183 réponses à ce sujet

[noarev]

 Does anyone with any knowledge of how governments work, even in the Mass Effect Universe alone, can argue that Cerberus is more evil than the Citadel Council or the Alliance? Pointing out that Cerberus is the ultimate bad guy is all easy and convenient, but then there are things such as the genophage, the mass genocide unleashed against the Rachni, etc. And the only thing the Alliance has been good for in most of Mass Effect games so far has been to 1) not support you and 2) do half-baked efforts to investigate. Can anyone say that if the Alliance or the Council would have pulled the shots in ME  2, then the decision the player has to make at the end of the game would have been any different? 

I am asking out of pure curiosity and any PoV is welcome as long as it comes with a good, sensible argument. After all, Cerberus must get its funds from somewhere. And it's mighty funny how the scientists working on the Cerberus biotics program all ended up as Alliance personel. Just saying...*cough* Salarian Special Ops*cough*.

[Bad King]

Yeah the Alliance and Cerberus undoubtedly have had strong links in the past. Most of Cerberus's crimes before ME1 were most likely done under orders from the Alliance, for example this:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/7375590

Modifié par Bad King, 15 mai 2011 - 07:30 .

[Moiaussi]

Is there any good reason for starting another thread on this? There are threads just on page 2 of here if not on page one.

[Theoristitis]

 "History is written by the victors" doesn't entirely apply here, but it's pretty close.

The Council is in power, and as such their s*** doesn't stink. The Alliance is coming up behind them. Cerberus is an enemy of the Council, so nothing they do is good.

[Moiaussi]

The questionable actions of the Council were all done under situations were extinction was not just possible, but probable.

The genophage was just enforced birth control, not an attempt at genocide. There was no intent to wipe the Krogan out. If it is considered genocide, then simply fighting back was genocide too.

It is convenient to point at the Rachni and ignore the fact that the Rachni were giving no quarter and fighting to the death.

And as far as world politics, arguably the US is in power, but there is plenty of criticism against US policy (both current and historic), much of it coming from US citizens, so 'being in power' has nothing to do with any lack of criticism.

[LorDC]

Lets not forget that Council threatened Quarians with orbital bombardment of their colony just to give that planet to Elcor. Or that they almost enslaved(this may be a bit strong word but nonetheless) humanity because of little illegal research. Or Turians who occupied Alliance colony because of the attempt to open up relay. And their top operatives are literally above the law. And the one who is considered best wiped out few thousands civilians just to provide distraction.
Maybe they don't outright torture people to advance scientific programs but surely Council does not care much about its methods.
And evil... evil is relative thing.

Modifié par LorDC, 15 mai 2011 - 08:22 .

[Moiaussi]

LorDC wrote...

Lets not forget that Council threatened Quarians with orbital bombardment of their colony just to give that planet to Elcor.

 
A heavy gravity world much better suited to the Elcor that was already promised to the Elcor. I wasn't aware that the Quarians ever had anyone actually on the ground. Where are you getting a threat of orbital bombardment from? Source please?

Or that they almost enslaved(this may be a bit strong word but nonetheless) humanity because of little illegal research.

 
Enslaved? Humanity was FINED. Do you also consider parking tickets 'slavery?' Hyperbole doesn't make your case.

And humanity could have chosen the same option as the Batarians, to withdraw their embassy. There was no retalliation against the Batarians for their decision to do so and in fact the Council are paranoid of doing anything in the Terminus systems. If Humanity made the same decision as the Batarians, what is your evidence that they would be treated worse? For all we know the Batarian empire could have AI's on every street corner. They aren't under Council edicts.

Or Turians who occupied Alliance colony because of the attempt to open up relay.

 
That would be the same war in which the Council SIDED WITH HUMANITY. Even the Turian councellor voted in favour of humanity. But don't let the facts stop you.

And their top operatives are literally above the law. And the one who is considered best wiped out few thousands civilians just to provide distraction.

First of all, as of ME1, spectres include humans. As of the end of ME1, the Alliance has full membership.

Second, Spectres are not 'above the law.' If they were, Saren wouldn't have had to deny anything. He could have admitted everything and said 'So what? I am above the law!' Several times in ME1, Shepard is called out for his actions. In ME2, Shepard loses support to a great extent because he is working with Cerberus, a 'criminal organization.' Law enforcement are always less restricted by law. Police have access to considerable personal information, are allowed to carry firearms, are allowed to undertake actions that would otherwise be considered violations of privacy or other civil rights.

Conventional police have to justiffy their need to the courts (by way of making a case for any given warrant), Spectres answer directly to the Council. They are still restricted though. In practice their lack of restrictions relates more to their operating in remote regions where accountability is tough no matter who is there. They are very similar to sherrifs in any given remote town in the old west.

Maybe they don't outright torture people to advance scientific programs but surely Council does not care much about its methods.

If that was true, they would simply have cheered Shepard on after every mission, since Shep was getting results in ME1. There certainly would have been no question regarding using a nuke on Vermire (note that was an STG idea!).

And evil... evil is relative thing.

Well actually evil is a definition. How evil any given act is is relative to that definition. The tricky thing is that the definition and comparason are difficult to actually measure. We have no objective 'evil meter' that we can just consult. That doesn't mean there is no good or evil though, merely that it is difficult to be completely certain in our judgement.

Dismissing context, or worse, saying 'we can't be certain and therefore nothing is 'evil' is more likely to lead to evil acts than good. It is merely an excuse to do what we want without thinking through consequences.

[noarev]

It's very interesting to see that despite saying the topic has no importance and has been done to death, you still chose to hang out around it, Moiaussi.

1) LorDC is right about the Quarian planet thing. The Council would have bombarded it, arguing that the structures were illegal and that the Quarians didn't have the ME equivalent of building permits. Tali explains all this. And while the Elcor might have been promised the planet initially, the fact that it is one of handful of planets suitable for Quarian colonization should have made the decision quite easy. What with the whole living on ships alone sorta crippling their biology thing.

2) There's always the part where the Batarians were already a highly advanced race. Humanity was fairly new at that point and still struggling to make a voice for itself heard in the galactic community. Pulling out your embassy is kind of idiotic as a move, politically speaking. The grownup equivalent of taking your toys and leaving 'cause he/she said something nasty about your hair, etc.

3) The Specters are given considerable margins for error and the fact that they speak in the name of the Council usually tends to blur the lines defining the limitations of their position. Let's not forget that even after you had gathered proof against Saren, the Council was reluctant to have you chase after him and would question you at every turn. The reasons why Shepard is called out for his actions are the fact that he's new to the job, he's human and the Council are prejudiced mostly due to the fact that humans are prone to be impatient. Ah, and there's the fact that he keeps on insisting on a Reaper threat which the Council isn't too fond of. In their eyes he's the equivalent of the man sitting on the street corner with the "End is coming!" sign.

4) And evil is relative, it's a point of view thing. A person's own moral code and personality determine what one views as evil and to what extent. What may be seen as evil can be simple necessity and not undertake lightly. Saren is a good example of that. While a bastard at times, in the end he only wished to buy the survival of those he considered to be important. Liara's mother only wanted to temper Saren, but to all your knowledge up to the final point in the confrontation she was evil.

So yes, evil is just a Point of View. Thanx for the trolling! XD

[Katamariguy]

That's why I hate both of them.

