1342 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides dating back to when Cerberus was, by the game's own admission, an Alliance organ, it more accurately marks the Alliance as a public enemy of Cerberus. What Cerberus considers itself an enemy of is never solicited.

Does it matter? I think it's enough if one side declares the other an enemy.

It matters quite a deal when it comes to figuring out who's against who, so that you can understand what is or isn't possible and why people will or will not act in certain ways. If someone considers themselves your enemy, but you do not consider yourself their enemy, the nature of the dispute is quite different than if it were the reverse. In one, you're ambivalent, and would take ambivalent actions: in the other, you're hostile.

In this case, calling Cerberus the enemy of the Council/Alliance sets the source of the antagonism on Cerberus: it implies that Cerberus is the active antagonist who hates/opposes the Council and the Alliance in all the regards that an enemy would.

Except, we know from insider knowledge of Cerberus, this isn't true. Cerberus's view is nuanced, if undoubtably criminal, but it isn't as oppositional as is implied. As we see multiple times in ME2, as well as in Retribution, it's not Cerberus who refuses to work with others, but the Council/Alliance who refuses to work with Cerberus. The absolute antagonism, as justified as it may be in response to Cerberus crimes, is still one way, and that direction is from the Council/Alliance direction. And when it comes to sustained that position, both the Alliance and Council have actively maintained that. This is noticable when non-hostile connection with Cerberus ever comes: when any entreaty of cooperation is made, it comes from Cerberus and is shot down by the Alliance/Council.

Whenever Cerberus does something indisputably good that defies the narrative, such as when Cerberus is critical in saving Human colonies where the Council and Alliance failed, when Cerberus brought Shepard back and worked with the Commander, when Cerberus was critical in helping Jacob save the Council itself, these events are buried by the Alliance and Council and hidden from the public, deliberatly escewing any chance of recognizing the nuance of Cerberus and that it isn't some purely antagonistic force hating on the Council/Alliance from the outside.


Calling the Alliance and Council the enemy of Cerberus is more accurate in describing the relationship. It's a perfectly justified relationship, if anyone starts assuming I'm implying it's not, but it's the position of the Council and Alliance that Cerberus is their enemy, not the other way around.

[pointtech86]

There's no such thing as universal 'human rights' as you are implying lolwut666. By providing the wikipedia link, all you've done is solidified COAW's position. Everybody has different standards and definitions of 'rights'. As long as countries continue to respect their own sovereignty and rules of law over other country's, we'll never have a set definition for all humans.

Society will always exist if there is some form of culture bonding people together. Morals are subjective to the culture. What seems immoral and barbaric to western civilization, would be logical and moral within the culture's behavior. Don't presume to judge other cultures just based on what you believe is moral or 'right'. That's what you tell the rednecks when they support the bombing of the middle east right?

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
Cerberus ressurrected you.

Other than that....

The ship was based on the one the Alliance placed under your command.

AND? You mean the ship that Cerberus persuaded the Alliance make in the first place? The one that a Cerberus team assembled?
Even if it was Salarian designed and had it's parts manufactured by an Elcor firm, Cerberus still put it together. It's still a Cerberus vessel. Moi, why do you even bother replying if you make such a crap attempt at trying to get a word in edgeways?

Moi wrote...
The alliance and council supplied you at least as well as Cerberus.

Really? I can't recall barring one or two cases in the entirety of ME2 where it's the Alliance helped you achieve your mission. In fact, the only Alliance missions I can concrete recall are both favour missions really for Hackett (the Normandy crash site and of course Arrival.)

Meanwhile; Cerberus supplied you direction for ME2 and they gave you cash bounties as well as permanent upgrades considering you're a transhuman now too.

Moi wrote...
The alliance and council provided the intel needed in ME1, or at least sufficient intel for you to determine the rest.  - That included STG support where needed (vermire)

That's great... but irrelevant since I said ME2.

Moi wrote...
Direction? Other than the intel, what direction was needed?

Are you taking the ******? Because intel is gold and that's the thing that was probably most needed.

Of course I was talkign only about ME2 though, as I specifically said that I was. The direction that the Council gave you in ME1 wasn't that much, but you didn't need as much direction anyway (so it probably all equals out). The Council didn't really go out of it's way to really reward you for your side efforts though (aka; Cerberus cash bounties).

