183 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

What part of my statement is false? I was not making any judgement against soldiers. They are answerable to the military first and to civilian law second. That is simply the truth. That doesn't mean that a soldier who commits murder while off duty will be let off the hook, nor even that if they shoot civilians in the line of duty that they will necessarily be let off the hook. They have a tough role in society, so they answer to a different system.

Stop treating any arguement you don't like as trolling.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

It isn't clear if the AI laws even existed yet. Tali seems to suggest they did, but she wasn't born yet when the Morning War occurred. The Codex implies they were a result of the Morning War. Note that the laws also are with respect to the development of AI's. AI's themselves are only 'technically illegal.' Legion isn't arrested on the Citadel.

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

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.

There is no mention of any of their ships actually dieing though either, and sometimes pilgrimages do bring new ships. There are worlds outside of Council space too that they could look to.

Meanwhile how do you feel about the Quarians denying the Elcor a world? As a high gravity world, it seems like it was almost certainly better suited to the Elcor than to the Quarians, all other aspects of politics aside. Why did the Quarians choose that world specificly?

Uh, she admits that she's done murders as favors for the Shadow Broker.

And we saw the building she had blown up.

But do we know if that was done with the knowledge and consent of the council, or if like Saren she might have been stripped of position and charged over that event? Admitting to getting away with crimes doesn't make anyone else the criminal.

Every single citation of Spectre misconduct short of treason, the Spectre system, and as evidenced by Shepard's own acts.

What are all these citations of misconduct and how many were with Council knowledge and/or approval rather than Shepard playing 'dirty cop?' That there is police corruption doesn't invaldiate the existance of police. Law enforcement whether external or internal is never going to 100% perfect. Remote worlds make it even tougher.

Not even in theory. The Council, in practice, works for its associate members... in so much that working for them works for it.

People keep saying that, completely ignoring the fact that 'associate member' merely means 'maintains diplomatic relations.' 'Member' doesn't have its usual meaning, and is likely used mostly for PR purposes. It is more like 'has a UN seat.' Less than a UN seat actually in that associate members get no vote whatsoever.

That said, if associate members get nothing, how is it the world was awarded to the Elcor, or that the Elcor ambassador pointed out to the Volus ambassador the degree of Council-sponsored Volus expansion?

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.

Council membership is a ceding of soverignty. To what extent should any nation be quick to agree to such a thing?

[Seboist]

TIM is fighting for humanity's continued strength and preservation. I have complete faith in him.

[Moiaussi]

Seboist wrote...

TIM is fighting for humanity's continued strength and preservation. I have complete faith in him.

TIM is fighting for TIM in the name of humanity. There is some overlap but it isn't clear the extent that his goals are really pro humanity rather than merely pro TIM.

[Seboist]

Moiaussi wrote...

Seboist wrote...

TIM is fighting for humanity's continued strength and preservation. I have complete faith in him.

TIM is fighting for TIM in the name of humanity. There is some overlap but it isn't clear the extent that his goals are really pro humanity rather than merely pro TIM.

TIM is a selfless man. He scolded Kai Leng for rescuing him instead of taking out Grayson in Retribution. That's the sign of a true hero.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TIM is a selfless man. He scolded Kai Leng for rescuing him instead of taking out Grayson in Retribution. That's the sign of a true hero.

A reaper-controlled Grayson could mean everyone dies, including TIM. TIM could have surrendered and been rescued later, but if Grayson brought on the Reaper invasion, there might not have been any rescue chance. That shows TIM has common sense, not necessarily selflessness.

And why was Grayson a threat in the first place? Because TIM had reaper tech installed in him.

Yeah, it's so about him that nobody even knows who the hell he is.

Again, that is prudence, not selflessness. TIM acknowledges that Cerberus does things considered criminal, unethical, amoral, and until his prediction of history redeeming their actions comes true, they have to stick to working from the shadows.