[LorDC]

Moiaussi wrote...
 
A heavy gravity world much better suited to the Elcor that was already promised to the Elcor. I wasn't aware that the Quarians ever had anyone actually on the ground. Where are you getting a threat of orbital bombardment from? Source please?

Description of one of the planets. Sorry, I don't remember which one but I read it afew times so I am pretty sure about this. You can find it itself in wiki.

Moiaussi wrote...
 
Enslaved? Humanity was FINED. Do you also consider parking tickets 'slavery?' Hyperbole doesn't make your case.

And humanity could have chosen the same option as the Batarians, to withdraw their embassy. There was no retalliation against the Batarians for their decision to do so and in fact the Council are paranoid of doing anything in the Terminus systems. If Humanity made the same decision as the Batarians, what is your evidence that they would be treated worse? For all we know the Batarian empire could have AI's on every street corner. They aren't under Council edicts.

“These appointed Council representatives will also conduct regular inspections of all Alliance facilities
and colonies, including Earth, to ensure you are in compliance with the laws and regulations of the
Citadel.”
Exact quote from Revelation. So other species wouls have enforced Council politics on humanity. This basically equals to losing independance. Slavery was not employed on such scale since stone age but this is as close as it can come to it. And the fact that humanity could "run" like batarians does not vindicate Council in any way.

Moiaussi wrote...
First of all, as of ME1, spectres include humans. As of the end of ME1, the Alliance has full membership.

Alliance membership does not vindicate Council in any way. Just because you join group of bad guys that does not make them good in any way.

Moiaussi wrote...
Second, Spectres are not 'above the law.' If they were, Saren wouldn't have had to deny anything. He could have admitted everything and said 'So what? I am above the law!' Several times in ME1, Shepard is called out for his actions. In ME2, Shepard loses support to a great extent because he is working with Cerberus, a 'criminal organization.' Law enforcement are always less restricted by law. Police have access to considerable personal information, are allowed to carry firearms, are allowed to undertake actions that would otherwise be considered violations of privacy or other civil rights.

Don't play with words. Of course they answer to Council. But they don't answer to the law.

Moiaussi wrote...
In ME2, Shepard loses support to a great extent because he is working with Cerberus, a 'criminal organization.'

Cerberus also happens to be anti-Council group outlawed by this same Council.

Moiaussi wrote...
Well actually evil is a definition. How evil any given act is is relative to that definition. The tricky thing is that the definition and comparason are difficult to actually measure. We have no objective 'evil meter' that we can just consult. That doesn't mean there is no good or evil though, merely that it is difficult to be completely certain in our judgement.

Dismissing context, or worse, saying 'we can't be certain and therefore nothing is 'evil' is more likely to lead to evil acts than good. It is merely an excuse to do what we want without thinking through consequences.

I just meant that "evilness" of actions depends on viewpoint.

You also ignored my argument about Saren. Care to say anything?

[Smeelia]

LorDC wrote...

Description of one of the planets. Sorry, I don't remember which one but I read it afew times so I am pretty sure about this. You can find it itself in wiki.

It's better if you do the research yourself to support your points, that way anyone joining/reading the discussion doesn't have to check your facts (and most wont bother).

Here's the link:
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Ekuna

Now, in fairness it does point out that the Quarians made illegal moves in an attempt to force the Council's hand and this meant that the Council couldn't support the Quarians without undermining their own policies and encouraging the same actions by others.  They gave the Quarians plenty of time to evacuate and it really would have been the Quarians fault if they'd again forced the Council to act to maintain their authority.

LorDC wrote...
“These appointed Council representatives will also conduct regular inspections of all Alliance facilities
and colonies, including Earth, to ensure you are in compliance with the laws and regulations of the
Citadel.”
Exact quote from Revelation. So other species wouls have enforced Council politics on humanity. This basically equals to losing independance. Slavery was not employed on such scale since stone age but this is as close as it can come to it. And the fact that humanity could "run" like batarians does not vindicate Council in any way.

Actually this isn't really any different to the powers the United Nations has at the moment and wouldn't apply if the Alliance removed themselves from the Council's authority.  The Council could still have all member races set sanctions against the Alliance (in addition to the loss of benefits the Alliance would already suffer) but they couldn't legally force the Alliance to submit to Council laws.

LorDC wrote...
Don't play with words. Of course they answer to Council. But they don't answer to the law.

Not answering to the law isn't inherently evil though, it may be easier for them to be evil and get away with it (as long as they don't upset the Council in the process) but that doesn't mean that they actually take the opportunity (nor that they routinely do so).

LorDC wrote...
Cerberus also happens to be anti-Council group outlawed by this same Council.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to dislike and act against a group that actively dislikes and attempts to destroy and undermine you.  That would make them equal except for the fact that Cerberus started working against the Council before the Council responded against Cerberus.

LorDC wrote...

You also ignored my argument about Saren. Care to say anything?

I don't think it's stated anywhere that "thousands" died in the incident with Anderson and it's also made clear that Saren lied to the Council in his reports to imply that the destruction was necessary for the mission (and that it was Anderson's fault that it became necessary).

Besides, if the Council was that evil then Saren could have told them about his plan to "take over the galaxy using the Geth and this nifty mind-control ship he found" and they'd have actively supported him (without realising the truth behind it).  The reason he kept it secret was that he knew they wouldn't support him.

Getting back to my views on the main topic...

noarev wrote...

Does anyone with any knowledge of how governments work, even in the Mass Effect Universe alone, can argue that Cerberus is more evil than the Citadel Council or the Alliance? Pointing out that Cerberus is the ultimate bad guy is all easy and convenient, but then there are things such as the genophage, the mass genocide unleashed against the Rachni, etc. And the only thing the Alliance has been good for in most of Mass Effect games so far has been to 1) not support you and 2) do half-baked efforts to investigate. Can anyone say that if the Alliance or the Council would have pulled the shots in ME  2, then the decision the player has to make at the end of the game would have been any different? 

I am asking out of pure curiosity and any PoV is welcome as long as it comes with a good, sensible argument. After all, Cerberus must get its funds from somewhere. And it's mighty funny how the scientists working on the Cerberus biotics program all ended up as Alliance personel. Just saying...*cough* Salarian Special Ops*cough*.

I can't say I believe that the Council or the Alliance are perfect and the "Paragons of Good" but I still feel they're much better than Cerberus.

For one thing, Cerberus isn't a recognised authority.  They're a privately funded organisation with no public support and no public oversight.  Their goals are purely based on what the few "in power" in the organisation want and they're free to act without worrying about things like public opinion.  Again, as with the Spectres, this doesn't automatically mean that they will choose to be evil but we already know about enough of the actions they've taken to know they're more than willing to be evil to achieve their goals and that most of their goals would be considered evil by most people (like undermining those publicly supported authorities).

It's also clear that membership of Cerberus is very heavily on the evil side (with some exceptions and some that might count as merely "misguided").  With the Alliance and Council there will be plenty of people who are genuinely good people trying to make the galaxy better.  The Alliance and Council keep most of their dirty business secret and, while that doesn't excuse it, it means that most of their members and supporters are unaware of those parts and don't necessarily support it.  With Cerberus, pretty much everything they do has some element of evil in it and pretty much everyone there knows it.