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

Every society that disregards human rights either does not exist anymore or it does not prosper. Look at totalitarian regimens like the Roman empire, n*** Germany , the URSS under Stalin, and many others.

They held on for a while, but eventually they crumbled.

That's a rather historic fallacy. When the Roman Republic fell, the same could be said of Republican pseudo-democratic values: the ash-bin of history. And the dark ages: no more democracies then either, they either didn't exist or did not prosper. Theocracies and autocracies were the ruling order then, governing over entire cultural revolutions.

Moreover, you're confusing correlation with causation. It's possible to be prosperous without a cultural emphasis on human rights, and it's possible to decline and tumble despite moral superiority to the barbarians at the gates... which is actually what took down the Roman Empire, N*** Germany, and many others, while it was the lack of economics, more than the lack of human rights, that brought down the USSR.

Empires can rise without human rights, and can fall with them, because the decisive facets that determine the success and failure of civilizations go far beyond comparitive human rights: conquest, rebellion, economic failure,
and cultural destruction are far more decisive aspects, and these are only somewhat affected, and hardly dependent, on human rights. (In fact, too much emphasis on human rights can lead to stagnation and weakening in addressing the first three.)


Edit: To ward off (or maybe encourage?) any dismissals on the account of 'pseudo-intellectualism', I highly recommend Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' and it's rather insightful analysis of historical/civilizational development by a 'real' intellectual.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 mai 2011 - 10:45 .

[ExtremeOne]

Cerberus and TIM was right in 2

[Augoeides]

Every organization does questionable things or performs acts that could be considered outright wrong. Mind you, we side-step the 'wrong' of killing with Shepard because, one, it is necessary to kill to play the game to any real degree, two, Shepard going pacifist doesn't do much for the galaxy.

From the perspective of someone who lives in a position of privilege in Western Society (in other words, I'm alive and independent and haven't spent any portion of my life in poverty) I find a lot of Cerberus' actions to be morally reprehensible. However, some things they have done have come to ends that are beneficial to the galaxy whereas others seem needlessly cruel and have no discernible positives at this time.

The fact of the matter is we cannot paint any organization with one moral brush stroke, because sometimes the end will justify the means and sometimes it won't, and as we can see, not all Cerberus operatives are sadistic psychopaths trying to justify crimes against humanity (and xeno...nanity?) with a consequentialist methodology born of some moral and confirmed eschatology that promises sunshine and rainbows at the end.

In short I will only condone or condemn Cerberus' actions on a case by case basis and will have no sympathy for them if they ever land on the 'condemn' side. Which they already have... so I'll just kill anyone who has done grievous wrong in my eyes, but bypassing the 'wrong' of killing because it's for the greater good. 

Modifié par Augoeides, 05 mai 2011 - 10:56 .

[pointtech86]

Also, where is the blame on the Alliance for doing nothing about the Collector attacks? Cerberus took the reigns and actually did something about the problem while the Alliance was too busy playing PR agent being apologists for everything Shepard did and said. The Alliance had completely turned it's back on Shepard and had no interest in even confirming the death of the man who saved the Citadel from the Geth attack, and now after coming back to life and saving the galaxy from the Reaper invasion, has the gall to put him on trial for a mission that was set up to make Shepard look like a crazed lunatic with to much power and influence. That's why Hackett didn't want the mission report from Shepard.

Cerberus gave you a second chance and provided every tool and choice along the way to do what the Alliance refuses to do. That at least should put them on higher ground in terms of trust than anything the Alliance has done.

Modifié par pointtech86, 05 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[008Zulu]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

That makes not a lick of difference. The Quarians involved themselves in a quarrel that was not their own, and they paid the consequences of it.

So helping someone in need is a reason to blow up a Quarrian ship and all the people on it? No wonder Cerberus is a decleared enemy of anyone who likes the idea of self determination and free will.

[008Zulu]

pointtech86 wrote...

Also, where is the blame on the Alliance for doing nothing about the Collector attacks? Cerberus took the reigns and actually did something about the problem while the Alliance was too busy playing PR agent being apologists for everything Shepard did and said. The Alliance had completely turned it's back on Shepard and had no interest in even confirming the death of the man who saved the Citadel from the Geth attack, and now after coming back to life and saving the galaxy from the Reaper invasion, has the gall to put him on trial for a mission that was set up to make Shepard look like a crazed lunatic with to much power and influence. That's why Hackett didn't want the mission report from Shepard.

