility's own holorecordings suggest they went rogue. As for the ME1 incidents: The Rachni Queen herself was against her offspring due to how they'd been 'changed'. She wanted Shepard to kill them, and we did before and after Noveria. In regards to the 'Husks', I'll admit that's one that can't be considered as anything but an actual incident. The Creepers, on the other hand, was again something that got out of hand. But one thing you should note is that the Thorian Creepers came about originally thanks to ExoGenni, a corporation run from Earth.
Overlord is one that can't be explained. But one thing to point out: you get to choose whether to let it continue. So that is another morality choice for Shepard.
In the end, both groups have their faults and strengths. My Soldier Shepard is a Paragon who will return to Alliance service since he destroyed the Collector base. My Adept Shepard is going to be one who joins Cerberus, but doesn't believe in their 'anti-alien' rhetoric. That, or he'll attempt to bring Cerberus under his charge rather than TIM's. (I personally hope that's possible. That way, you get a major source of funding and research, you can eliminate the threat to the Council and Alliance, and you get a lot more resources).
Shepard's a man of action, and it's true the Alliance needs more. You're also right that the Alliance shouldn't share information over any line of communication that Cerberus can tap. Same as the Council. That said, if by the end of arrival or Mid ME3 the Council and Alliance are still naysayers, I'm gonna be laughing at pro-Council/Alliance posters.
Anyways, it's almost 2 .am. where I am, and if I keep typing I'll end up saying something nasty that I don't mean to say, especially since I happen to like keeping the peace. Pwener, I honestly think that trying to argue Cerberus's 'rightness' is not something to do, especially with die-hard Alliance warriors, which GreenDragon clearly is. Also, note to Pro-Alliance/Council individuals: die hard Cerberus fans might think Cerberus is the best. If you think the Alliance is better, than good. But if the Alliance is better, doesn't the Alliance tolerate the freedom of speech? Also, Cerberus, acccording to Kahoku, was a former Alliance Black Ops group. So you tell me, why are they suddenly terrorists? Is it because they were willing to cut corners? I do believe many present day government agencies in various countries are also willing to cut corners, yet they're not considered such.
Cerberus only gained it's independent funding after 'going rogue'. So the question is, why did they? Do you think TIM offered them money and that's how they came to be? Or do you think they were always there?
if your going to argue Cerberus versus Alliance, pay attention to everything said in-game both in ME1 and 2.

Crap, it's 3a.m. where I am, so I'll tackle this tomorrow.

[Max Knight]

The only way i am joining the aliance in ME3 is if i get orders from the ONLY person in the entire Aliance i respect Admiral Steven Hackett. Othervise Aliance and failberus(with exeption of shep. what Operation or project did not blew up in theis faces) can go a kiss my ass.

[Barquiel]

I would have no problem working with the alliance...as long as Shep isn't forced to join Cerberus again.

But I hope there'll be a choice (I prefer Liara and the council).

[Asheer_Khan]

Seriously... either Arrival will turn absolutely up side down entire ME 2 plot by revealing that Alliance/Council wasn't so idle during all this time as timmy want to made Shep believe... or BW will only go deeper in another idiotic plot ignoring anti-failberus C-Base outcome...

[DPSSOC]

GreenDragon37 wrote...
Sorry, I believe in the long-term effects, and Cerberus getting Reaper tech... that ain't gonna fly. Cerberus is "evil", they performed horrible acts.

 
And the Turians, Asari, and Salarians have never done anything horrible, and even if they did it was certainly an accident, mistake, or collosal screw up and they'd certainly never stand behind it or consider it justified.  Nope, never, not once.

GreenDragon37 wrote...
In ME 2, they are showing you what you want to see. Sure, they helped... once. And only because they care about themselves, not the galaxy.

 
And this is different from any other organization/individual how exactly?  Nobody does anything if they don't get something out of it themselves.  The Council didn't send you to stop Saren because they wanted to help humanity they did it to help themselves.

GreenDragon37 wrote...
To Cerberus, the rest of the galaxy can burn in hell so long as Humanity remains on top. They don't care about the galaxy, it's all about power. I don't espect xenophobes and I sure as hell don't repect terrorist xenophobes with the intent on putting everyone under the jackboot of Humanity.

 
But alien tyrants intent on putting everyone under their jackboot is perfectly fine.

GreenDragon37 wrote...
People always tout this, "Human dominance is a good thing."

 
Human dominance is a good thing.  Right now the dominant powers in the galaxy are the big 3 (Asari, Turian, Salarian) and that's good for them.  There is always going to be a dominant power, it's the nature of things, and it is always, always, always better to be the dominant power.  Human dominance does not necessarily mean alien subjugation or oppression it means humanity is the biggest dog in the yard and as such is better able to get what they want/need.  Yes human dominance could lead to oppression, but so could the current set up.  Any time someone has control and power you risk them misusing it; so is it not better to risk becoming the oppressor than the oppressed?