So, yes, Cerberus is more evil than the Alliance and the Council (which isn't to say that the Alliance and Council are perfect).

I'm curious as to if consider Cerberus to be merely the lesser of the three evils, not evil at all or if you actually believe them to be the most evil (I don't think you clearly stated it anywhere, though it's implied that you at least think of Cerberus as less evil).

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

LorDC wrote...

Description of one of the planets. Sorry, I don't remember which one but I read it afew times so I am pretty sure about this. You can find it itself in wiki.

It's better if you do the research yourself to support your points, that way anyone joining/reading the discussion doesn't have to check your facts (and most wont bother).

Here's the link:
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Ekuna

Now, in fairness it does point out that the Quarians made illegal moves in an attempt to force the Council's hand and this meant that the Council couldn't support the Quarians without undermining their own policies and encouraging the same actions by others.  They gave the Quarians plenty of time to evacuate and it really would have been the Quarians fault if they'd again forced the Council to act to maintain their authority.

Smeelia, in what sense of the word was the Council going to be 'forced' to bombard a refugee population? Unless other species becoming to encouraged to commit self-genocide in order to settle other planets, the case of the Quarians is indeed a clear case of exceptional circumstances and needs. The Quarians very future as a galactic society as opposed to a refugee exodus hinged on being able to remain on that world: the Elcor's did not.

Not answering to the law isn't inherently evil though, it may be easier for them to be evil and get away with it (as long as they don't upset the Council in the process) but that doesn't mean that they actually take the opportunity (nor that they routinely do so).

The conduct and history of the Spectres pretty much precludes any argument that they don't routinely engage in activities that don't require the legal-immunity clause. Shepard is shooting up bars even before Spectre status: Nihlus is caught by and earns the rath of an Asari Justicar, Tela Vasir engages in assassination entirely removed from her Spectre missions, and Saren's conduct is legendary. These are only underlined more by Executor Chelik's evaluation of Spectre corruption, and while he may have an axe to grind he's also indisputably in a place to know what he's talking about.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to dislike and act against a group that actively dislikes and attempts to destroy and undermine you.  That would make them equal except for the fact that Cerberus started working against the Council before the Council responded against Cerberus.

Except Cerberus isn't out to destroy the Council. It's even gone out of its way to save it.

Cerberus seeks to undermine the Council in so much that it seeks to put Humanity on the top. Except in so much that the Council prevents/opposes this, Cerberus has no issue or vendetta against it. The antagonism is pretty much one-way.


Cerberus is criminal, but it is neither an existentional threat nor remarkably subversive: Cerberus seeks to take advantage of the ruling structure to it's (humanity's) benefit, not collapse it.

Besides, if the Council was that evil then Saren could have told them about his plan to "take over the galaxy using the Geth and this nifty mind-control ship he found" and they'd have actively supported him (without realising the truth behind it).  The reason he kept it secret was that he knew they wouldn't support him.

That's not inherent at all. Even evil is self-interested, and a part of self-interest is distrust of things that could shake the power... like if a renowned Turian-nationalist like Saren got control over the Geth as a whole. Not good for Asari or Salarians, evil or not.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 16 mai 2011 - 12:32 .

[Vengeful Nature]

noarev wrote...

Does anyone with any knowledge of how
governments work, even in the Mass Effect Universe alone, can argue that
Cerberus is more evil than the Citadel Council or the Alliance?
Pointing out that Cerberus is the ultimate bad guy is all easy and
convenient, but then there are things such as the genophage, the mass
genocide unleashed against the Rachni, etc. And the only thing the
Alliance has been good for in most of Mass Effect games so far has been
to 1) not support you and 2) do half-baked efforts to investigate. Can
anyone say that if the Alliance or the Council would have pulled the
shots in ME  2, then the decision the player has to make at the end of
the game would have been any different? 

I am asking out of pure
curiosity and any PoV is welcome as long as it comes with a good,
sensible argument. After all, Cerberus must get its funds from
somewhere. And it's mighty funny how the scientists working on the
Cerberus biotics program all ended up as Alliance personel. Just
saying...*cough* Salarian Special Ops*cough*.

Why would Cerberus be any more evil than the Alliance? Cerberus are the Alliance. The whole "going rogue" thing was either staged to give the Alliance plausible deniability if the Council ever got wise, or just a misunderstanding on the part of Admiral Kahoku.

But I think that's what you're hinting at anyway, OP, and I agree with you.

Moiaussi wrote...



The
genophage was just enforced birth control, not an attempt at genocide.
There was no intent to wipe the Krogan out. If it is considered
genocide, then simply fighting back was genocide too.

Exactly. This is a common misconception about the genophage. If anything, it was an attempt to preserve
krogan life. With the genophage, the krogan are pacified but preserved.
Without the genophage, the Council would have been forced to fight them
to the bitter end, something that, given krogan nature, might well have resulted in their extinction.

Morally, though, it's still pretty shaky. It's just the lesser of two "evils".

Moiaussi wrote...



The questionable actions of the Council were all done under situations were extinction was not just possible, but probable.

And you don't think that this situation has arisen again? All of known galactic civilisation is under threat from the Reapers. It's the same situation as the rachni and krogan, in fact, it's even more desperate. Extreme measures were used in those war efforts, why can't they be used in this one?

Moiaussi wrote...

And
humanity could have chosen the same option as the Batarians, to
withdraw their embassy. There was no retalliation against the Batarians
for their decision to do so and in fact the Council are paranoid of
doing anything in the Terminus systems. If Humanity made the same
decision as the Batarians, what is your evidence that they would be
treated worse? For all we know the Batarian empire could have AI's on
every street corner. They aren't under Council edicts.

No open retalliation, no. But forcing the Hegemony to withdraw their embassy did a Sun Tzu on them: defeated them before there was even a war. When they withdrew their embassy, it effectively made every batarian government a rogue state. This made batarian space a haven for every anti-Citadel individual or group, who flooded into their systems and destabilised the whole region. Now, instead of a powerful and unified Hegemony that threaten the stability of Citadel Space, it is just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of little banana republics that make up the Terminus Systems. All of this to protect the Alliance from an aggressive and expansionist Hegemony. Of course, this was back when the Alliance was junior member and the new kid on the block. Or perhaps, seeing their potential, the Council chose to try and ingratiate them into being absorbed by getting rid of a rotten egg (the batarians).

If the Alliance had withdrawn their embassy, the same thing would have happened and the Alliance would be severely weakened. The Council is a hegemonic power seeking to absorb or weaken, mark my words. It can brook no strong adversaries.

Moiaussi wrote...

Spectres are not 'above the law.' If they were, Saren wouldn't have had
to deny anything. He could have admitted everything and said 'So what? I
am above the law!' Several times in ME1, Shepard is called out for his
actions. In ME2, Shepard loses support to a great extent because he is
working with Cerberus, a 'criminal organization.' Law enforcement are
always less restricted by law. Police have access to considerable
personal information, are allowed to carry firearms, are allowed to
undertake actions that would otherwise be considered violations of
privacy or other civil rights.

Conventional police have to
justiffy their need to the courts (by way of making a case for any given
warrant), Spectres answer directly to the Council. They are still
restricted though. In practice their lack of restrictions relates more
to their operating in remote regions where accountability is tough no
matter who is there. They are very similar to sherrifs in any given
remote town in the old west.

