1342 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

didymos1120 wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

I think he was mocking you for being too literal. Sovereign1 and sovereign2 as a data file for a game doesn't necessarily mean anything in the game itself, but are convenient (for want of a better word). Those files could be called 'red herrings' considering they weren't actually labelled in the game itself.

Well, yeah, of course they could be 'red herrings'.  The point is, they're still evidence that what Keiji found could have been about Sovereign. That it's "meta-game" info is irrelevant because we're trying figure out where the devs were going with that.

This is after the Citadel War, of which there are documentaries made. Pictures of Sovereign are publicly available. Keiji could just have watched the same documentary that (per SB files) half the crew of the Normandy watched.

[didymos1120]

Moiaussi wrote...

This is after the Citadel War, of which there are documentaries made. Pictures of Sovereign are publicly available. Keiji could just have watched the same documentary that (per SB files) half the crew of the Normandy watched.

That's a reach, considering all the "dangerous for the Alliance" talk and the fact that they're the only two images that aren't of Keiji and Kasumi.  In any case, and again, the point isn't that these file names prove it's about Sovereign.  The point is simply that they do count as evidence for that idea.  It's just not conclusive evidence.

Modifié par didymos1120, 01 mai 2011 - 04:05 .

[General User]

Arijharn wrote...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would have thought the reason was pretty simple. The reason why the Corsair's could be used in that way is the deny everything. IIRC while it's common knowledge that the Batarian's fund the slaver raids, it isn't actually the Batarian State Armed Forces that are doing it. It's alright if the Systems Alliance smashes some ramshackle slaver fleets while they're in Alliance space, but not if they dipped into Batarian space to do it (simply because relations are tense). The Corsair's could be doing anything from spying to actually doing limited strikes, but once again, the Alliance need to remain insulated a tad. It doesn't matter though if the Corsair's become an open secret, as long as it's portrayed in the way that they aren't there officially as part of the Alliance.

See above, but it's basically so that the Alliance couldn't be  caught with their pants down if the Corsair's get caught doing something they shouldn't  while in Batarian Space. If a N7 team gets caught, then the Alliance would have to take responsibility (aka; war). If it's some Corsair's, then the corsair's will probably be killed or worse (imprisoned?) and that's judged more acceptable compared to the obvious alternative.

I don’t think any human (or ftm asari, turian, salarian, etc.) caught operating in batarian space is bound to come to a happy end, no matter who they work for or what paperwork they have. 

 
What I really like about plausible deniability is: you don’t have t use it if you don’t want to. What I mean by that is, if I where the PM of the Systems Alliance and were setting up a Corsairs style unit, I would want to be in a position to not only disavow any failures, but take credit for an successes. 

 
The thing about Letters of Marque and Reprisal is that they are limited in scope, they detail the "whens", "wheres", and "hows" of actions that may be taken, so if a Corsair was operating in batarian space, when their Letter limits them to Alliance and/or neutral space, such an action would indeed be rogue. 

 
So issuing LoMaR’s would serve two purposes in this vein, first (should the Corsiars prove a resounding success) they would allow for the politicians/admirals/VABS (Various Assorted Big Shots), with complete honesty, to claim that they spearheaded an innovative initiative that made humans colonies and the Alliance safer. While, at the same time, they provide the Alliance with ready-made, completely legitimate basis from which to deny involvement with any truly black ops. 

 
Hell, the Alliance could even use their own Letters as the legal basis for a show trial to appease the batarians, should a black mission go too far south… not that they would ever do such a thing…



 I suppose as a third benefit they also provide legal protection for any Corsair captain caught operating in neutral, disputed, or even allied space. It would simply not do to have the Hierarchy Navy put an Alliance crew out an airlock on charges of piracy.

Modifié par General User, 01 mai 2011 - 04:20 .

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...


