237 réponses à ce sujet

[J0HNL3I]

Didn't they say they were putting shep on trail to use as a scapegoat to prevent a war

[OmegaXI]

jamesp81 wrote...

Killing 300,000 batarians isn't a crime.  It's a good start:devil::devil:

This

[Vengeful Nature]

Moiaussi wrote...

It is no more 'criminal negligence' than allowing any sort of competition within an economy. A strong enough caretaker to look after any colonies in the region on their own is very much in the Council's best interests.

It's not just economic competition, though. It's a direct challenge over who gets what in the region, with all the military posturing that implies. It's not just harmless squabbling, it's two jackals going for the same bit of food.

Yes, a stable region is in the Council's best interests. But the reason the Verge isn't stable is because they told two governments they could have the same spot.

Criminal negligence isn't actually a theory I prescribe to. It's certainly one possibility. But, as I said, I think the Council engineered the dispute to either take the Hegemony down a peg because of the very un-Citadel practices going on there (or perhaps, more pragmatically, because they didn't like how aggressive the Hegemony could be in terms of territory grabs), or to sharpen up the Alliance Navy and force it's growth in order to balance an over-powerful turian Hierarchy. Or both. We certainly know that asari diplomacy favours the long game and often takes centuries to come to fruition. It could be that that certain powerful asari Matriarchs foresee a future in which the Hierarchy is balanced evenly against the Alliance. But I digress, much of this paragraph is my own speculation.

Actually the codex entry for the system is interesting and makes no sense whatsoever. Appearantly both empires were trying to colonize, but the Alliance decided the atmosphere was too thin and pulled out. The Batarians inexplicably called them cowards and put in the extra effort to show it could be done. It makes no sense in the light of everything else the codex says about the history of Batarian relations.

Yeah, the Alliance pulling out is strange to me too. Surely there are still plenty of resources on the planet? The batarians seem to think so, what with their large-scale mining and all. The atmosphere is too thin, Grissom says? Well, put an envirosuit on. They are obviously advanced enough not to be too cumbersome. Or much more likely, just use robots.

Looks to me like someone (I'm looking at you, DLC writers) gave the Alliance an idiot box. For now, we'll just have to content outselves that the Alliance didn't see the planet returning much profit, so the batarians moved in.

Or we could speculate that the Alliance saw some other reason not to develop the system.

I know what you are talking about. As a Canadian, it is of direct interest. There are actual official borders up there. They are being disputed on the basis of better information as to where the ocean shelf lies.

Fair enough. I did hear once that the Canadian government is very keen on its Arctic sovereignty. I guess, what with the Northwest Passage and the possibility of the ice melting, it becomes a very real and prevalant issue.

The point still stands though. You've still got the case of Antarctica to proove that governments will often carve up a region even if it's not feasible to exploit it at the time.

Elysium is listed as having a population of 'several million', so a Batarian system with a population of a million doesn't mean much as far as prescence. That was as of 2165.

Half of those several million are alien. I would guess batarian given the fact that it's on the border between human and batarian space, but that's an educated guess.

Find proof and I'll concede the point. Nihlus' comments don't count because the Council had other involvment in the region already.

Friend, that quote is proof enough. It is categorically said that attacking a region under Citadel protection is an act of war. Nihlus' "technicality" point is meant as a way of saying, "even if it's an act of war, the Terminus System might consider a working Prothean Beacon worth ganging up and pissing off the Council because of the possible technology or information to be gained from it."

What other Council involvements in the Verge or the Traverse are you talking about? It's just the Alliance and the Hegemony, as far as we're aware.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 24 mai 2011 - 09:28 .

[jamesp81]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Elanos Haliat lead assault on Skyllian Blitz and he's human. What makes you think that there weren't other Turian and human pirates there as well?

I'll just quote this from the wiki:

official Mass Effect wiki says...

Though intended to be a turian, Elanos Haliat was accidentally given a human model in the game itself. His actual species is only hinted at by his "turian-esque" name, the distinctive turian sound processing applied to his dialogue, and his referring to humanity as "Shepard's kind". This explains why despite being on a planet with an atmosphere comprised of carbon dioxide and krypton, and a surface temperature of −70 °C (-92 °F), he is not wearing a helmet when encountered outside.

Other than that, I agree with most of your points. 

I just wish you'd stop using motivationals of facepalms to insult people.

Nashiktal wrote...

What we are seeing with the Batarians is a classic culture clash. It would seem certain fundemental elements
of their culture is directly at odds with key aspects of the citadel (and by extension our) culture.

Slavery for example. If you were born and raised within the Batarian hierarchy you would find nothing wrong or even strange about slavery or how it is handled as long as you don't experience some sort of cultural redirection as the result of extraneous circumstances. (Like say contact with an alternate culture early on in life)

With the Batarian way of life at such odds with the other races, I am actually surprised the Batarians weren't
kicked out sooner. For them to be able to stay a significant player within council space for so long they must have some sort of power they are able to exercise(Signs seem to point to the sheer size of the terminous factions) to have been able to keep the other council members wary enough not to fight them directly.

In fact with the council encouraging humanity to expand in Batarian promised space, it seems that humanities origional purpose in the galactic community was to be a buffer against the Batarian state.

It must have been a surprise to see that humanity not only survived this role, but excelled in it.

This is why I believe that the Council was purposefully playing the Hegemony off against the Alliance in the Skyllian Verge.