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

It was the Council laws that the Quarians were attempting to circumvent and if the laws hadn't existed it doesn't exactly guarantee that they wouldn't have made a major mess up with AI (since they'd have been more free to deliberately make AIs and have that blow up in their face anyway).  The Quarians broke the rules, while the Council followed them.  The Quarians put the galaxy at risk (what if the Geth hadn't stopped at driving off the Quarians?), the Council's reaction was justifiable in the circumstances.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Blatantly untrue and ignoring all of the other factors surrounding the decision.  The fact that the Quarians have survived for some 80+ years since the event (and advanced to the point they feel an attempt at re-taking their homeworld is possibly viable) shows that the Council weren't "dooming" them.  If the Quarians had trusted the Council then they'd have asked first and waited for an answer, if anything it was the Quarians who betrayed the Council's trust.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.

It still lacks evidence, a tiny number of examples compared to a long history and even those examples don't stand up well when examined.  The few "bad" Spectres we've seen may well be the only "bad" Spectres in the galaxy, there's no proof that they're all the same.  Frankly, I'm surprised that such weak evidence would convince anyone and I'm surprised that you actually think it would.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Shepard isn't a cop. Shepard isn't even C-SEC. Shepard has no legal right or authority to conduct a police-raid massacre.

You can't argue that the Council should ignore Council laws when it's for a "good cause" in the case of the Quarians but then say that Shepard shouldn't act without legal authority to save someone's life (funnily enough, a Quarian's life at that).  Shepard isn't really given a choice but to fight the criminals and "killing them all" wasn't the reason that Shepard went there.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Uh, she admits that she's done murders as favors for the Shadow Broker.

And we saw the building she had blown up.

It's still not necessarily proven that they were "evil" or "needless" deeds, Vasir sees the benefits of working with the Shadow Broker as worth the cost.  If you believe that no benefit is worth sacrifice and/or loss of life then that's more understandable but that'll also drastically increase the "evil quotient" of Cerberus (who pretty much specialise in sacrifice and loss of life).

Besides, as Moiaussi said, there's no proof that the Council condones Vasir's actions.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Every single citation of Spectre misconduct short of treason, the Spectre system, and as evidenced by Shepard's own acts.

Nothing shows that the Spectre system is inherently evil (mostly because it isn't).  I'd like to see a list of those citations of Spectre misconduct (particularly the ones that are actually proven and known to have been condoned by the Council) since I certainly can't think of anywhere close to enough to prove your point, rumours and unproven accusations aren't really sufficient either.

How many of Shepard's actions are "morally and utterly reprehensible" and "not necessary"?  At best you're going to get a lot of disagreement about whether the actions were okay or not and since Shepard is the hero of the story and mostly trying to make things better (even Renegade Shepard) I think most people would tend towards supporting Shepard overall.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Not even in theory. The Council, in practice, works for its associate members... in so much that working for them works for it.

Since the associate members are part of the complete organisation, there's nothing wrong with that.  Were you trying to make a point about it or just noting another non-evil aspect of the Council?

Dean_the_Young wrote...
That's not influence.

I still don't see the relevance of influence in the context.  If you were pointing out that the Council would lose overall influence per member by allowing Humanity to join as a full Council race, I don't see how that proves any evil act or intent.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.

You're assuming intent without proof, the fact that it could be interpreted as self-interested doesn't prove that this was the reason.  As I said, there are other factors that would affect the decision and since we have no way of proving what the actual reasons were we can't say that the Council's reasons were evil.  Even if the reasons were out of self-interest, that alone is not enough to qualify as evil (and again, even if you say that it is then Cerberus is at least as guilty as the Council).

We know Cerberus is evil with acts such as kidnapping and torturing children and directly endangering the Quarian Flotilla being pretty much standard in their portfolio, with the Council it's at least much more difficult to prove and even if they were guilty of everything they are accused of they would probably still come out better than Cerberus in terms of the evil:good ratio.