What I really like about plausible deniability is: you don’t have t use it if you don’t want to. What I mean by that is, if I where the PM of the Systems Alliance and were setting up a Corsairs style unit, I would want to be in a position to not only disavow any failures, but take credit for an successes. 

That can work in some cases, but there's an actual value in not boasting about all successes, even if they do benefit you. A modern day equivalent would be the creators of the Stuxnet Worm.

 I suppose as a third benefit they also provide legal protection for any Corsair captain caught operating in neutral, disputed, or even allied space. It would simply not do to have the Hierarchy Navy put an Alliance crew out an airlock on charges of piracy.

As told by Jacob, the point of the Corsairs is to hand them out to dry if they get caught, without any Alliance connection. The letters of marque, while a charming suggestion, aren't implied in any respect: the Corsairs don't claim to be legally justified when they do things, while letters linking them to the alliance is the antithesis of the Corsair purpose.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That can work in some cases, but there's an actual value in not boasting about all successes, even if they do benefit you. A modern day equivalent would be the creators of the Stuxnet Worm.

Likewise for Cerberus. Many of their politics related operations are successes because they aren't linked to Cerberus. If it looks like 'evil aliens' are assassinating Earth politicians, Cerberus gets looked on as a solution, but if it turns out Cerberus is behind the assassinations it is harder for them to claim to be 'pro humanity.'

As told by Jacob, the point of the Corsairs is to hand them out to dry if they get caught, without any Alliance connection. The letters of marque, while a charming suggestion, aren't implied in any respect: the Corsairs don't claim to be legally justified when they do things, while letters linking them to the alliance is the antithesis of the Corsair purpose.

Letters of Marque are for friendly waters anyway, so that your own navy doesn't sink you or drive you off. If you get caught with them in enemy waters, you may as well have been sailing under your nation's flag rather than a pirate flag, rendering the whole concept moot. Legality doesn't enter into it since they date from an age of Kings, before modern accountability to the public.

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
That can work in some cases, but there's an actual value in not boasting about all successes, even if they do benefit you. A modern day equivalent would be the creators of the Stuxnet Worm.

Quite right. It’s all about having the option. 

Dean_the_Young wrote...
As told by Jacob, the point of the Corsairs is to hand them out to dry if they get caught, without any Alliance connection. The letters of marque, while a charming suggestion, aren't implied in any respect: the Corsairs don't claim to be legally justified when they do things, while letters linking them to the alliance is the antithesis of the Corsair purpose.

Yes. No. Yes and no. Yes or no. Yes with no. It all depends on what, where, and how the Corsair unit in question is operating. Let me pitch the kind of of scenario I have in mind, now I’m assuming that the Corsairs were not equipped with standard issue Alliance ships:
 
While on an anti-piracy patrol in neutral space, a Hierarchy destroyer squadron receives a distress call from a batarian merchant ship claiming to be under attack by pirates. The turians intervene, all set to do their best for law and order. They prepare to hail the pirates, fully prepared to issue the proforma demand to stand down and heave to, but before they send their challenge, the “pirate” ship hails them! The Captain identifies herself as a sanctioned Alliance privateer, a “Corsair”, and transmits fully vetted credentials, along with (using of course the Citadel Allied Defense Force cipher) a copy of her orders to capture any batarian flagged vessel. 

 What happens next is dependent on the exact nature of the relationship between the Hierarchy,the Alliance, and the Hegemony, and on the CO on the spot. The  turian reaction could range anywhere form: “We don’t care what the Alliance says!” to “Very well, we’ll be on our way.” to “Do you require assistance?”



Jacob says the purpose of the Corsairs was to allow the Alliance to deny involvement, though I’m not sure that held up for very long (“have you ever played ‘Alliance Corsair?’, I hear the battles are realistic…”). Frankly I think the issues raised (of war, peace, commerce, and diplomacy in the MEU) more worthy of exploring than the 3-4 sentences the game offers.

Modifié par General User, 01 mai 2011 - 05:25 .