The Alliance comes along and starts aggressive colonisation of the Verge, so the Council think to themselves, "we'll use this to take the batarians down a notch or two, since they so adamantly refuse to abandon practices which we don't like."

Disclaimer: this is purely me speculating. We can't know this from anything in the games. It's just a cool little plot point if it's true, like what the Culture does to the Affront in Iain M. Bank's novel, Excession.

Actually, I think Anderson theorizes about this openly in ME1.  Been a while since I played it, however.  In any case, I think it's pretty obvious that the council intended to use the Alliance as a blunt instrument to curtail the batarians.  I don't know that they ever expected that not only would the Alliance succeed in that, but that it would ultimately expand human power and influence in general.

[Dean_the_Young]

Just because I'm a critic in general, and not at all because I disagree with the spirit behind you Vengeful Nature, I just wanted to throw my own thoughts at your argument. (Or pieces of it.) Overall, though, I generally agree.

Yes, a stable region is in the Council's best interests. But the reason the Verge isn't stable is because they told two governments they could have the same spot.

I think this unfairly implies that the Verge was stable before hand, which I think is a bit unsupported. Drawing from personal opinion, the Traverse struck me as a 'de-Terminized Terminus'. If the Terminus is the unsettled regions where the Council isn't, the Verge is one of those areas increasingly being colonized. Who did the colonizing was less important to the Council than that someone would do it, but simply a colonizing power would ultimately bring order. Now, that order could have been crude and nasty like the Batarians, or politically more desirable from the Alliance, but the general settlement was the point, and that point was in turn to fix pre-lingering troubles.

Yeah, the Alliance pulling out is strange to me too. Surely there are still plenty of resources on the planet? The batarians seem to think so, what with their large-scale mining and all. The atmosphere is too thin, Grissom says? Well, put an envirosuit on. They are obviously advanced enough not to be too cumbersome. Or much more likely, just use robots.

Looks to me like someone (I'm looking at you, DLC writers) gave the Alliance an idiot box. For now, we'll just have to content outselves that the Alliance didn't see the planet returning much profit, so the batarians moved in.

Or we could speculate that the Alliance saw some other reason not to develop the system.

The simplest would be 'it wasn't economicl for the Alliance at the time.' The Alliance is still young and can only settle so many places at once, and so preferable planets would be settled first. It's not necessarily that the Alliance never wanted to settle it, but rather it wasn't profitable/desirable to settle it now.

In that sort of situation, the trailing power (in this case the Batarians) often settle for less-than-best. The Batarians are already struggling to colonize in the Traverse, so the Humans passing this not only sees an opportunity, but also the chance to make a diplomatic point. While the Alliance saw more value elsewhere, the Batarians just had to value it enough.

The point still stands though. You've still got the case of Antarctica to proove that governments will often carve up a region even if it's not feasible to exploit it at the time.

Heck, just look at the scramble for Africa. Or the Louisiana Purchess. Or the most famous of all, the Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portegual.

Most western-hemisphere history of expansion has been about colonizers fighting over territory they really don't have much basis to claim yet, and won't develop for dozens or hundreds of years.

What other Council involvements in the Verge or the Traverse are you talking about? It's just the Alliance and the Hegemony, as far as we're aware.

Strictly speaking, there's also the corporate world of Noveria, where the Council outsources the stuff it likes to pretend is illegal.

[008Zulu]

You can see why the Council would want to take the Batarians down a notch or two; They bombed a Salarian world and annexed an Asari colony. When the Alliance made a move in to "their space" they complained to the Council. It seems they only play by the rules when it suits them.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Hegemony did those hundreds of years ago. That might be an Asari lifespan, but no one else we know of.

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Vengeful Nature wrote...

It's not just economic competition, though. It's a direct challenge over who gets what in the region, with all the military posturing that implies. It's not just harmless squabbling, it's two jackals going for the same bit of food.

Yes, a stable region is in the Council's best interests. But the reason the Verge isn't stable is because they told two governments they could have the same spot.

Criminal negligence isn't actually a theory I prescribe to. It's certainly one possibility. But, as I said, I think the Council engineered the dispute to either take the Hegemony down a peg because of the very un-Citadel practices going on there (or perhaps, more pragmatically, because they didn't like how aggressive the Hegemony could be in terms of territory grabs), or to sharpen up the Alliance Navy and force it's growth in order to balance an over-powerful turian Hierarchy. Or both. We certainly know that asari diplomacy favours the long game and often takes centuries to come to fruition. It could be that that certain powerful asari Matriarchs foresee a future in which the Hierarchy is balanced evenly against the Alliance. But I digress, much of this paragraph is my own speculation.[/quote]

How is it not economic? The Batarians weren't even willing to commit their own lives to the region, instead financing others to take on the Alliance.

You should also stop using terms like criminal negligence when you don't seem to understand them. It might be breech of duty, but most likely it is at best a treaty violation and is likely not any violation of anything at all.

It certainly didn't take the Hegemony down any pegs, since noone asked them to leave any worlds (unless you count Torfan). As for offsetting the Turians, why? There is currently a convenient balance between Turians, Asari and Salarians. Arguably the Salarians are the most dangerous of the three. They designed the genophage. Neither the Turians nor Asari have shown any threat level even remotely approaching that.