Cerberus and the Council were only two of the groups mentioned, I'm interested to know what people think makes the Alliance evil (assuming you aren't counting Cerberus as part of the Alliance) and if anyone considers them as evil or more so than the other two.

[Seboist]

Moiaussi wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

TIM is a selfless man. He scolded Kai Leng for rescuing him instead of taking out Grayson in Retribution. That's the sign of a true hero.

A reaper-controlled Grayson could mean everyone dies, including TIM. TIM could have surrendered and been rescued later, but if Grayson brought on the Reaper invasion, there might not have been any rescue chance. That shows TIM has common sense, not necessarily selflessness.

And why was Grayson a threat in the first place? Because TIM had reaper tech installed in him.

Yeah, it's so about him that nobody even knows who the hell he is.

Again, that is prudence, not selflessness. TIM acknowledges that Cerberus does things considered criminal, unethical, amoral, and until his prediction of history redeeming their actions comes true, they have to stick to working from the shadows.

Grayson was still locked up in his cell at the time. The whole threat was Anderson's fault for his treason.

[khordlambert]

Seboist wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

TIM is a selfless man. He scolded Kai Leng for rescuing him instead of taking out Grayson in Retribution. That's the sign of a true hero.

A reaper-controlled Grayson could mean everyone dies, including TIM. TIM could have surrendered and been rescued later, but if Grayson brought on the Reaper invasion, there might not have been any rescue chance. That shows TIM has common sense, not necessarily selflessness.

And why was Grayson a threat in the first place? Because TIM had reaper tech installed in him.

Yeah, it's so about him that nobody even knows who the hell he is.

Again, that is prudence, not selflessness. TIM acknowledges that Cerberus does things considered criminal, unethical, amoral, and until his prediction of history redeeming their actions comes true, they have to stick to working from the shadows.

Grayson was still locked up in his cell at the time. The whole threat was Anderson's fault for his treason.

You call it treason fangirl. I call it cleaning out the Alliance's house of it's terrorist ifestation. Those people Anderson essentaly sold out were already traitors themselves simply by their affiliation with Cerberus.

Modifié par khordlambert, 17 mai 2011 - 04:35 .

[khordlambert]

thurmanator692 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

Calling Anderson's actions treason is innacurate, Treason is going against a legitamate government that you have pledged loyalty to.

That's exactly what he did. What freaking planet do you live on? He should have acted on the data, yes, but he should not have collaborated with a rival power when he did not have the authority. Keep in mind that Andeson was merely an a advisor to the real man with authority, Udina. Anderson had many options available. However he chose a speedy and reckless course of action that did great damage to the Systems Alliance and hurt its relations with the turians.

It's just a fortunate thing for him that later Bioware came to resuce him from his stupidity by making Cerberus the badguys again.

Right, right, i haven't read it in a while, i forgot that him being councilor is non-cannon according to the books

Actually, it's not non cannon. He just decided to quit. To be fair, if I had to work with the Turian councilor I'd want out too. He probably couldn't eat lunch without the Turian concilor chewing him out for it.

"Egg salad Anderson? Don't you ever think of your cholesterol?" Or "Tuna Fish councilor? Do you have any idea how many of your dolphins were killed in making that!?"

And while the systems allience IS going to be hurt, I'd say that Cerberus would be hurt all the more, and I think thats what is REALLY cheezing off so many people concidering they always seem to forget just how many of the Alliance brass Anderson just sold out are affiliated with our favorite screw ups.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

Calling Anderson's actions treason is innacurate, Treason is going against a legitamate government that you have pledged loyalty to.

That's exactly what he did. What freaking planet do you live on? He should have acted on the data, yes, but he should not have collaborated with a rival power when he did not have the authority. Keep in mind that Andeson was merely an a advisor to the real man with authority, Udina. Anderson had many options available. However he chose a speedy and reckless course of action that did great damage to the Systems Alliance and hurt its relations with the turians.