[General User]

Moiaussi wrote...
Letters of Marque are for friendly waters anyway, so that your own navy doesn't sink you or drive you off. If you get caught with them in enemy waters, you may as well have been sailing under your nation's flag rather than a pirate flag, rendering the whole concept moot. Legality doesn't enter into it since they date from an age of Kings, before modern accountability to the public.

Watch out “Jury Trial” and “Legislative Assembly” you also date from the Age of Kings!
 
But seriously, Letters of Marque and Reprisal are written into the US Constitution, Section 8, Powers of the Congress. They in fact “post-date” the Age of Kings. They only fell out of favor once war-fighting technology became such that only governments could afford to build warships. If conditions change so that private interests could build and crew respectable combatants, I see no reason why they couldn’t make a comeback.

Modifié par General User, 01 mai 2011 - 06:05 .

[xboxlivegamer]

ExtremeOne wrote...

You know Op you anti Cerberus fans are pathetic . I am a Cerberus fan and pro human but what the alliance has done in 3 is even worse . They get Shepard to do arrival and then put him on trail. F the alliance and in 3 I will be a total b*tch to them

First of all Admiral Hackett does not represent all of the Alliance. He asked you to go after Kenson as a personal favor. Not for the Alliance. Plus he asked you to break someone out of prison and when you come back you've blown a relay, a star system, and killed 304,000 Batarians all to stop a threat that the rest of the galaxy doesn't believe in. Shepard single handedly gave the Batarians a reason to wage war against humanity. The Alliance has to somehow show that they had nothing to do with it so they can avert a war.

[Someone With Mass]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh thats right alliance fan boys and supporters have no interest or desire hearing how bad the so called ME good guys are.   

Again, no proof.

[Moiaussi]

General User wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
Letters of Marque are for friendly waters anyway, so that your own navy doesn't sink you or drive you off. If you get caught with them in enemy waters, you may as well have been sailing under your nation's flag rather than a pirate flag, rendering the whole concept moot. Legality doesn't enter into it since they date from an age of Kings, before modern accountability to the public.

Watch out “Jury Trial” and “Legislative Assembly” you also date from the Age of Kings!
 
But seriously, Letters of Marque and Reprisal are written into the US Constitution, Section 8, Powers of the Congress. They in fact “post-date” the Age of Kings. They only fell out of favor once war-fighting technology became such that only governments could afford to build warships. If conditions change so that private interests could build and crew respectable combatants, I see no reason why they couldn’t make a comeback.

There is still a Queen of England. That doesn't mean England still functions as a monarchy. England was still a full monarchy until forming the parliament of the United Kingdom in 1801, after the American revolution and for that matter, after the French revolution.

It wasn't so much that only governments could afford warships. There are corporations today that could easily afford warships. Warships are built by private corporations, after all. It is more a matter of control and a change from the system of nobility where individual nobles had prviate armies answering to the king, to formal national armies, essentially strategic level gun control. Individually owned armies are not particularly compatable with democracy.

[Phaedon]

Moiaussi wrote...

Vicks007 kid wrote...

Who is evil or not is not fact, put perspective.

Actually it is a matter of fact. Our ability (or lackthereof) to determine any such facts is a matter of perspective.

Yes and no, 

While everything is different from a different perspective. (I can call ketchup as mustard, and the opposite)
There are standards that the society sets, normative ethics. (Ketchup is ketchup and mustard is mustard)

[General User]

Moiaussi wrote...
There is still a Queen of England. That doesn't mean England still functions as a monarchy. England was still a full monarchy until forming the parliament of the United Kingdom in 1801, after the American revolution and for that matter, after the French revolution.

Gross oversimplification of England’s transition from Crown to Parliament aside, my point was that an idea or concept originating under a monarchy or other such system hundreds or even thousands of years ago is insufficient reason to invalidate its application today or in the future.

Moiaussi wrote...
It wasn't so much that only governments could afford warships. There are corporations today that could easily afford warships. Warships are built by private corporations, after all.