Now humanity's present options are to try and sweet talk their way into the big 3 (making it 4 I suppose), and given they're described as kind of an old boys club that seems to have a snowball's chance in hell, or through technological advancement and aggressive expansion muscle our way in to a point where they have no choice to accept us as a peer.

[Kingthlayer]

Rejoining the Alliance/Council would be completely pointless. My Shepard is already no longer a Spectre(both Shepards in fact, even the one who leans more to Paragon decisions) If it wasn't for Cerberus their would be no Shepard, breaking off from the one guy who cared enough about you to save your life is just a stupid decision. How are you going to fight the Reapers without a ship lol.

[Labrev]

He wasn't with the Alliance in ME1. He did them some favors (UNC missions), but really he was with the Council after becoming a Spectre.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nothing about joining the Spectres entailed leaving the Alliance. There was never any renouncing of all prior oaths.

[Maestro975]

They won't. The Alliance can't send their people to rescue Dr. Kenson without starting a war with the batarians. That's why Hackett turns to Shepard.

As of ME: Retribution, Shepard is "off the grid, doing God knows what."

[Asheer_Khan]

Actually all major characters in ME1 (Anderson, Hacket and mr "this is an outrage" gave player pretty good hints that Shepard are no longer abide to Alliance chain of command (that's why you can initially deny Mikhailowitch access to Normandy following Spectre status).

Anderson asked for directions where to start search for Saren says something like "...It's your decision, you are Spectre and no longer answer to us..." so in other words Spectre status made Shepard almost independent from both groups until Council decide otherwise (aka remove Spectre status)... and by the way missions from Hacket was more or less but "plot holes" necessary to extend overall game content over main missions since someone was necessary as "quest giver".

In matter of fact if Shepard would be reinstated as Spectre at the beginning of ME 2 (and fact that there was no "repercussions" for Shepard after Thane's L-mission from the Council indicated that thier speech about validating Shepard status only to Terminus Systems (over which Council don't have any control anyway) was PR mambo jumbo possibly with intentions to fool anyone who would try to spy entire conversation) then such fact will put entire "rejoin Alliance" stuff off table anyway.
Question is if C-base outcomes will in any way influenced this DLC.

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 20 mars 2011 - 04:16 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Shepard is legally unaccountable, by edict of the Council, but that's distinct from not being a part of the Alliance. Shepard is also legally unaccountable to the Council's own laws as well.

Spectres don't answer to anyone else, at least not as long as the Council approves of them (making it dependent on the Council's continued grace), but it doesn't change what they're a member of. That's why everyone sort of pointed out that Shepard's actions in ME1 were treason, as opposed to piracy: Shepard was still part of the Alliance, and the Council wasn't going to cover Shepard's ass from the Alliance if the Alliance caught up.


Simply because the Council didn't retaliate against Shepard immediately after the actions on the Citadels doesn't mean they can't, won't, or don't reserve the right to. Delays in retribution and accountability occur quite frequently: the lack of immediate enforcement capability (Baily wasn't going to help them), cost-benefit, or just not deeming it a significant enough violation. There's no implicit concession that Shepard can do whatever he wants wherever he wants.

[Leonia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nothing about joining the Spectres entailed leaving the Alliance. There was never any renouncing of all prior oaths.

So when Anderson and everyone says "You don't answer to us any more" he meant Shepard was still an Alliance soldier? When you leave the Citadel for the first time, Udina reminds Shepard that while he/she doesn't answer to the Alliance any more they are still responsible for being the face of humanity in whatever they choose to do. There are many references to Shepard no longer having to answer to Alliance command (because as a Spectre, Shepard isn't a member of the actual Alliance any more..).

[Almostfaceman]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Simply because the Council didn't retaliate against Shepard immediately after the actions on the Citadels doesn't mean they can't, won't, or don't reserve the right to. Delays in retribution and accountability occur quite frequently: the lack of immediate enforcement capability (Baily wasn't going to help them), cost-benefit, or just not deeming it a significant enough violation. There's no implicit concession that Shepard can do whatever he wants wherever he wants.

Mass Effect doesn't go into the actual legalese between the Council and Spectre's, so your opinion is pure speculation.  Let me add some of my own speculation in saying that if the Council can choose to prosecute a Spectre for past crimes committed as a Spectre then no one will become a Spectre.  Before any logical person agree's to Spectre status, they're going to want guarantee's that legal immunity for actions is actual legal immunity and not something the Council can take away retroactively.