It's just a fortunate thing for him that later Bioware came to resuce him from his stupidity by making Cerberus the badguys again.

Dereliction of duty isn't the same charge as treason. Acting against a terrorist faction on your own isn't even necessarily dereliction of duty. Even if he was given a direct order not to hit the Cerberus base and disobeyed it, that is still not treason. That is 'failure to obey a direct order,' a much lessor offense.

For it to be treason, Cerberus would not just have to be Alliance, but he would have to know it was Alliance. In addition, to charge him, the Alliance would pretty much have to openly admit that it was. In fact, if Cerberus is still a branch of the Alliance, then the Alliance is guilty of treason against the Council, since the rest of the Council certainly don't approve of Cerberus.

How exactly did Anderson's actions hurt relations with the Turians?

[khordlambert]

Moiaussi wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

Calling Anderson's actions treason is innacurate, Treason is going against a legitamate government that you have pledged loyalty to.

That's exactly what he did. What freaking planet do you live on? He should have acted on the data, yes, but he should not have collaborated with a rival power when he did not have the authority. Keep in mind that Andeson was merely an a advisor to the real man with authority, Udina. Anderson had many options available. However he chose a speedy and reckless course of action that did great damage to the Systems Alliance and hurt its relations with the turians.

It's just a fortunate thing for him that later Bioware came to resuce him from his stupidity by making Cerberus the badguys again.

Dereliction of duty isn't the same charge as treason. Acting against a terrorist faction on your own isn't even necessarily dereliction of duty. Even if he was given a direct order not to hit the Cerberus base and disobeyed it, that is still not treason. That is 'failure to obey a direct order,' a much lessor offense.

For it to be treason, Cerberus would not just have to be Alliance, but he would have to know it was Alliance. In addition, to charge him, the Alliance would pretty much have to openly admit that it was. In fact, if Cerberus is still a branch of the Alliance, then the Alliance is guilty of treason against the Council, since the rest of the Council certainly don't approve of Cerberus.

How exactly did Anderson's actions hurt relations with the Turians?

Well to be fair, it's higly likely that seeing how many high ranking members of the Alliance are Cerberus affiliated would sour the Allience in the views of the Turians. It'd be like Britain discovering the IRA has members in high ranking government seats here. It doesn't paint us in a god light if we knew about it, and if we didn't know it makes us look incompitant in our background checks.

That being said, I still support Anderson on this one. Might make life harder for Cerberus, and there is no telling how high up the Cerberus contamination has gotten. Could be even Udina is a Cerberus agent, getting that data to people outside the Alliance is really the best way to ensure it's used effectivly. Granted I would've prefered the Salarians or Asari had gotten it.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Dereliction of duty isn't the same charge as treason.

I agree, and this isn't dereliction of duty, this is treason.

And I am the King of England. How is it treason? Cerberus isn't the government.

[Seboist]

Anderson used foreign agents to capture and kill humans. He should be lynched for that.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

And I am the King of England. How is it treason? Cerberus isn't the government.

No, but the Alliance is.

And there is no evidence other than rampant speculation on the part of a few posters here that Cerberus is still part of the Alliance. It isn't even completely clear that they ever were part of the Alliance. Kahoku could have been wrong.

And since it isn't officially part of the Alliance and is publicly decried as terrorist by the Alliance how can you argue treason? The Alliance themseves say Cerberus has to be stopped.

[Moiaussi]

Seboist wrote...

Anderson used foreign agents to capture and kill humans. He should be lynched for that.

So tell me.... who is committing treason? Shepard when he kills human mercs or the mercs who opened fire first? I take it you consider having non-humans on Shepard's team is 'treason', even though without Mordin they would have had no chance against the collector's swarms?

Are you seriously trying to claim that if a non-human C-sec member executes an Alliance warrant on a human that it is an act of treason, regardless of what that human might have done?