The private corporations that build warships are government contractors, they exist for the sole purpose of building warships for the military. 

Private corporations cannot/do not own or operate large scale warships or heavily armed (not small arms) merchant ships because there is no profit in it, and often no point to doing so.  In Mass Effect, this is not the case. Several private enterprises (and not just mercenary outfits) are mentioned as maintaining private navies.

Moiaussi wrote...
It is more a matter of control and a change from the system of nobility where individual nobles had prviate armies answering to the king, to formal national armies, essentially strategic level gun control. Individually owned armies are not particularly compatable with democracy.

Are we going for democracy?  I don't think I could claim any faction in ME is truely dedicated to liberty, dignity and representative government and keep a straight face.   Well... maybe the asari.


But, since you bring it up. Centralizing military power in the hands of a single group isn’t terribly compatible with democracy either.

Modifié par General User, 01 mai 2011 - 07:39 .

[Moiaussi]

Phaedon wrote...

Yes and no, 

While everything is different from a different perspective. (I can call ketchup as mustard, and the opposite)
There are standards that the society sets, normative ethics. (Ketchup is ketchup and mustard is mustard)

Good is generally defined as what is best for everyone.... not merely for the majority but literally for everyone, the route that yields the best possible outcome for all over the long term.

Evil is generally defined as 'not good', i.e. a route or path which may benefit some, but without concern for everyone or for the long term.

Those are basic definitions.

The details as perceived by any given individual or society at any given time are perspective. As we don't have infinite knowlegde and wisdom, we can never be completely certain we are doing good and can only do our best to find such a path.

The history of philosophy, including theology, is the eternal search for the ideal path, or as close as we can come to one in a general code of ethics. The search is and always will be a work in progress, limited by perception.

That doesn't change the fact that at any given instant, all the variables have fixed values. We just have no way to know them all at once, or to even know the full equation.

[lolwut666]

Cerberus really is evil.

I think a lot of people forget that the "ends justify the means" is an evil concept.

If you say that Cerberus is not evil because of what they attempt to accomplish, then you can't say the n***s were evil either. Those horrible experiments they did to prisiones on deathcamps had some kind of purpose. It never bore fruit, but they were doing it for the advancement of science.

The point is that, whatever you reasons are, you will always be seen as evil if you put the goal ahead of the people rather than the people ahead of the goal, because nobody likes the idea of being cannon fodder.

"Ends justify the means" violates basic human rights, and that's why it fits the concept of evil.

Weather you think what Cerberus does is justified is up to you, and you could make a valid argument for it, but that doesn't mean it's not evil in a general sense.

Modifié par lolwut666, 01 mai 2011 - 08:09 .

[Moiaussi]

General User wrote...

Gross oversimplification of England’s transition from Crown to Parliament aside, my point was that an idea or concept originating under a monarchy or other such system hundreds or even thousands of years ago is insufficient reason to invalidate its application today or in the future.

The fact that history moved beyond such concepts is more reason to invalidate than to validate. Changes didn't come arbitrarily, as you point out by way of mentioning oversimplification.

The private corporations that build warships are government contractors, they exist for the sole purpose of building warships for the military. 

Private corporations cannot/do not own or operate large scale warships or heavily armed (not small arms) merchant ships because there is no profit in it, and often no point to doing so.  In Mass Effect, this is not the case. Several private enterprises (and not just mercenary outfits) are mentioned as maintaining private navies.

There is plenty of profit in maintaining a private army and being your own law enforcement. Governments tend to resist the concept of entities having their own armies to resist said governments with, though.

Are we going for democracy?  I don't think I could claim any faction in ME is truely dedicated to liberty, dignity and representative government and keep a straight face.   Well... maybe the asari.

But, since you bring it up. Centralizing military power in the hands of a single group isn’t terribly compatible with democracy either.