They are above the law. The codex tells us this much. They circumvent and override the law as long as what they are doing is in the interest of the Council. Saren was one of their best and most trusted operatives, so the Council didn't want to believe that he was a rogue agent. Think about this:

- They are permitted to summarily execute people and to assassinate prominent people.
- The only authority they answer to is the Council themselves. Other than that, they are held to no standard regarding conduct, within reason.
- If they are deemed to have gone bad, they are hunted by other spectres, not by any law enforcement organisation.

If anything, Cerberus are held to higher standards than Spectres, at least before they "went rogue".

I'm not saying this is evil. In fact, it's probably necessary. Just like Cerberus to the Alliance.

Saphra Deden wrote...



Cerberus is no better or worse than
the legitimate organizations in Mass Effect. They just suffer from bad
PR and the bigger players on the field declaring them criminal.

Exactly.

Personally,
I think that this is a Council attempt to gimp the Alliance, since
every other major player has it's own black ops organisation but the
Alliance apparently isn't allowed one. What better way to weaken these
new upstarts, who are rising to prominence much too quickly and threaten
the centuries-old status quo, than by declaring that an essential part
of their defence infrastructure is a terrorist organisation that must be
hunted and expunged?

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Smeelia, in what sense of the word was the Council going to be 'forced' to bombard a refugee population? Unless other species becoming to encouraged to commit self-genocide in order to settle other planets, the case of the Quarians is indeed a clear case of exceptional circumstances and needs. The Quarians very future as a galactic society as opposed to a refugee exodus hinged on being able to remain on that world: the Elcor's did not.

What I really meant was that the Quarians would have expected the Council to follow through on their threat had they continued to defy them.  Of course, the Quarians wouldn't have been in a position of being threatened had they not already intentionally broken laws they were well aware of and it's quite possible that the threat of bombardment (presumably followed by bombardment for continued violation) is the express rule or established procedure that the Quarians would have been aware of.

On a sort of aside, the Quarians don't actually seem to be an associate member of the Council anymore so it makes sense that the Council would frown on "outsiders" trying to claim areas in Citadel Space over the member races.  Of course, that does add to their "evil quotient" since kicking a race that's already down is harsh (apparently it was the Council that kicked them out in the first place).

On re-reading the entry though it's interesting that it doesn't say it was specifically the Council who ordered the Quarians to leave or face bombardment, it's quite possible that this was done by the Elcor and the Council wouldn't intervene with internal matters.

As for the matter of the future of the Quarians, they're still able to survive without the planet (which doesn't seem like it was that good an option for them anyway, though they must have had reason for asking for it).  Technically speaking, the fact that they want a homeworld and to re-establish themselves doesn't automatically mean that they need it (although it's a complex issue).  If the Quarians had just asked in the first place instead of taking illegal actions then the Council might have agreed (or they might have refused for extra evil points), by taking those actions the Quarians made it more difficult for the Council (or just gave them an excuse if you're feeling cynical, though it can't be proven).

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The conduct and history of the Spectres pretty much precludes any argument that they don't routinely engage in activities that don't require the legal-immunity clause. Shepard is shooting up bars even before Spectre status: Nihlus is caught by and earns the rath of an Asari Justicar, Tela Vasir engages in assassination entirely removed from her Spectre missions, and Saren's conduct is legendary. These are only underlined more by Executor Chelik's evaluation of Spectre corruption, and while he may have an axe to grind he's also indisputably in a place to know what he's talking about.

Illegal doesn't automatically mean evil (or else your point above would be negated by the fact the Quarians were "evil" first with their illegal settlement).  Your examples don't exactly provide a wide enough sample to show that "evil" is routine (they could all be exceptions) and they're not all examples of "evil" conduct anyway.

Shepard doesn't start a fight in a bar before becoming a Spectre, people trying to kill you in a bar isn't exactly an evil act on your part.  Samara attacks Nihlus for executing an unarmed person but no other context is given, it's quite possible the unarmed person was a "bad guy" (Samara has no problem executing "bad guys" herself) and at worst it's morally grey (particularly without knowing more).  Tela Vasir doesn't engage in assassination for fun, she gets benefits that she puts towards serving the Council (greater good and all that Renegade stuff, plus we again don't have context or solid examples of "evil").  Saren is known for "getting the job done" and it's considered that the benefits are worth the cost, most of what we know about him are acts when he has gone rogue and is using his past service to cover his true activities.  As for Chelik, he doesn't even mention specific evidence and is more focussed on the very fact that they are above the law rather than specific examples or routine occurences.

This one is extremely subjective and we just don't know enough about routine Spectre operations to make a reliable judgement anyway.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Except Cerberus isn't out to destroy the Council. It's even gone out of its way to save it.

Cerberus seeks to undermine the Council in so much that it seeks to put Humanity on the top. Except in so much that the Council prevents/opposes this, Cerberus has no issue or vendetta against it. The antagonism is pretty much one-way.


Cerberus is criminal, but it is neither an existentional threat nor remarkably subversive: Cerberus seeks to take advantage of the ruling structure to it's (humanity's) benefit, not collapse it.

The fact that Cerberus uses the Council isn't an indicator that they're not doing something wrong or that the Council should gladly accept being forced to place Humanity at the top of all priorities.  The Council exists (in theory, at least) to work for the benefit of all of the Council and associated races, if any one of them is being promoted to the top at the cost of others then that is against their purpose and is basically an attack on them.  Cerberus is working against the very purpose of the Council and they'd gladly destroy the entire Council structure if they saw it as the best way to advance the cause of Humanity.  Saying that "it's just business" doesn't make it okay and it doesn't make it any less evil.

It might be different if Cerberus believed that Humanity being in charge would also be best for the other races and genuinely cared about them or if they were attempting to promote the cause of Humanity while still considering the position of other races and avoiding causing them to lose out.  That's just not the case, however.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
That's not inherent at all. Even evil is self-interested, and a part of self-interest is distrust of things that could shake the power... like if a renowned Turian-nationalist like Saren got control over the Geth as a whole. Not good for Asari or Salarians, evil or not.

True enough.  The point was that the Council doesn't support Saren in all of his "evil" acts (as I mentioned, we mostly only hear about things after he has gone rogue and it's clear he's been deceiving the Council for some time).

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Why would Cerberus be any more evil than the Alliance? Cerberus are the Alliance. The whole "going rogue" thing was either staged to give the Alliance plausible deniability if the Council ever got wise, or just a misunderstanding on the part of Admiral Kahoku.

But I think that's what you're hinting at anyway, OP, and I agree with you.

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Cerberus is no better or worse than
the legitimate organizations in Mass Effect. They just suffer from bad
PR and the bigger players on the field declaring them criminal.

Exactly.

Personally,
I think that this is a Council attempt to gimp the Alliance, since
every other major player has it's own black ops organisation but the
Alliance apparently isn't allowed one. What better way to weaken these
new upstarts, who are rising to prominence much too quickly and threaten
the centuries-old status quo, than by declaring that an essential part
of their defence infrastructure is a terrorist organisation that must be
hunted and expunged?