[quote]Yeah, the Alliance pulling out is strange to me too. Surely there are still plenty of resources on the planet? The batarians seem to think so, what with their large-scale mining and all. The atmosphere is too thin, Grissom says? Well, put an envirosuit on. They are obviously advanced enough not to be too cumbersome. Or much more likely, just use robots.

Looks to me like someone (I'm looking at you, DLC writers) gave the Alliance an idiot box. For now, we'll just have to content outselves that the Alliance didn't see the planet returning much profit, so the batarians moved in.

Or we could speculate that the Alliance saw some other reason not to develop the system.[/quote]

It was purely economic and very believable. The strangeness isn't that they pulled out, but that the rest of the codex says they shouldn't have been completing for the world in the first place.

[quote[Fair enough. I did hear once that the Canadian government is very keen on its Arctic sovereignty. I guess, what with the Northwest Passage and the possibility of the ice melting, it becomes a very real and prevalant issue.

The point still stands though. You've still got the case of Antarctica to proove that governments will often carve up a region even if it's not feasible to exploit it at the time.[/quote]

I really don't understand the US logic. As Canadian territory, the US would get passage any time they wished. As international waters, everyone gets free passage, including Russian or Chinese vessels. The US actually diminished its strategic control by weakening the position of an ally.

[quote]Half of those several million are alien. I would guess batarian given the fact that it's on the border between human and batarian space, but that's an educated guess.[/quote]

It is an Alliance colony, and was the target of the Skyllian Blitz. You are suggesting that despite all the issues between the Alliance and Hegemony, Batarians were happily settling on an Alliance colony?

[quote]Friend, that quote is proof enough. It is categorically said that attacking a region under Citadel protection is an act of war. Nihlus' "technicality" point is meant as a way of saying, "even if it's an act of war, the Terminus System might consider a working Prothean Beacon worth ganging up and pissing off the Council because of the possible technology or information to be gained from it."

What other Council involvements in the Verge or the Traverse are you talking about? It's just the Alliance and the Hegemony, as far as we're aware.[/quote]

It is proof that after the Batarians conceded the region (per the Codex, the Batarians started pulling out after the Council refused to support them, Arrival notwithstanding), the Council considers any attack on the region to be hostile and to be responded to. A war between the Alliance and Batarians would have been internal to the region, not an attack on the region generally. Arguably, the Council would have been obligated to support both sides if they intervened. Saying they wouldn't support the Batarians does not equate to saying they would support the Alliance in that context.

They do respond to raids from external sources, such as the Terminus pirates.

You have to prove two things to make your point:

1) That Nihlus' comments applied to the time period when the Batarians were still an associate member, and
2) That they would have applied to a struggle between two associate members, rather than one between an associate member and a non-member.

The comment alone does not explcitly cover either of those situations.

[008Zulu]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Hegemony did those hundreds of years ago. That might be an Asari lifespan, but no one else we know of.

Perhaps Batarians have multi-century lifespans. It would make an interesting encounter in ME3 if Balak were one of the original raiders on either the Salarian or Asari world, and you had Samara and/or Mordin with you.

[GuardianAngel470]

Moiaussi wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Just a small comment in regards to your horribly off topic discussion Mesina and Moiaussi: Samara states that her presence aboard an asari vessel in asari space stopped a pirate attack. I find it highly unlikely that Batarians or even turians were said pirates as they wouldn't really care about a Justicar.

There is also the mission to kill Nissana Dantius's sister, the pirate/slaver who was, obviously, asari. Batarian's make up a tiny percentage of the pirate community based on in game missions in ME1 and 2. We have story missions as well as side quests that prove that Humans, Krogan, Turians, and Asari make up the vast majority of nefarious members.

We know that the system destroyed by Shepard in Arrival was a planet of mostly slaves so were most likely of various species NOT batarian (as per the description of the planet you land on).

The virtue of killing a batarian is moot in this instance, both because Moiaussi's argument is fundamentally flawed and because whoever we actually killed on that planet was most likely mostly slaves that weren't batarians at all.

The discussion had devolved into one of the general ownership of the Skyllian Verge. Other than being off topic, I am not sure how my arguements were flawed, fundamentally or otherwise.

To be more precise, the population is about 2/3 slaves, 1/3 free Batarians. If a state of war existed, though, it would be a military target. Besides any economic importance as a mining world, per the codex:

Aratoht is rumored to have military bases on its surface and throughout its solar system, though details are heavily restricted by the Hegemony's Ministry of Information Control.

This brings it back to my earlier comments that collateral damage isn't automatically wrong in wartime.

By the way, you also dismiss the concept that some of the 'slaves' might be Batarians. It is a mix of slaves and indentured servants. Indentured servants are fixed duration contract workers, paid in necessities. Not only might some actual slaves be Batarian, but the indentured servants are likely to be mostly Batarian.

I would like to repeat that I consider this academic to the OP's topic in that Shepard's actions were justified for completely unrelated reasons.

First off, indentured servants aren't necessarily beholden to fair and well enforced regulations like on Illium. Case in point, many slaves held in the US were indentured servants initially in order to gain sponsorship into the country from Europe but the contracts weren't exactly fair and they ended up serving much, much longer than they agreed to doing tasks that they hadn't agreed to.