Give it a rest. The Alliance is a representative democracy. The Asari are a pure democracy. The Geth are the ideal pure democracy. Just because the we don't see the internal workings of Alliance or Asari politics doesn't mean they don't exist. We only see the end results. If the Alliance doesn't have a representative democracy, what is the point of the political assassinations carried out by Cerberus?

"A single group?" Again, you do realize the Alliance is a democracy, don't you? When the 'single group' is voted into power by the people, with free elections at appropriate intervals, that 'single group' are the people's representatives. How are individual navies more democratic? That just ends up with balkanization, with each individual military power having its own power base and those without being left more or less at their mercy.

[General User]

Moiaussi wrote... 
The fact that history moved beyond such concepts is more reason to invalidate than to validate. Changes didn't come arbitrarily, as you point out by way of mentioning oversimplification.

But the world has NOT moved beyond many of the legal, moral, and political concepts of the middle ages or the ancient world. Some have been modified and maintained, others allowed to wither and degenerate. Some have been abandoned entirely, only to be revived enthusiastically in later generations.

Why should the outfitting of privateers and the issue of Letter of Marque as a form of conflict short of war be one of the concepts to be abandoned forever?
 

 There is plenty of profit in maintaining a private army and being your own law enforcement. Governments tend to resist the concept of entities having their own armies to resist said governments with, though.

"Fear those on the top of the heap, they do not desire company." - ph. S. Adams

The only reason I can think of, for a business to maintain what could even remotely be tought of as a private military, would be one where that enterprise does business in a region where law and order do not exist. Council space doesn’t qualify, but the Terminus, and arguably the Traverse, and the Verge, do.

But it is horrifically expensive to do this.  It is an expenditure any private business would happily yield to any halfway responsible government, or even a well-established local strongman in a hot second.

Give it a rest. The Alliance is a representative democracy. The Asari are a pure democracy. The Geth are the ideal pure democracy. Just because the we don't see the internal workings of Alliance or Asari politics doesn't mean they don't exist. We only see the end results. If the Alliance doesn't have a representative democracy, what is the point of the political assassinations carried out by Cerberus?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  Could you rephrase or elaborate?

"A single group?" Again, you do realize the Alliance is a democracy, don't you? When the 'single group' is voted into power by the people, with free elections at appropriate intervals, that 'single group' are the people's representatives.

Tyrannies can (and often do) take the form of freely elected majorities and/or grow out of them. 

How are individual navies more democratic? That just ends up with balkanization, with each individual military power having its own power base and those without being left more or less at their mercy.

Didn’t say it was. My point was that centralization of power (of which military might is just the sexiest expression) is very much a spectrum. On the one extreme end you have chaos (or balkanization iyp), and on the opposite end you have tyranny.

Modifié par General User, 01 mai 2011 - 09:26 .

[Moiaussi]

General User wrote...

But the world has NOT moved beyond many of the legal, moral, and political concepts of the middle ages or the ancient world. Some have been modified and maintained, others allowed to wither and degenerate. Some have been abandoned entirely, only to be revived enthusiastically in later generations.

Why should the outfitting of privateers and the issue of Letter of Marque as a form of conflict short of war be one of the concepts to be abandoned forever?

 

Because they are one step further removed as far as control. The modern equivalents would be 'comandeering' or 'appropriation,' but more importantly, what benefit does the state gain from warships being in civilian hands over said ships being state owned? 
 

"Fear those on the top of the heap, they do not desire company." - ph. S. Adams

The only reason I can think of, for a business to maintain what could even remotely be tought of as a private military, would be one where that enterprise does business in a region where law and order do not exist. Council space doesn’t qualify, but the Terminus, and arguably the Traverse, and the Verge, do.

But it is horrifically expensive to do this.  It is an expenditure any private business would happily yield to any halfway responsible government, or even a well-established local strongman in a hot second.