I'm not sure that this makes sense, we have no indication that the Council would be against the Alliance having a group similar to the STG.  The three Council races have a history of using groups like this (less so in the case of the Turians perhaps) so it stands to reason that they'd allow member races to do so as well.  If the Alliance wanted a group like that, they'd just have to ask.  The exception would be if the group was going to break Council laws, which would be unacceptable to them (and isn't tolerated by other member races either).

It's possible that Cerberus could be an Alliance group but if they do exist to work outside of Council laws for the benefit of the Alliance then it does make sense that the Council wouldn't like them at all.  An alternative reason for the secrecy could be that the Human public wouldn't support such a group but to the Council it'd still be seen as a rogue group that is a threat to them (and the Alliance wouldn't want to inform the Council of the group since it could be used for blackmail against the Alliance).

Vengeful Nature wrote...
And you don't think that this situation has arisen again? All of known galactic civilisation is under threat from the Reapers. It's the same situation as the rachni and krogan, in fact, it's even more desperate. Extreme measures were used in those war efforts, why can't they be used in this one?

That's not unreasonable but Cerberus are doing evil deeds for reasons other than dealing with the Reaper situation (infact their least evil deeds seem to be the ones that relate to the Reaper threat).

Vengeful Nature wrote...
If the Alliance had withdrawn their embassy, the same thing would have happened and the Alliance would be severely weakened. The Council is a hegemonic power seeking to absorb or weaken, mark my words. It can brook no strong adversaries.

That's not necessarily evil though (and the Alliance wouldn't exactly be a strong adversary alone anyway, or else sanctions and such would have no effect in the first place).  Refusing to give benefits to someone that wont play along and work with others seems fair enough and they do have to make the decisions that protect the member races at the end of the day.

Modifié par Smeelia, 16 mai 2011 - 04:25 .

[Moiaussi]

noarev wrote...

It's very interesting to see that despite saying the topic has no importance and has been done to death, you still chose to hang out around it, Moiaussi.

I didn't say the topic had no importance, I said there were other current threads this could have been added to. There is a vast difference there. It is a good topic, but I was asking why it needed 3+ simultaneous threads.

1) LorDC is right about the Quarian planet thing. The Council would have bombarded it, arguing that the structures were illegal and that the Quarians didn't have the ME equivalent of building permits. Tali explains all this. And while the Elcor might have been promised the planet initially, the fact that it is one of handful of planets suitable for Quarian colonization should have made the decision quite easy. What with the whole living on ships alone sorta crippling their biology thing.

It is a high gravity world. What about that makes it 'suitable for Quarian colonization?'
 

4) And evil is relative, it's a point of view thing. A person's own moral code and personality determine what one views as evil and to what extent. What may be seen as evil can be simple necessity and not undertake lightly. Saren is a good example of that. While a bastard at times, in the end he only wished to buy the survival of those he considered to be important. Liara's mother only wanted to temper Saren, but to all your knowledge up to the final point in the confrontation she was evil.

So yes, evil is just a Point of View. Thanx for the trolling! XD

Ah, another person who thinks anyone who disagrees with them is trolling, sigh.

Our perception of good and evil is a point of view. That doesn't mean there isn't evil. A person's own moral code is subjective, but that doesn't mean it cannot be held to objective standards or that there are no objective standards.

As for Benezia, in her own words she was beyond salvation. The indoctrination was so strong that she felt it better to die. As the old saying goes, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Whether she was good or evil in the end, it is hard to argue she wasn't in at least some form of living hell.

Whether she was good or evil is academic too. Whether someone is doing 'evil' consciously, subconsciously, or outright against their will doesn't change the fact they have to be stopped.

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

What I really meant was that the Quarians would have expected the Council to follow through on their threat had they continued to defy them.  Of course, the Quarians wouldn't have been in a position of being threatened had they not already intentionally broken laws they were well aware of and it's quite possible that the threat of bombardment (presumably followed by bombardment for continued violation) is the express rule or established procedure that the Quarians would have been aware of.

And had there not been a Quarian refugee crisis, the Quarians wouldn't have needed a planet.

Exceptional times do allow for exceptional measures. Threatening to shoot the refugees on your lawn, and then justifying it because you had a 'no refugees on the lawn' sign before there was a crisis, is not an excuse. Not, mind you that there was any sign on the planet beforehand: the Elcor only were awarded rights to the planet after the Quarian retro-active request for an empty planet was denied and the quarians given a year to leave.

On re-reading the entry though it's interesting that it doesn't say it was specifically the Council who ordered the Quarians to leave or face bombardment, it's quite possible that this was done by the Elcor and the Council wouldn't intervene with internal matters.

The context clearly points to Council arbitration and verdict expelling the Quarians.

As for the matter of the future of the Quarians, they're still able to survive without the planet (which doesn't seem like it was that good an option for them anyway, though they must have had reason for asking for it).  Technically speaking, the fact that they want a homeworld and to re-establish themselves doesn't automatically mean that they need it (although it's a complex issue).  If the Quarians had just asked in the first place instead of taking illegal actions then the Council might have agreed (or they might have refused for extra evil points), by taking those actions the Quarians made it more difficult for the Council (or just gave them an excuse if you're feeling cynical, though it can't be proven).

The Quarian future was irrevocably shattered by the Council decision: instead of settling on another planet and being able to rebuild and conduct normal diplomatic relations, the Quarians were forced by circumstance and history to become a refugee fleet for hundreds of years.

Illegal doesn't automatically mean evil (or else your point above would be negated by the fact the Quarians were "evil" first with their illegal settlement).  Your examples don't exactly provide a wide enough sample to show that "evil" is routine (they could all be exceptions) and they're not all examples of "evil" conduct anyway.

Systematic murder and corruption, however, more or less do.

Shepard doesn't start a fight in a bar before becoming a Spectre, people trying to kill you in a bar isn't exactly an evil act on your part.  Samara attacks Nihlus for executing an unarmed person but no other context is given, it's quite possible the unarmed person was a "bad guy" (Samara has no problem executing "bad guys" herself) and at worst it's morally grey (particularly without knowing more).  Tela Vasir doesn't engage in assassination for fun, she gets benefits that she puts towards serving the Council (greater good and all that Renegade stuff, plus we again don't have context or solid examples of "evil").  Saren is known for "getting the job done" and it's considered that the benefits are worth the cost, most of what we know about him are acts when he has gone rogue and is using his past service to cover his true activities.  As for Chelik, he doesn't even mention specific evidence and is more focussed on the very fact that they are above the law rather than specific examples or routine occurences.

No, Shepard initiates an assault on Chora's Den. Nihlus's circumstance was enough for the epitomy of Asari common law and its justice system to consider wrong. Tela Vasir doesn't have to murder for fun to have murdered without need in the pursuit of her objectives. And we've long since seen that the Council accepts morally and utterly reprehensible actions in the name of 'getting the job done', even when those actions are not necessary.

The fact that Cerberus uses the Council isn't an indicator that they're not doing something wrong or that the Council should gladly accept being forced to place Humanity at the top of all priorities.  The Council exists (in theory, at least) to work for the benefit of all of the Council and associated races, if any one of them is being promoted to the top at the cost of others then that is against their purpose and is basically an attack on them.  Cerberus is working against the very purpose of the Council and they'd gladly destroy the entire Council structure if they saw it as the best way to advance the cause of Humanity.  Saying that "it's just business" doesn't make it okay and it doesn't make it any less evil.