Let's say that some of the indentured servants are Batarians as that seems likely, Batarian intergalactic politics being what they are. That doesn't nullify the possibility of the existance of slaves of other species and if even a dozen such slaves existed, your point would then be invalid. You were arguing that the Batarians were not worth protecting, that because they are outside of galactic society and because many of the batarians we encounter in the galaxy are pirates, slaves, or terrorists that the species has no inherent value that would be worth protecting.

That is your opinion and I have no way of refuting that that Mesina hasn't already tried. Instead I will point out that slaves were killed that weren't batarians, in all probability, and that because of that your argument is fatally flawed. You cannot argue that the destruction of the system was moral because those killed were batarians if people that aren't batarians are killed as well.

You then move on to claim that the destruction of the system was a necessary military sacrifice and I agree. Were it a human, turian, asari, salarian, or krogan system I would make the same choice again. It had to be done. However, this is a departure from your earlier stance and is in fact completely unrelated to it (unless I missed one of your posts were you previously argued this) and I find that slightly dishonest.

Finally, the discussion of both of these topics is quite irrelevant because the topic of the thread is whether or not the Council can actually take legal action against Shepard for his actions in the Viper Nebula. The reason being that if there were slaves on that planet that were not in fact batarian and were in fact of a council race then the Council (and by extension the Alliance) would be able to take action regardless of jurisdiction. The Batarians may not be a citadel species anymore but humans, turians, and asari are.

Not to mention the fact that a major Relay was destroyed completely and utterly. That has to be against a council law as just activating one when you haven't found its twin is outlawed. 

Also, jurisdiction means nothing to spectres. It is safe to assume that the same applies to the Council when a spectre does something untoward. 

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 25 mai 2011 - 07:55 .

[Moiaussi]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

First off, indentured servants aren't necessarily beholden to fair and well enforced regulations like on Illium. Case in point, many slaves held in the US were indentured servants initially in order to gain sponsorship into the country from Europe but the contracts weren't exactly fair and they ended up serving much, much longer than they agreed to doing tasks that they hadn't agreed to.

Let's say that some of the indentured servants are Batarians as that seems likely, Batarian intergalactic politics being what they are. That doesn't nullify the possibility of the existance of slaves of other species and if even a dozen such slaves existed, your point would then be invalid. You were arguing that the Batarians were not worth protecting, that because they are outside of galactic society and because many of the batarians we encounter in the galaxy are pirates, slaves, or terrorists that the species has no inherent value that would be worth protecting.

That is your opinion and I have no way of refuting that that Mesina hasn't already tried. Instead I will point out that slaves were killed that weren't batarians, in all probability, and that because of that your argument is fatally flawed. You cannot argue that the destruction of the system was moral because those killed were batarians if people that aren't batarians are killed as well.

You then move on to claim that the destruction of the system was a necessary military sacrifice and I agree. Were it a human, turian, asari, salarian, or krogan system I would make the same choice again. It had to be done. However, this is a departure from your earlier stance and is in fact completely unrelated to it (unless I missed one of your posts were you previously argued this) and I find that slightly dishonest.

Finally, the discussion of both of these topics is quite irrelevant because the topic of the thread is whether or not the Council can actually take legal action against Shepard for his actions in the Viper Nebula. The reason being that if there were slaves on that planet that were not in fact batarian and were in fact of a council race then the Council (and by extension the Alliance) would be able to take action regardless of jurisdiction. The Batarians may not be a citadel species anymore but humans, turians, and asari are.

Not to mention the fact that a major Relay was destroyed completely and utterly. That has to be against a council law as just activating one when you haven't found its twin is outlawed. 

Also, jurisdiction means nothing to spectres. It is safe to assume that the same applies to the Council when a spectre does something untoward. 

Before I reply to the rest of what I said, I should point out that you are missing a couple important points in what I have been posting.

1) Our respective points regarding racial composition of the slaves is supposition on both our parts. There is no evidence either way on whether the Batarians enslave their own or not. It is tough to consider an arguement 'fatally flawed' based on information you cannot back up.

2) My point regarding the racial mix, and for that matter the existance of a significant military presence is contingent on their being a state of war. I am not claiming that there is currently any such state of war. I was merely responding to points others were making and presenting as if they are fact. Several times though I have also said that said facts, either way, are academic. I have several times agreed that this is irrelvant and the only reason I have responded is that I dislike leaving statements I consider questionable unchallenged.

Now as for the rest of your post, "Humans, Turians, and Asari" are not automatically Council citizens. They are considered 'Council races', but that is because any given empire is nigh racially pure simply due to the population levels involved. There are plenty of examples of 'free worlds,' independant of Council rule and there are mixed race worlds such as Elysium, which is an Alliance colony, but approximately 50% non-human.

Again though, that is academic.

 Besides being a Spectre, Shepard is still considered an Alliance (and Council) citizen and can be tried under Council rules against use of WMD's, and tampering with relays (as you suggest).

I have already said this in other posts, btw.

[Vengeful Nature]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Just because I'm a critic in general, and not at all because I disagree with the spirit behind you Vengeful Nature, I just wanted to throw my own thoughts at your argument. (Or pieces of it.) Overall, though, I generally agree.

Happy to hear them. :happy:

I think this unfairly implies that the Verge was stable before hand, which I think is a bit unsupported. Drawing from personal opinion, the Traverse struck me as a 'de-Terminized Terminus'. If the Terminus is the unsettled regions where the Council isn't, the Verge is one of those areas increasingly being colonized. Who did the colonizing was less important to the Council than that someone would do it, but simply a colonizing power would ultimately bring order. Now, that order could have been crude and nasty like the Batarians, or politically more desirable from the Alliance, but the general settlement was the point, and that point was in turn to fix pre-lingering troubles.