Cerberus gave you a second chance and provided every tool and choice along the way to do what the Alliance refuses to do. That at least should put them on higher ground in terms of trust than anything the Alliance has done.

The attacks occured in the Terminus systems, outside Alliance jurisdiction. Joker's report stated that Shepard never made it to an escape pod, the fall from orbit would have been fatal. Blowing up the Collector base didn't alter the heading or speed of the Reaper fleet, in fact no event in the entire of ME2 (with the exception of Arrival) had absolutely zero bearing on the Reaper fleet. The Doctor never told Hackett or anyone else they planned to destroy a relay, he didn't want the report because he trusts that Shepard did the right thing.

If Cerberus provided every tool, why did we have to pay for weapon mods, cabin furnishings and other miscellaneious sundries out of our own pockets?

[General User]

lolwut666 wrote...

There's no point to arguing with people the likes of Dean_the_Young, General User and those other Cerberus apologists, because they don't give a crap about human rights.

They have never considered what a society where human rights are ignored would be like, nor have they ever put themselves in the victims places. They think they are special and that Cerberus would never use them as test subjects.

Pseudo-intellectuals. Nothing more.

I probably shouldn’t respond to this, but you called me out by (user)name. On the other hand, you mentioned me in the same line as Dean_the_Young. For that unintentional compliment, much can be forgiven.

I’m not sure how Dean see’s himself, but I see myself as a critic. An apologist defends a position, a critic attacks the positions of others.  Which is what I've tried to do, criticise/attack the position that "Cerberus is evil."

So do consider, if a position is incapable of withstanding even the basic criticism of ‘psuedo-intellectuals’ without its advocates resorting to name calling and hyperbole, that position is weak indeed.

And you should not presume to know the life history of the anonymous. For all you know, I’ve not only considered a society without human rights, but lived in one.

Modifié par General User, 05 mai 2011 - 01:50 .

[suprhomre]

I don't know about you guys but anyone who saves the galaxy is ok for me.

[ExtremeOne]

008Zulu wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

Also, where is the blame on the Alliance for doing nothing about the Collector attacks? Cerberus took the reigns and actually did something about the problem while the Alliance was too busy playing PR agent being apologists for everything Shepard did and said. The Alliance had completely turned it's back on Shepard and had no interest in even confirming the death of the man who saved the Citadel from the Geth attack, and now after coming back to life and saving the galaxy from the Reaper invasion, has the gall to put him on trial for a mission that was set up to make Shepard look like a crazed lunatic with to much power and influence. That's why Hackett didn't want the mission report from Shepard.

Cerberus gave you a second chance and provided every tool and choice along the way to do what the Alliance refuses to do. That at least should put them on higher ground in terms of trust than anything the Alliance has done.

The attacks occured in the Terminus systems, outside Alliance jurisdiction. Joker's report stated that Shepard never made it to an escape pod, the fall from orbit would have been fatal. Blowing up the Collector base didn't alter the heading or speed of the Reaper fleet, in fact no event in the entire of ME2 (with the exception of Arrival) had absolutely zero bearing on the Reaper fleet. The Doctor never told Hackett or anyone else they planned to destroy a relay, he didn't want the report because he trusts that Shepard did the right thing.

If Cerberus provided every tool, why did we have to pay for weapon mods, cabin furnishings and other miscellaneious sundries out of our own pockets?

     


I am not buying the excuse of oh they were in a certain part of the galaxy so the alliance not helping is ok . The alliance turned its back on Shepard in Mass Effect 2 and thats the cold hard truth . Now they come calling on Shepard as if nothing happens and want him to take care of arrival which is basically a set up to put him on trail 
Cerberus saved humanity in 2 and brought Shepard back . So now they are evil is bull sh*t . 

[Seboist]

TIM and Cerberus will always be the heroes who saved humanity from the Collectors in my book.

[Someone With Mass]

Eh, the Alliance didn't turn their back on Shepard, they thought he was dead.