The Council exists to promote its own interests. It's never claimed anything else, even if it has claimed that doing so is better for everyone.

Your argument that Cerberus wishes to destroy the Council is still unsupported.

It might be different if Cerberus believed that Humanity being in charge would also be best for the other races and genuinely cared about them or if they were attempting to promote the cause of Humanity while still considering the position of other races and avoiding causing them to lose out.  That's just not the case, however.

Influence is always a zero-sum game, and it's a fact immune to Cerberus. When the Alliance made overtures to wanting a Council seat, it was in direct opposition to the political strength of the Council races.

True enough.  The point was that the Council doesn't support Saren in all of his "evil" acts (as I mentioned, we mostly only hear about things after he has gone rogue and it's clear he's been deceiving the Council for some time).

And the point was to serve as disproof to the Council being evil, because they didn't join in. yes.

[Moiaussi]

LorDC wrote...

Description of one of the planets. Sorry, I don't remember which one but I read it afew times so I am pretty sure about this. You can find it itself in wiki.

It is a high (4.1g) gravity ice world. What about that makes it particularly 'suited to Quarians?' It was also in Council space. If a sizable population just up and moved into some currently unoccupied portion of the US it is a safe bet that the US would object, whether they were refugees or not. It is not a given that they wouldn't be simply deported.

In this case, while they are refugees from the Morning war, they have survived that way for 300 years. They are not in any imminent danger, so the usual justifications for taking them in as refugees don't apply. There is nothing to stop them from finding a world outside of Council space, other than that then they would have to be able to defend themselves rather than have the Council backing them up. If it did turn out that the reason the Geth were staying at home was that the Quarians were considered an impossible target as a migrant fleet, then that means the Council could have ended up in a new Geth war, simply by letting the Quarians settle in their space.

Note that wouldn't have gone weill for the Quarians if that happened, since they would likely have been the first targeted.

“These appointed Council representatives will also conduct regular inspections of all Alliance facilities
and colonies, including Earth, to ensure you are in compliance with the laws and regulations of the
Citadel.”
Exact quote from Revelation. So other species wouls have enforced Council politics on humanity. This basically equals to losing independance. Slavery was not employed on such scale since stone age but this is as close as it can come to it. And the fact that humanity could "run" like batarians does not vindicate Council in any way.

There are similar inspections in RL with respect to preventing the spread of mad cow disease. Does that mean we are all slaves? Moreover, stop trade and the inspections stop. Trade with other nations isn't a right. You don't have the right to say they must trade with you. You can set the terms you are willing to trade under, but since both sides have the ability to say no, it becomes a negotiation.

Alliance membership does not vindicate Council in any way. Just because you join group of bad guys that does not make them good in any way.

It means we are policing ourselves.

Don't play with words. Of course they answer to Council. But they don't answer to the law.

No more or less so than police answering to the police board first and 'the rest of the law' second, or soldiers being subject to military law rather than civilian law.

And is the objection here really that they aren't answerable to the law? Or is the objection that they are answerable to the Council? If Shepard was given true carte blanch do literally do anything, would pro Cerberus people still be complaining about the Council?

Cerberus also happens to be anti-Council group outlawed by this same Council.

A council that Cerberus declared as the enemy as early as its first manifesto, and has been working against since. TIM admits Cerberus' actions are considered criminal, unethical and amoral, and laments the Alliance being subject to laws and democracy. How is that not an organization that would be outlawed by any regime?

I just meant that "evilness" of actions depends on viewpoint.

My counter remains that our opinions are subjective, but that doesn't change the fact that there are better paths and worse paths.

You also ignored my argument about Saren. Care to say anything?

Saren claimed the deaths were neccessary as a distraction. He also let Anderson take the fall. If he really felt they were neccessary, why didn't he take the fall himself?

Or did he cause unnecessary deaths simply so he wouldn't miss his favourite show and to frame someone he really didn't like due to the First Contact war?

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The conduct and history of the Spectres pretty much precludes any argument that they don't routinely engage in activities that don't require the legal-immunity clause. Shepard is shooting up bars even before Spectre status: Nihlus is caught by and earns the rath of an Asari Justicar, Tela Vasir engages in assassination entirely removed from her Spectre missions, and Saren's conduct is legendary. These are only underlined more by Executor Chelik's evaluation of Spectre corruption, and while he may have an axe to grind he's also indisputably in a place to know what he's talking about.

How is that different from police officers, who have the right to speed, carry (and use) firearms, and confine people, and are answerable to a police board first and the criminal code second?

Or soldiers who can do everything you list above, subject to risk of court martial first and the criminal code second?

Spectre lack of accountability is more a result of a lack of oversight rather than a lack of actual law.

Except Cerberus isn't out to destroy the Council. It's even gone out of its way to save it.

When?

Cerberus seeks to undermine the Council in so much that it seeks to put Humanity on the top. Except in so much that the Council prevents/opposes this, Cerberus has no issue or vendetta against it. The antagonism is pretty much one-way.

Cerberus is criminal, but it is neither an existentional threat nor remarkably subversive: Cerberus seeks to take advantage of the ruling structure to it's (humanity's) benefit, not collapse it.

Cerberus engages in activities deemed criminal, unethical and amoral, while decrying the Alliance as being limited by law and public opinion. They don't consider themselves bound by the Alliance and consider themselves the 'real' government, as evidenced by TIM's 'I am Humanity' exclaimation. Not "Cerberus supports humanity", not "I am working for Humanity", but "I am Humanity."

You make a legitimate point about TIM not offering his takeover plan to the Council though.

[Vengeful Nature]

Smeelia wrote...

I'm not sure that this makes sense, we have no indication that the Council would be against the Alliance having a group similar to the STG.  The three Council races have a history of using groups like this (less so in the case of the Turians perhaps) so it stands to reason that they'd allow member races to do so as well.  If the Alliance wanted a group like that, they'd just have to ask.  The exception would be if the group was going to break Council laws, which would be unacceptable to them (and isn't tolerated by other member races either).

I know, I just let my tinfoil hat get a little workout. If the established Council governments didn't want humanity rocking the boat, a boat that's been stable more or less for the last thousand years but which the Alliance threatens to rock by shifting up the status quo, they could knock the Alliance down a peg by making their answer to the STG illegal, taking their edge away.

It's possible that Cerberus could be an Alliance group but if they do exist to work outside of Council laws for the benefit of the Alliance then it does make sense that the Council wouldn't like them at all.  An alternative reason for the secrecy could be that the Human public wouldn't support such a group but to the Council it'd still be seen as a rogue group that is a threat to them (and the Alliance wouldn't want to inform the Council of the group since it could be used for blackmail against the Alliance).

Or it could be both. Again, plausible deniability.

That's not unreasonable but Cerberus are doing evil deeds for reasons other than dealing with the Reaper situation (infact their least evil deeds seem to be the ones that relate to the Reaper threat).

Well, arguably, everything they do is going to give us an edge that'll help against the Reapers. Even if, perhaps, they do it for the wrong reasons.

Of course, Cerberus working with the Reapers in ME3 kinda throws this theory on it's head, but the jury's still out on that one.

That's not necessarily evil though (and the Alliance wouldn't exactly be a strong adversary alone anyway, or else sanctions and such would have no effect in the first place).  Refusing to give benefits to someone that wont play along and work with others seems fair enough and they do have to make the decisions that protect the member races at the end of the day.