Noveria has its own shore batteries that are neither Alliance nor Council owned. "Hideously expensive' is a guess on your part. Note that worlds operating in such regions operate as if they are independant. This has been consistant in ME1 and ME2. Noveria conducts experiments governed only by its corporate board, irrespective of Council or Alliance law. Spectre authority is not considered to apply there. As the region becomes more settled. the lawlessness will be brought into check.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  Could you rephrase or elaborate?

You seemed to be scoffing at the concept that there are democracies in ME. I was disputing that.

Tyrannies can (and often do) take the form of freely elected majorities and/or grow out of them. 

They can, but simply saying one exists here does not make it so. Present something other than rampant speculation please.

Didn’t say it was. My point was that centralization of power (of which military might is just the sexiest expression) is very much a spectrum. On the one extreme end you have chaos (or balkanization iyp), and on the opposite end you have tyranny.

So.... what is your actual point?

[General User]

Moiaussi wrote...
Because they are one step further removed as far as control. The modern equivalents would be 'comandeering' or 'appropriation,' but more importantly, what benefit does the state gain from warships being in civilian hands over said ships being state owned? 

 


Any military commander on an independent station would be in the same boat.
 
States should endorse privateers because they can fight wars cheaper and can mobilize a larger portion of their societies’ overall warfighting capacity for low intensity conflict. 
 
It also gives states a means of conflict short of war, enabling the possibility of conflicts being resolved without large scale fighting and death.
 
There is also the, ahem “priiiiize” awards to be considered. Commerce raiding can be a very profitable enterprise. 
 

 Noveria has its own shore batteries that are neither Alliance nor Council owned. "Hideously expensive' is a guess on your part. Note that worlds operating in such regions operate as if they are independant. This has been consistant in ME1 and ME2. Noveria conducts experiments governed only by its corporate board, irrespective of Council or Alliance law. Spectre authority is not considered to apply there. As the region becomes more settled. the lawlessness will be brought into check.

Ah, but those batteries are not maintained by Binary Helix, or Synthetic Insights, or Godiva Chocolatiers. They are maintained by the Noveria Executive Board. Valuing their privacy, the resident corporations of Noveria pool their resources and create a body to insure their privacy and safety, if it was cheap they would set up their own independent shop. 

People and entities banding together for common gain.  With delineated rights and responsibilities.  Not all that different from any other social contract really. Corporatist systems of government are still systems of government.

You seemed to be scoffing at the concept that there are democracies in ME. I was disputing that.

Oh, no! I didn’t mean to give that impression! I apologize. 

I scoff at democracy in general. The democracies of ME are no better or worse than any other such system. Which is to say, bad.  "The worst system yet tried..." I believe.

They can, but simply saying one exists here does not make it so. Present something other than rampant speculation please.

The idea isn't to identify an evil so much as it is to identify a threat.  By virtue of being a powerful state with an effective military the Systems Alliance is a threat.  Who was it that said "even the gentlest of elephants may crush you in its sleep."?

So.... what is your actual point?

That the Alliance is potentially a threat to human life and liberty. It should be watched warily, with its power kept strictly in check. Cerberus, should they so choose, has the potential to do this. As I see it, Cerberus’ most redeeming quality, is its potential.

Modifié par General User, 01 mai 2011 - 11:11 .

[008Zulu]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh thats right alliance fan boys and supporters have no interest or desire hearing how bad the so called ME good guys are.   

Again, no proof.

Hysterical, wish I could have said something like that ingame to TIM.

[Someone With Mass]

008Zulu wrote...
Hysterical, wish I could have said something like that ingame to TIM.

Eh, that is an in-game option. Just go Renegade on his ass.

[lolwut666]

@008Zulu

You have to destroy the base and then use the lower right option when you meet with the Illusive Man for debriefing.

[Moiaussi]

General User wrote...

Any military commander on an independent station would be in the same boat.
 
States should endorse privateers because they can fight wars cheaper and can mobilize a larger portion of their societies’ overall warfighting capacity for low intensity conflict. 
 