An related issue here is that the nature of the Terminus Systems is really unclear. I got the specific impression that the Terminus Systems didn't exist before the Hegemony stormed off the Citadel, and that they were created out of batarian space when it became a rogue state in the eyes of the Council and all the nasties of the galaxy carved out a piece for themselves. But I've heard others say that they existed before the Hegemony split off from Citadel Space, and that the Hegemony became part of the Terminus when the left. I like my version better, but I could easily be wrong about it.

The simplest would be 'it wasn't economicl for the Alliance at the time.' The Alliance is still young and can only settle so many places at once, and so preferable planets would be settled first. It's not necessarily that the Alliance never wanted to settle it, but rather it wasn't profitable/desirable to settle it now.

In that sort of situation, the trailing power (in this case the Batarians) often settle for less-than-best. The Batarians are already struggling to colonize in the Traverse, so the Humans passing this not only sees an opportunity, but also the chance to make a diplomatic point. While the Alliance saw more value elsewhere, the Batarians just had to value it enough.

Your probably right. The codex is unclear, and seems to suggest that Grissom decided not the claim the place because of the air quality. Your version is much more realistic.

Heck, just look at the scramble for Africa. Or the Louisiana Purchess. Or the most famous of all, the Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portegual.

Most western-hemisphere history of expansion has been about colonizers fighting over territory they really don't have much basis to claim yet, and won't develop for dozens or hundreds of years.

Them too. I used Antarctica because, like space, it wasn't already occupied by the natives when various governments started do the old cake-of-the-map-of-Cuba thing on it. Unless you count the penguins.

Strictly speaking, there's also the corporate world of Noveria, where the Council outsources the stuff it likes to pretend is illegal.

Damn, you even more cynical about the Council than I am.

[Vengeful Nature]

Moiaussi wrote...

How is it not economic? The Batarians weren't even willing to commit their own lives to the region, instead financing others to take on the Alliance.

You should also stop using terms like criminal negligence when you don't seem to understand them. It might be breech of duty, but most likely it is at best a treaty violation and is likely not any violation of anything at all.

It certainly didn't take the Hegemony down any pegs, since noone asked them to leave any worlds (unless you count Torfan). As for offsetting the Turians, why? There is currently a convenient balance between Turians, Asari and Salarians. Arguably the Salarians are the most dangerous of the three. They designed the genophage. Neither the Turians nor Asari have shown any threat level even remotely approaching that.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding about the "economic" point. I mean to say that the situation between the Hegemony and the Alliance isn't just a case of economic competition.

Obviously I don't mean criminal negligence in the sense that their negligence is literally criminal. I'm just using it as an expression to highlight extreme ineptitude.

Didn't take them down any pegs? It completely destabilised their entire region of space. When the Hegemony stormed out of the Citadel, batarian space became a haven for anyone looking to get out from under the Council's jurisdiction. Every brutal pirate, hardened criminal and insane cult leader flocked to the area seeing their chance for freedom. The Hegemony could do nothing about it. Now, most of the Hegemony's military strength is tied down trying to keep the lid on it. If it was indeed engineered by the Council, which is speculative, it was a masterstroke of dirty warfare.

All of those species you mention are a threat to some degree. Even if they are officially allies, that doesn't amount to much in international politics. Hell, modern governments spy on their allies as much as they spy on their rivals, looking for any edge. International politics is a very dirty business, mark my words.

It was purely economic and very believable. The strangeness isn't that they pulled out, but that the rest of the codex says they shouldn't have been completing for the world in the first place.

I'm not sure I follow you on the bit I bolded. Why shouldn't they have been competing? That's what this entire issue is about.

I really don't understand the US logic. As Canadian territory, the US would get passage any time they wished. As international waters, everyone gets free passage, including Russian or Chinese vessels. The US actually diminished its strategic control by weakening the position of an ally.

Like I said on the other point above, international relations is a very dirty business, even between allies.

With the ice apparently melting faster every year, the Northwest Passage becomes a very plausible route for international trade, like the Suez or Panama Canals. If this happens, everyone's going to want to cash in on it. I don't know much about the issue, though, so I wouldn't want to get too in-depth about it. Sorry.

It is an Alliance colony, and was the target of the Skyllian Blitz. You are suggesting that despite all the issues between the Alliance and Hegemony, Batarians were happily settling on an Alliance colony?

Well, since they are rivals, I doubt they all live in the same cities. I would expect that the planet is carved up between the two governments (or however many governments have colonies there - all we know is that they are aliens).

It is proof that after the Batarians conceded the region (per the Codex, the Batarians started pulling out after the Council refused to support them, Arrival notwithstanding), the Council considers any attack on the region to be hostile and to be responded to. A war between the Alliance and Batarians would have been internal to the region, not an attack on the region generally. Arguably, the Council would have been obligated to support both sides if they intervened. Saying they wouldn't support the Batarians does not equate to saying they would support the Alliance in that context.

They do respond to raids from external sources, such as the Terminus pirates.

You have to prove two things to make your point:

1) That Nihlus' comments applied to the time period when the Batarians were still an associate member, and
2) That they would have applied to a struggle between two associate members, rather than one between an associate member and a non-member.