I agree, I never said it was evil. The Council have been top dogs for around a millennia or so, and it's only natural that they would want to keep it that way. From the point of view of the Alliance, however, it's not a good thing. I'm not really bringing morality into this, it's all just about power. Just like real life.

Early on, the Alliance were the new kids, the Council felt the need to support them and protect them against the batarians. If this meant smacking the batarian Hegemony down a little, all the better. I guess we have no reason to believe that the Council viewed the Hegemony as a threat, it's just a suspicion of mine based on the very un-Citadel way the batarians go about things (aggression, slavery, stuff like that).

Increasingly, however, people have started to get worried about the gains that humanity has made since it joined the greater galactic community. Liara says as much in ME1. It's gotten to a point in ME1 and ME2 that people view humanity with suspicion, seeing them as bullies with reckless ambition.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Or soldiers who can do everything you list above, subject to risk of court martial first and the criminal code second?

Trolling like this is why I don't carry on with you, Moiaussi.

[Smeelia]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

And had there not been a Quarian refugee crisis, the Quarians wouldn't have needed a planet.[/quote]

That didn't have anything to do with the Council though (infact, it's hard to argue that it wasn't the Quarians fault to some extent).  The Quarians created a situation that they should have known would force the Council to oppose them, they could have chosen to ask first and take no illegal actions (at least then if they were turned down the Council would be the clear bad guy).

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Exceptional times do allow for exceptional measures. Threatening to shoot the refugees on your lawn, and then justifying it because you had a 'no refugees on the lawn' sign before there was a crisis, is not an excuse. Not, mind you that there was any sign on the planet beforehand: the Elcor only were awarded rights to the planet after the Quarian retro-active request for an empty planet was denied and the quarians given a year to leave.[/quote]

Debatable, the "no refugees" sign could be considered fair warning.  The planet was in Citadel Space and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Council (otherwise the Council wouldn't have authority, the Quarians wouldn't have needed to ask and the Council couldn't say anything afterwards), there was indeed a "sign" there already.  The Quarians could continue to survive without the planet and the Elcor did indeed have a use for the planet (it was also better suited to them).  It may not be nice but keeping something that is useful to you when a less fortunate but still surviving group could also use it isn't really evil.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Quarian future was irrevocably shattered by the Council decision: instead of settling on another planet and being able to rebuild and conduct normal diplomatic relations, the Quarians were forced by circumstance and history to become a refugee fleet for hundreds of years.[/quote]

Unless I'm reading it wrong (it mentions the incident occuring at the turn of the century), the Quarians had already been living in the fleet for some 200+ years prior to finding the planet.  The planet may have changed their way of life but they'd already proven that their current way of life is sustainable and sufficient.  Their need wasn't urgent or "exceptional" enough to justify drastic action, nor was it sufficient to make punishment unjustified.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Systematic murder and corruption, however, more or less do.[/quote]

There's still no proof that this regularly happens and certainly not "systematically".

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, Shepard initiates an assault on Chora's Den. Nihlus's circumstance was enough for the epitomy of Asari common law and its justice system to consider wrong. Tela Vasir doesn't have to murder for fun to have murdered without need in the pursuit of her objectives. And we've long since seen that the Council accepts morally and utterly reprehensible actions in the name of 'getting the job done', even when those actions are not necessary.[/quote]

Shepard was trying to rescue someone from criminals, some criminals resisted.  The fact that there are no bar patrons when Shepard arrives shows that the criminals had prepared to resist.  Just because Tela Vasir could have murdered without need doesn't mean she has, there's no evidence of any misdeeds here.  What evidence is there that the Council accepts "morally and utterly reprehensible actions" that are "not necessary"?

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Council exists to promote its own interests. It's never claimed anything else, even if it has claimed that doing so is better for everyone.[/quote]

The Council also works for it's associated members (at least in theory), such as in the case of giving the Elcor a suitable planet for habitation over the Quarian squatters.  I'm not saying the council isn't evil, just that they seem less evil overall than Cerberus.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Your argument that Cerberus wishes to destroy the Council is still unsupported.[/quote]

Not true.  Cerberus will only be happy with the Council if they're all about putting Humanity over the other races, this would require such change to their core purpose (working for the benefit of all members) that they would effectively be "destroyed".  Anyway, it's irrelevant if Cerberus wants to actually destroy the Council, undermining them is enough to make the Council dislike them.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Influence is always a zero-sum game, and it's a fact immune to Cerberus. When the Alliance made overtures to wanting a Council seat, it was in direct opposition to the political strength of the Council races.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean about influence being a zero-sum game, if people work together they can often achieve greater overall benefits (meaning a net-gain).  There were reasons for the Council to not want to give Humanity a Council seat other than just "keeping power", such as the interests of other races.  Just because you want power doesn't necessarily mean it's for the best and the Council has to look after all of it's members so letting Humanity have a seat may not have been best for that goal.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
And the point was to serve as disproof to the Council being evil, because they didn't join in. yes.
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean here but all I was really saying was that Saren and his actions aren't evidence the Council is evil, not that the Council is not evil just because they happened to pass on doing/condoning some evil deeds.  As I said, I don't think of the Council as purely "good guys" but it's pretty easy to find lots of evidence that Cerberus is evil while the Council at least have some good points (particularly in the context of the wider organisation) and keep their evils a little better hidden (from what we've seen at least).

[quote]Vengeful Nature wrote...

I know, I just let my tinfoil hat get a little workout. If the established Council governments didn't want humanity rocking the boat, a boat that's been stable more or less for the last thousand years but which the Alliance threatens to rock by shifting up the status quo, they could knock the Alliance down a peg by making their answer to the STG illegal, taking their edge away.[/quote]

True, though it'd be difficult to justify treating an associate member differently and most Council laws apply equally to all.  Let's face it though, the Council are perfect for being the target of conspiracy theories since they have a group of three people with incredible authority (and representing a small selection of the races of the galaxy) and don't seem to be above being at least sneaky.

[quote]Vengeful Nature wrote...
Well, arguably, everything they do is going to give us an edge that'll help against the Reapers. Even if, perhaps, they do it for the wrong reasons.[/quote]

Doing something evil and hoping for justification later is pretty questionable though.  It's still evil even if it does turn out to be useful.

[quote]Vengeful Nature wrote...
I agree, I never said it was evil. The Council have been top dogs for around a millennia or so, and it's only natural that they would want to keep it that way. From the point of view of the Alliance, however, it's not a good thing. I'm not really bringing morality into this, it's all just about power. Just like real life.

Early on, the Alliance were the new kids, the Council felt the need to support them and protect them against the batarians. If this meant smacking the batarian Hegemony down a little, all the better. I guess we have no reason to believe that the Council viewed the Hegemony as a threat, it's just a suspicion of mine based on the very un-Citadel way the batarians go about things (aggression, slavery, stuff like that).

Increasingly, however, people have started to get worried about the gains that humanity has made since it joined the greater galactic community. Liara says as much in ME1. It's gotten to a point in ME1 and ME2 that people view humanity with suspicion, seeing them as bullies with reckless ambition.
[/quote]

I think it makes perfect sense that the Council supports Humanity and allows them to mess about in the Terminus systems specifically because they wanted to use Humanity to push back the Batarians and try and stabilise the region.  Humanity was a good choice because they had shown they'd "play ball" and were looking to expand.  They don't necessarily view the Batarians as a threat as such but they'd be happy to expand Citadel Space to encompass as much as possible.  That's not necessarily evil either of course, since it's for the benefit of their members (including Humanity).