It also gives states a means of conflict short of war, enabling the possibility of conflicts being resolved without large scale fighting and death.
 
There is also the, ahem “priiiiize” awards to be considered. Commerce raiding can be a very profitable enterprise.

Ok, I'll bite... how does a privateer, fighting for profit, fight cheaper than solders fighting for normal pay? The ship will cost the same regardless.

As for 'prizes' in commerce raiding, if it is a state owned vessel those prizes subsidize the costs anyway. If it is commercially viable as piracy, it would be occurring anyway without any need for letters of marque.
 

Ah, but those batteries are not maintained by Binary Helix, or Synthetic Insights, or Godiva Chocolatiers. They are maintained by the Noveria Executive Board. Valuing their privacy, the resident corporations of Noveria pool their resources and create a body to insure their privacy and safety, if it was cheap they would set up their own independent shop. Not all that different from any other social contract really. Corporatist systems of government are still systems of government.

And your point is what, exactly? It is and operates as an independant world. It isn't Alliance or Council. Horizon is the same. The Alliance are attempting to get them to sign up, but they are independant.

Oh, no! I didn’t mean to give that impression! I apologize. 

I scoff at democracy in general. The democracies of ME are no better or worse than any other such system. Which is to say, bad.  "The worst system yet tried..." I believe.

The full quote I believe is 'The worst system, except for all the rest." The only system arguably better is a benevolent dictatorship with a small enough entity that one man can coordinate it all, and that doesn't last past one generation. It is also very vulnerable since it relies on that one competent benevolent dictator.

The idea isn't to identify an evil so much as it is to identify a threat.  By virtue of being a powerful state with an effective military the Systems Alliance is a threat.  Who was it that said "even the gentlest of elephants may crush you in its sleep."?

So abolish all governments and shoot all the people to eliminate all threats? Any power or source thereof is de facto a threat. That doesn't mean the threat is realized as such. This thread relates to how evil Cerberus is (and because that means comparasons, how evil everything else in ME is). How powerful or how much of a threat any given empire or entity is would be a completely separate thread.

That the Alliance is potentially a threat to human life and liberty. It should be watched warily, with its power kept strictly in check. Cerberus, should they so choose, has the potential to do this. As I see it, Cerberus’ most redeeming quality, is its potential.

So you figure a malevolent dicatorship seeking absolute control is to be praised while a reprentative democracy which, although imperfect, is honestly doing its best, is a threat to be reigned in? Are you delusional?

[lolwut666]

Living on a galaxy ruled by Cerberus would be a lottery, because at any time they might feel like doing some kind of sick experiment for the "advancement and preservation of humanity", and decide to raid your colony for test-subjects.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
So you figure a malevolent dicatorship seeking absolute control is to be praised while a reprentative democracy which, although imperfect, is honestly doing its best, is a threat to be reigned in? Are you delusional?

I don't think TIM wants control, just options really. I think if TIM is truly terrified by a singular prospect, it would be allowing humanity to become a vassal state like the Volus to the Turian's and then you realise that for better or worse, Cerberus has been designed completely against this idea (short of the miscellaneous Reaper style experiments). Of course, this is speculation, but it is as much speculation as anything else you, I and others have floated on this board.

'Malevolent dictatorship' -- funny how those words make me think of the Council much more than anything Cerberus has done.

[lolwut666]

I don't see how can anyone defend Cerberus...

They did so many bad things.

I think that "the ends justify the means" is a valid viewpoint in some cases, but when that's your answer to everything, you can't really be considered good.

Realistically, every tyrant had mostly good intentions. They wanted power for their country, and to advance in every possible way. What made them "villains" is how they tried to achieve these goals.

If you're gonna solve a problem by creating others a long the way, and you're fine with that just because they don't affect you, why would anyone want to follow you? You're obviously selfish. Everybody is expendable to you, and they're the ones who get to take the fall for your decisions.

It's easy to support Cerberus's ideals when it's not your ass on the line.