The comment alone does not explcitly cover either of those situations.

Nihlus' comment doesn't apply to the time period when the batarians were still associate members. If they were both still associate members, the Council would bring in peacekeepers and settle the matter through diplomacy. His comment is pretty specifically about the situation as of 2183, in which the Hegemony was a non-Council party. The Alliance is under Citadel protection, the Hegemony is not, so they are going to unanimously come to the side of their member if it came to war.

The quote is from the first game, in the year 2183. The Hegemony has long since stop being an associate Citadel member. It's a (relatively) simple situation of them vs. us.

Edit:

008Zulu wrote...

You can see why the Council would want to take the Batarians down a notch or two; They bombed a Salarian world and annexed an Asari colony. When the Alliance made a move in to "their space" they complained to the Council. It seems they only play by the rules when it suits them.

Ooh, when was that? I don't remember reading about that.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 25 mai 2011 - 10:19 .

[DarkNova50]

I've got only one rule when it comes to Batarians:

Kill them all, for God will recognize his own.

[Moiaussi]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding about the "economic" point. I mean to say that the situation between the Hegemony and the Alliance isn't just a case of economic competition.

Obviously I don't mean criminal negligence in the sense that their negligence is literally criminal. I'm just using it as an expression to highlight extreme ineptitude.

Didn't take them down any pegs? It completely destabilised their entire region of space. When the Hegemony stormed out of the Citadel, batarian space became a haven for anyone looking to get out from under the Council's jurisdiction. Every brutal pirate, hardened criminal and insane cult leader flocked to the area seeing their chance for freedom. The Hegemony could do nothing about it. Now, most of the Hegemony's military strength is tied down trying to keep the lid on it. If it was indeed engineered by the Council, which is speculative, it was a masterstroke of dirty warfare.

All of those species you mention are a threat to some degree. Even if they are officially allies, that doesn't amount to much in international politics. Hell, modern governments spy on their allies as much as they spy on their rivals, looking for any edge. International politics is a very dirty business, mark my words.

You seem to again making some rather interesting assumptions.

1) That the Batarians controlled the region in the first place. Given that the region was mostly uncolonized and that the Batarians were unwilling to even so much as present a show of force it is plausable that it would have ended up a no man's land anyway.

2) That this result is worse economicly for the Council. A slave based culture needs a source of slaves to sustain itself. That means there would have been raids into Council (or at least Alliance) space anyway. Why would the Batarians police operations that benefit them? This way the Alliance bears the brunt of the policing costs that otherwise would have likely have to have been bourne completely by the Council. To the extent the region is harming noone, crime and piracy are irrelevant to the Council.

I'm not sure I follow you on the bit I bolded. Why shouldn't they have been competing? That's what this entire issue is about.

The codex entry on the Batarians says that they withdrew to their own systems after Torfan and 'are rarely seen in Council space.' It seems strange that this system, not just in the verge but one jump away from the 'local cluster' (i.e. Earth) is considered 'Batarian space,' or that the Alliance would back out in favor of the Batarians simply over economic viability, ignoring the obvious strategic importance of such a system.

Well, since they are rivals, I doubt they all live in the same cities. I would expect that the planet is carved up between the two governments (or however many governments have colonies there - all we know is that they are aliens).

You can expect all you want, but there is nothing that even suggests any sort of joint ownership other than merely that there is a mix of races. Are you saying that a human born on the Asari homeworld would be somehow an Alliance citizen? Or that US law has somehow been changed so that within the Alliance, an Asari born on US soil wouldn't be considered a US (and thus Alliance) citizen? I think for that there would have had to have either been a constitutional amendment or a court ruling that aliens are somehow 'non-persons.'

Nihlus' comment doesn't apply to the time period when the batarians were still associate members. If they were both still associate members, the Council would bring in peacekeepers and settle the matter through diplomacy. His comment is pretty specifically about the situation as of 2183, in which the Hegemony was a non-Council party. The Alliance is under Citadel protection, the Hegemony is not, so they are going to unanimously come to the side of their member if it came to war.

The quote is from the first game, in the year 2183. The Hegemony has long since stop being an associate Citadel member. It's a (relatively) simple situation of them vs. us.

There was a diplomatic settlement. The Council said 'you have claimed this but are making no use of it. A fellow associate member borders this region and can make immediate use of it. Share it.'

If the Batarians disliked or went against that ruling, It doesn't mean the moderators would automaticly have intervened with force. It was non-binding arbitration. Instead they chose not to mobilize.

[Dean_the_Young]

Vengeful Nature wrote...


An related issue here is that the nature of the Terminus Systems is really unclear. I got the specific impression that the Terminus Systems didn't exist before the Hegemony stormed off the Citadel, and that they were created out of batarian space when it became a rogue state in the eyes of the Council and all the nasties of the galaxy carved out a piece for themselves. But I've heard others say that they existed before the Hegemony split off from Citadel Space, and that the Hegemony became part of the Terminus when the left. I like my version better, but I could easily be wrong about it.

Now, I can't say I ever got that impression, and I'd be curious as to what gave you that idea. The Terminus, after all, is far more than the Batarian Hegemony: it's an entire galactic region of what's implied to be dozens/hundreds of independent worlds, disreputable nations, piracy and merc groups and more. That's the region where poor-man's WMD's, like bioweapons and colony drops and more, are rampant vis-a-vis the Council's stability. And that's back from the ME1 codexes: in ME2, our Terminus adventures rarely go into 'Batarian' space in particular.