[Reapinger]

Both sides have parts that are unsavory, Cerberus having more. The point is, Cerberus served its role and now Shepard is saving the galaxy. You can argue over who is more evil all you want, but I guarantee you that you'll never convince some people *cough* ExtremeOne *cough*.

[ExtremeOne]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, the Alliance didn't turn their back on Shepard, they thought he was dead.

 


So that gives them no right at all to do what they did in arrival . they set Shepard up in that dlc and now they want him to work with them in 3 . They turned their back on Shepard and now they want him to be their b*tch because no one in the alliance has the balls to do what it takes to save humanity 

[Reapinger]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, the Alliance didn't turn their back on Shepard, they thought he was dead.

 


So that gives them no right at all to do what they did in arrival . they set Shepard up in that dlc and now they want him to work with them in 3 . They turned their back on Shepard and now they want him to be their b*tch because no one in the alliance has the balls to do what it takes to save humanity 

The Alliance didn't set Shepard up, Hackett asked as a personal favor... And I think it's more that the Alliance realizes he's their best shot of surviving-- Just like Cerberus. 

[ExtremeOne]

Reapinger wrote...

Both sides have parts that are unsavory, Cerberus having more. The point is, Cerberus served its role and now Shepard is saving the galaxy. You can argue over who is more evil all you want, but I guarantee you that you'll never convince some people *cough* ExtremeOne *cough*.

   



Cerberus got the job done in 2 no matter what they have done . I could care less about the pathetic excuses you anti Cerberus fans use. Because in Mass Effect 2 we find out that the alliance does not give a dam about Shepard at all .  They used him as a recruuitmen tool and even set him up in arrival . at least on the collector's ship in ME 2 TIM admitted it was a set up but a logical one . 

[Someone With Mass]

ExtremeOne wrote...
So that gives them no right at all to do what they did in arrival . they set Shepard up in that dlc and now they want him to work with them in 3 . They turned their back on Shepard and now they want him to be their b*tch because no one in the alliance has the balls to do what it takes to save humanity 

Stop being so butthurt about that insignificant trial. It'll be interrupted, anyway. 

By the way, I'd really like to see Cerberus do something like the Alliance can, like mobilizing their fleets. Oh, wait. Cerberus don't have any fleets. 

And what was it that the Alliance didn't have any balls to do, exactly? Apart from doing what they're supposed to do and protect humanity when needed?

[ExtremeOne]

Reapinger wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, the Alliance didn't turn their back on Shepard, they thought he was dead.

 


So that gives them no right at all to do what they did in arrival . they set Shepard up in that dlc and now they want him to work with them in 3 . They turned their back on Shepard and now they want him to be their b*tch because no one in the alliance has the balls to do what it takes to save humanity 

The Alliance didn't set Shepard up, Hackett asked as a personal favor... And I think it's more that the Alliance realizes he's their best shot of surviving-- Just like Cerberus. 

   







Then why is Shepard on trail for arrival then . Oh thats right the alliance needs to kiss the ass of the batarians so no war will happen. humanity should always come first over aliens but the alliance rather be alien ass kissers 

[ExtremeOne]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
So that gives them no right at all to do what they did in arrival . they set Shepard up in that dlc and now they want him to work with them in 3 . They turned their back on Shepard and now they want him to be their b*tch because no one in the alliance has the balls to do what it takes to save humanity 

Stop being so butthurt about that insignificant trial. It'll be interrupted, anyway. 

By the way, I'd really like to see Cerberus do something like the Alliance can, like mobilizing their fleets. Oh, wait. Cerberus don't have any fleets. 

And what was it that the Alliance didn't have any balls to do, exactly? Apart from doing what they're supposed to do and protect humanity when needed?

   






If you want to blow up something then have the balls to do it yourself . Oh but they need shepard to do it . why make him the fall guy for their stupidity . As far as the trail goes it makes no sense at all .  

[pointtech86]

008Zulu wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

Also, where is the blame on the Alliance for doing nothing about the Collector attacks? Cerberus took the reigns and actually did something about the problem while the Alliance was too busy playing PR agent being apologists for everything Shepard did and said. The Alliance had completely turned it's back on Shepard and had no interest in even confirming the death of the man who saved the Citadel from the Geth attack, and now after coming back to life and saving the galaxy from the Reaper invasion, has the gall to put him on trial for a mission that was set up to make Shepard look like a crazed lunatic with to much power and influence. That's why Hackett didn't want the mission report from Shepard.