[quote]Vengeful Nature wrote...

I know, I just let my tinfoil hat get a little workout. If the established Council governments didn't want humanity rocking the boat, a boat that's been stable more or less for the last thousand years but which the Alliance threatens to rock by shifting up the status quo, they could knock the Alliance down a peg by making their answer to the STG illegal, taking their edge away.[/quote]

True, though it'd be difficult to justify treating an associate member differently and most Council laws apply equally to all.  Let's face it though, the Council are perfect for being the target of conspiracy theories since they have a group of three people with incredible authority (and representing a small selection of the races of the galaxy) and don't seem to be above being at least sneaky.

[quote]Vengeful Nature wrote...
Well, arguably, everything they do is going to give us an edge that'll help against the Reapers. Even if, perhaps, they do it for the wrong reasons.[/quote]

Doing something evil and hoping for justification later is pretty questionable though.  It's still evil even if it does turn out to be useful.

[quote]Vengeful Nature wrote...
I agree, I never said it was evil. The Council have been top dogs for around a millennia or so, and it's only natural that they would want to keep it that way. From the point of view of the Alliance, however, it's not a good thing. I'm not really bringing morality into this, it's all just about power. Just like real life.

Early on, the Alliance were the new kids, the Council felt the need to support them and protect them against the batarians. If this meant smacking the batarian Hegemony down a little, all the better. I guess we have no reason to believe that the Council viewed the Hegemony as a threat, it's just a suspicion of mine based on the very un-Citadel way the batarians go about things (aggression, slavery, stuff like that).

Increasingly, however, people have started to get worried about the gains that humanity has made since it joined the greater galactic community. Liara says as much in ME1. It's gotten to a point in ME1 and ME2 that people view humanity with suspicion, seeing them as bullies with reckless ambition.
[/quote]

I think it makes perfect sense that the Council supports Humanity and allows them to mess about in the Terminus systems specifically because they wanted to use Humanity to push back the Batarians and try and stabilise the region.  Humanity was a good choice because they had shown they'd "play ball" and were looking to expand.  They don't necessarily view the Batarians as a threat as such but they'd be happy to expand Citadel Space to encompass as much as possible.  That's not necessarily evil either of course, since it's for the benefit of their members (including Humanity).

It worked out well for Humanity (even if you're a Paragon) since it turned out that the Humans don't just "play ball", they're really good at it.  The other races are a little concerned because they've gotten used to the status quo but ultimately they could come around if things work out for the better (more likely in the Paragon case, although things may be better for Humanity overall in the Renegade route it's likely that the other races' fears would be more justified and they'd lose out).

Modifié par Smeelia, 16 mai 2011 - 07:07 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Smeelia wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

And had there not been a Quarian refugee crisis, the Quarians wouldn't have needed a planet.[/quote]

That didn't have anything to do with the Council though (infact, it's hard to argue that it wasn't the Quarians fault to some extent).  The Quarians created a situation that they should have known would force the Council to oppose them, they could have chosen to ask first and take no illegal actions (at least then if they were turned down the Council would be the clear bad guy).[/quote]Since it was the Council's laws regarding AI that the Quarians were attempting to implement, and it was the Council who was the associate-ally who turned their back from supporting the Quarians, and then it was the Council who then held the Quarians guilty, the Council was very much involved by this point.
[quote]
Debatable, the "no refugees" sign could be considered fair warning.  The planet was in Citadel Space and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Council (otherwise the Council wouldn't have authority, the Quarians wouldn't have needed to ask and the Council couldn't say anything afterwards), there was indeed a "sign" there already.  The Quarians could continue to survive without the planet and the Elcor did indeed have a use for the planet (it was also better suited to them).  It may not be nice but keeping something that is useful to you when a less fortunate but still surviving group could also use it isn't really evil.[/quote]No, that's pretty much malign assholism of a cosmic scale, and certainly a deligitimizing conduct of affairs. No power that will so willfully betray the trust of a subordinate ally in its time of need has any right to being considered a legitimate governing body.

[quote]
Unless I'm reading it wrong (it mentions the incident occuring at the turn of the century), the Quarians had already been living in the fleet for some 200+ years prior to finding the planet.  The planet may have changed their way of life but they'd already proven that their current way of life is sustainable and sufficient.  Their need wasn't urgent or "exceptional" enough to justify drastic action, nor was it sufficient to make punishment unjustified.[/quote]The Quarian Flotilla isn't sustainable: it depends immensly on a number of remarkably vulnerable potential events, as is the nature of living in old, often breaking, ships.

[quote]

There's still no proof that this regularly happens and certainly not "systematically".[/quote]If an entire system designed to allow legal unaccountably, systemic recognition and disavowel of interest in holding any such illegalities to account, the word of a high-ranking police, the behavior and reputation of half the Spectres we've seen, and Shepard's own possibilities (never held to account) don't convince you, nothing will.
[quote]

Shepard was trying to rescue someone from criminals, some criminals resisted. [/quote]Shepard isn't a cop. Shepard isn't even C-SEC. Shepard has no legal right or authority to conduct a police-raid massacre.
[quote]  Just because Tela Vasir could have murdered without need doesn't mean she has, there's no evidence of any misdeeds here.  [/quote]Uh, she admits that she's done murders as favors for the Shadow Broker.

And we saw the building she had blown up.

[quote]
What evidence is there that the Council accepts "morally and utterly reprehensible actions" that are "not necessary"?[/quote]Every single citation of Spectre misconduct short of treason, the Spectre system, and as evidenced by Shepard's own acts.
[quote]
The Council also works for it's associated members (at least in theory), such as in the case of giving the Elcor a suitable planet for habitation over the Quarian squatters.  I'm not saying the council isn't evil, just that they seem less evil overall than Cerberus.[/quote]Not even in theory. The Council, in practice, works for its associate members... in so much that working for them works for it.

[quote]

I'm not sure what you mean about influence being a zero-sum game, if people work together they can often achieve greater overall benefits (meaning a net-gain). [/quote]That's not influence.
[quote]
There were reasons for the Council to not want to give Humanity a Council seat other than just "keeping power", such as the interests of other races.  Just because you want power doesn't necessarily mean it's for the best and the Council has to look after all of it's members so letting Humanity have a seat may not have been best for that goal.[/quote]The Council didn't keep Humanity out of a seat for as long as it did for the sake of the lesser races, any more than its kept those races out of a Council seat for their own benefit. The Council kept Humanity out of power as long as it could for its own interests, and let Huamanity in when it needed to.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

How is that different from police officers?

Anyone arrested or killed or pursued by the police has rights.

Someone killed or detained or pursued by a Spectre has none.

Someone killed by a police officer is just as dead as someone killed by a Spectre. Other than that, how do you know?

In the case of Toombs, the paragon approach is to bring the remaining scientist back for trial. Similarly for Jacob's father, IIRC.

How do you know that someone falsely accused or detained by a Spectre doesn't have any recourse against the state? There is no such situation that has come up in ME.