Your probably right. The codex is unclear, and seems to suggest that Grissom decided not the claim the place because of the air quality. Your version is much more realistic.

Air quality would certainly be a decisive economic factor, wouldn't you agree? Between a world where air quality is superior and air quality is inferior, all other things being mostly equal what would you prefer for easy development.

Strictly speaking, there's also the corporate world of Noveria, where the Council outsources the stuff it likes to pretend is illegal.

Damn, you even more cynical about the Council than I am.

How have we not bonded over mutual cynicism? You make my inner skeptic go aflutter.

I mean, how about those Spectres, huh? That's the most blatant, glorified legal double standard in the series. 'Everyone in Citadel space is forbidden from these numerous things... except for a personal, hand-picked force drawn from the dominant powers that is legally excused from obeying those numerous things.

The Council system has legalized its double standard. For research banned to everyone else, it allows and hires the Research Worlds like Noveria. For the highly lucrative, morally dubious, largely illegal trade deals with the Terminus, it has Illium (which, despite not being in Council Space, is regarded as being in Asari Space, which is a member of the Council itself...). And for those illegal actions? The Spectres which answer only to the dominant powers on the Council itself.

[Bebbe777]

Isn't the Batarian Hegemony viewed as a rogue state. Would the US extradite one of their top officers to a rogue state, just wondering.

[Dean_the_Young]

Bebbe777 wrote...

Isn't the Batarian Hegemony viewed as a rogue state. Would the US extradite one of their top officers to a rogue state, just wondering.

If said rogue state was large enough and had the missiles and nukes to seriously damage the United States, and the US officer in question nuked a city without provocation or being ordered to, thus sparking the immediate threat of war?

Uh, yes.

[LuxDragon]

I'm not sure we're looking at Citdadel conventions here since the Batarians aren't a part of the Citadel.

If anything, I think Shepard is being charged with war crimes. He did nearly single-handedly kill 300,000 batarians, most, if not all were civilian. If a US pilot dropped a bomb in the middle of an Iraq city w/o authorization (Let's say it was an accident), then he'd still be tried.

[AlexMBrennan]

Ideally, yes.

[Odoyle]

My prediction is that Alliance Brass will throw Shepard under the bus and try to extradite him to the Batarians, only to have Anderson and Hacket order a team lead by Specter Agent Williams/Alenko to rescue the Commander just before the exchange. Then Shepard takes command of the Alliance retrofit Normandy, to prepare for the imminent Reaper invasion.

That's why my magic 8-ball says, anyways.

[Destroy Raiden_]

The shep is a spector defense doesn't hold up it's like one our Czars they only are appointed by and the only answer to the president. So only he can fire one, only knows the past clearly of these people. Spectors are like that they're appointed by and answer to the council and the council like the president can drop that protection they extend to them and allow them to be charged. It's a political thing it's not quite like diplomatic immunity though you can be pretty immuned to things. Once the council gets word of shep was the last ship through the relay before it exploded they'll want answers if shep can't or won't answer them they'll drop his already flimsy protection sense in ME2 he was spector in name only and only would get support or be defended by the council if what he did was under the radar and out in the terminus systems.

Just blowing up the relay alone would've been enough for them to revoke sheps sepctor status now add in Batarian deaths which we knew from ME they wanted to avoid at all cost upsetting the Batarians back then they still haven't changed their minds on that avoidance approach. And he's still perpetuating the rumors of the reapers to them they want to say there are no reapers shep knows other wise but as the Asari councilor said before, " We know you believe it Shepard, that doesn't make it true."

[Master Wolf]

The Alliance is a very difficult position on one side they have the Batarians demanding Shepard head, on the other side they have to account the human public opinion because Shepard is a human hero, the first human spectre if the Alliance delivers Shepard to an hostile Alien race to be executed will cause great anger amongst the population and that will only strenght the pro-human organizations like Terra Firma Party and Cerberus because their acusations that the Alliance bows too much to the aliens demands will now have a very good example humanity greatest hero handed to a enemy alien race just because of fear.

[Vengeful Nature]

Moiaussi wrote...

You seem to again making some rather interesting assumptions.

1) That the Batarians controlled the region in the first place. Given that the region was mostly uncolonized and that the Batarians were unwilling to even so much as present a show of force it is plausable that it would have ended up a no man's land anyway.

I'm not saying that the Hegemony controlled the region in the first place, just that they were there first. It doesn't imply control, but it does imply that the Alliance was the interloper.

2) That this result is worse economicly for the Council. A slave based culture needs a source of slaves to sustain itself. That means there would have been raids into Council (or at least Alliance) space anyway. Why would the Batarians police operations that benefit them? This way the Alliance bears the brunt of the policing costs that otherwise would have likely have to have been bourne completely by the Council. To the extent the region is harming noone, crime and piracy are irrelevant to the Council.

Do you mean to say that, with the Hegemony funding raids up and down the Verge and Traverse, the economy is taking a hit? That might be true of the Alliance, but the Verge is a backwater compared to the places the more developed species have as their industrial and economic bases, places like Illium, which is a powerhouse unto itself. It may adversely affect the Alliance, but that doesn't bother the Council.