Cerberus gave you a second chance and provided every tool and choice along the way to do what the Alliance refuses to do. That at least should put them on higher ground in terms of trust than anything the Alliance has done.

The attacks occured in the Terminus systems, outside Alliance jurisdiction. Joker's report stated that Shepard never made it to an escape pod, the fall from orbit would have been fatal. Blowing up the Collector base didn't alter the heading or speed of the Reaper fleet, in fact no event in the entire of ME2 (with the exception of Arrival) had absolutely zero bearing on the Reaper fleet. The Doctor never told Hackett or anyone else they planned to destroy a relay, he didn't want the report because he trusts that Shepard did the right thing.

If Cerberus provided every tool, why did we have to pay for weapon mods, cabin furnishings and other miscellaneious sundries out of our own pockets?

Because even a wasteful government wouldn't pay people to buy pets and ship models?  Cerberus provided everything that the Alliance and the Council gave you in ME1 plus the extra equipment if you bothered to pay for the DLC.  

You were never given upgrades in ME1, you still had to buy them, or waste time flying to a planet you could land on, drive the Mako for 10 minutes trying to find some shipwreck, and then play a minigame just to find out you have no room in your inventory for it.  Considering the fact that the money spent on giving Shepard all this stuff was from donations and profits made from front companies, rather than unknowing taxpayers, I'm more inclined to feel grateful to Cerberus.

So then why ask Shepard to place a memorial statue of the Normandy where it crashed?  Why not put it there as soon as possible?  They knew where the system was, why didn't they go find the dog tags to the lost members of the Normandy?  Instead the second they get reports that Shepard is alive, they scramble their PR agents to head off a potential situation before it becomes an issue.

Is that how the military works 008Zulu?  Your commanding officer just trusts that the only person involved in this secret mission is truthful?  The same people that have been badmouthing you for two years calling you crazy and deranged for believing in the Reapers?  Why wouldn't the doctor tell Hackett what's going on?  It's all about image, and the Alliance has forsaken their duty to protect humanity, just so they can look good to the other council species.

[didymos1120]

ExtremeOne wrote...

If you want to blow up something then have the balls to do it yourself . Oh but they need shepard to do it . why make him the fall guy for their stupidity . As far as the trail goes it makes no sense at all .  

How hard is it to understand that NO ONE in the Alliance wanted you to blow up anything?  You were there to break Kenson out and verify her story as a personal favor to Hackett.  That's it.  Only Kenson and Co. knew about the "blow up the relay" thing.  There is ZERO evidence that blowing the Alpha Relay was always the plan.  

Modifié par didymos1120, 05 mai 2011 - 12:00 .

[Someone With Mass]

ExtremeOne wrote...
If you want to blow up something then have the balls to do it yourself . Oh but they need shepard to do it . why make him the fall guy for their stupidity . As far as the trail goes it makes no sense at all .  

They didn't want to blow anything up! They wanted Shepard to rescue Kenson, nothing more. He blew the relay up on his own behalf, and is now suffering the consequences for it.

Seriously, did you pay attention during Arrival at all?

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Stop being so butthurt about that insignificant trial. It'll be interrupted, anyway. 

By the way, I'd really like to see Cerberus do something like the Alliance can, like mobilizing their fleets. Oh, wait. Cerberus don't have any fleets.

But they have shown the ability to mobilize and spur the Alliance into action in a more timely manner. Catalysts aren't in lieu of chemical reactions, but they're valuable none the less.

And what was it that the Alliance didn't have any balls to do, exactly? Apart from doing what they're supposed to do and protect humanity when needed?

[/other than non-Alliance human colonies in a wave of mass abductions]

The Alliance is an institution that advances and defends its own interests. In so much that it is composes most of Humanity, it has a comfortable union of interests with most of Humanity. The parts it doesn't compose, however, it cares far less about.

'The Alliance is Humanity' is the same fundamental logic as 'Cerberus is Humanit': they associate themselves with a population group, see what's good for them as good for it and vice-versa, but as always through their lens of interpretation. When what's good for the main group is diverged for what's good for the organization...


(No, I am not apologizing or defending ExtremeOne. In case some other people don't recognize the difference.)