The codex entry on the Batarians says that they withdrew to their own systems after Torfan and 'are rarely seen in Council space.' It seems strange that this system, not just in the verge but one jump away from the 'local cluster' (i.e. Earth) is considered 'Batarian space,' or that the Alliance would back out in favor of the Batarians simply over economic viability, ignoring the obvious strategic importance of such a system.

Ah, I get you. That's true, there is some inconsistency in the lore. But we have cold hard statistics to help out: 1 million on Camala, 300,000 on Aratoht, millions on Elysium. Is this a retcon? Or an inconsistency as a result of a writer not cross-checking the material? Maybe. I can let it slip in that key word, "rarely". With those systems being so close to the border, it is likely that you would see proportionately more batarians than on the Citadel, Palaven, Sur'Kesh or Thessia.

A point I'd like to slip in here in relation to you saying "just one jump away", it is very likely that the speed at which we see Shepard travel across massive regions of space is missing out all the travel time, which is probably weeks in between locations. Remember, you've got to travel through space, which is slow even with the best FTL the Alliance has (a dozen lightyears in a day's cruise aboard a fast military ship) to get to a relay to begin with.

You can expect all you want, but there is nothing that even suggests any sort of joint ownership other than merely that there is a mix of races. Are you saying that a human born on the Asari homeworld would be somehow an Alliance citizen? Or that US law has somehow been changed so that within the Alliance, an Asari born on US soil wouldn't be considered a US (and thus Alliance) citizen? I think for that there would have had to have either been a constitutional amendment or a court ruling that aliens are somehow 'non-persons.'

I agree, it's an educated guess. Given the tensions, I highly doubt batarians and humans live as neighbours. The planet is probably divided up just like Watson. So I wholly agree, there is nothing to suggest there is any sort of joint ownership.

There was a diplomatic settlement. The Council said 'you have claimed this but are making no use of it. A fellow associate member borders this region and can make immediate use of it. Share it.'

If the Batarians disliked or went against that ruling, It doesn't mean the moderators would automaticly have intervened with force. It was non-binding arbitration. Instead they chose not to mobilize.

The Council quite possibly said that, to which the batarians said no. Why should they share it when they have been in the region for quite some time already, enough time to develop a colony of a million people even before the Alliance started moving in? Just like the case with Antarctica, I wouldn't be surprised if they claimed the entire region with Council approval. Again, this is an educated guess based on what we know about Hegemony politics and their compaint to the Council.

[Vengeful Nature]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Now, I can't say I ever got that impression, and I'd be curious as to what gave you that idea. The Terminus, after all, is far more than the Batarian Hegemony: it's an entire galactic region of what's implied to be dozens/hundreds of independent worlds, disreputable nations, piracy and merc groups and more. That's the region where poor-man's WMD's, like bioweapons and colony drops and more, are rampant vis-a-vis the Council's stability. And that's back from the ME1 codexes: in ME2, our Terminus adventures rarely go into 'Batarian' space in particular.

I dunno what gave me that impression. Maybe it's just something I picked up when first playing and just stuck.

The way I understood it was like this: the Hegemony storms off the Citadel, effectively becoming a rogue state in the eyes of the Council. Almost immediately, every independantly-minded person or group floods to into batarian space. The Hegemony is just inundated with these groups and can't close the doors at this point. Batarian space then fractures, becoming the nucleus of what today is called the Terminus systems. Before the Hegemony left, there were independant systems on the fringes but nothing to warrant such a high profile case.

Am I way off here?

Air quality would certainly be a decisive economic factor, wouldn't you agree? Between a world where air quality is superior and air quality is inferior, all other things being mostly equal what would you prefer for easy development.

I agree that it might be a factor, but not the defining one. I think more emphasis would be put purely on what can be taken out of this world. If it came down to a choice between a gashouse that's brimming with useful minerals, or a pretty world with breathable air but pretty dull under the crust... well, you get the picture.

I quite like the idea that Grissom had a sense of humour, and was basically saying to the batarians, "this planet smells funny, I think I'll go for these ten others that smell like raspberry and new car. Hey four-eyes, you want this dungball?"

I mean, how about those Spectres, huh? That's the most blatant, glorified legal double standard in the series. 'Everyone in Citadel space is forbidden from these numerous things... except for a personal, hand-picked force drawn from the dominant powers that is legally excused from obeying those numerous things.

The Council system has legalized its double standard. For research banned to everyone else, it allows and hires the Research Worlds like Noveria. For the highly lucrative, morally dubious, largely illegal trade deals with the Terminus, it has Illium (which, despite not being in Council Space, is regarded as being in Asari Space, which is a member of the Council itself...). And for those illegal actions? The Spectres which answer only to the dominant powers on the Council itself.

I know, right? It makes me excited to think that, even if was an accident, the writer's managed to create this outwardly-shiny, inwardly-ruthless, corrupt, unscrupulous and downright coldly effective (for the most part) interstellar government whose schemes take centuries to unfold and are as comfortable using entire rival nations as weapons as they are their apocalyptically powerful warships, if not more so.

It's part of the reason I love the Mass Effect universe so much.

If you find this kind of "utopia" inspiring, you'd love Iain M. Banks' Culture novels. They revolve around a society that is so egalitarian it is run entirely by hyper-advanced AI's, finds the concept of money so outdated that it is rumoured the be hoarding vast amounts of it, and is such an open society that it has a legendary secret service. I highly recommend them.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 26 mai 2011 - 10:28 .