Nathan Redgrave wrote...
Actually the theft of credits is entirely on Shepard, and goes directly into his account. But I get what you're saying. This said, what makes you think the Alliance is even aware of the gamey little loot system's real-world implications? I think you're thinking a little too deeply about it.
All it would take is a few bank traces, and security cameras/testimony, to be able to find it. Most crime is hidden in the world because the criminals themselves are hidden, but once an individual is identified further crimes are often far easier to identify, and Shepard certainly is someone of interest. No benefits of anonyminity.
We actually have no real basis to claim that the credits Shepard steals go only to his/her account: Cerberus could simply have set up a system where they skim a little (or a lot) off the top in-transition. So what Shepard
thinks is an account worth 6000 credits could as well be worth 8000, but Cerberus just skims 25% without ever informing Shepard.
As you realized, though, it was a rhetorical point, and shouldn't be looked at too hard.
They aren't the Shadow Broker, dude, they aren't going to magically have access to every security cam in the galaxy. They'll know the general gist of what Shepard's been up to, but most of it is pretty much irrelevant to the Cerberus point. One way or another, for example, Shepard cured a massively dangerous alien-killing plague on Omega. Does that sound like Cerberus to you? And I'll be damned if the Alliance or Council have any idea what went down in a good half of the game's missions; their spy networks in the Terminus Systems can't possibly be that good.
They don't need to be the Shadow Broker to have intelligence networks. The Shadow Broker isn't the only person able to hack, to steal, and to investigate.
They'll only know 'the general' if they only ask general questions. But these are inter-galactic empires with the resources and expertise of entire mega-states behind them: where they put their focus to, they can do things not even the Broker can dig out.
Cerberus was willing enough to save the Council for its own ends: helping end a plague in the Terminus that is implicating humans is no stretch of the imagination given their past history of known (and unknown) involvements.
Does the term "espionage" mean anything to you?
Far more to me than you, for as far as your taking it. Shepard wasn't playing Cerberus: nearly every Cerberus secret Shepard found was at Cerberus's invitation until EDI was unlocked, and even she isn't an unbiased source. Teltin, Overlord, even the Minuteman station: all these locations and exposures therin were made known to Shepard by Cerberus's allowance. Shepard doesn't come across as an unwilling and reluctant associate: Shepard is very much someone Cerberus invites on the basis that
despite various decisions Shepard is still valuable to Cerberus (and vice versa).
In the first case, Cerberus Command decided to trust in your "discretion." Kind of stupid of them, really. Shepard, Paragon or Renegade, is almost bound to bite them in the ass; giving the intel back to Cerberus is actually the neutral choice. Renegade Shep keeps the intel for himself (I can definitely see him trying to use it as leverage at some point in the future).
And you still were asked to do it by them, and you still did it. No one is obliged to see it your way, as your personal rebellion/subtle undermining.
Giving vital intel to the Alliance, knowing it would hurt Cerberus's public image if it were circulated, is not a "disagreement." It's an active backhand to the daddybags. Anderson's message even calls it a "huge win for the Alliance."
Shepard never gives vital to the Alliance, nor is Cerberus's public image exactly in danger of overflowing in effect beforehand. Shepard gave a propoganda victory, and a debatable one at that.
You want espionage and conspiracies as interpretted by the outsider not inclined to believe you? Here's one: outing Cerberus with the data is precisely what a Cerberus plant would do to try and throw off the scent.
Cerberus's reputation? Largely irrelevant: not only was Cerberus, in fact, involved with Rachni experiments, but the people who would work with Cerberus do so despite, not because of, its overall reputation. Small scale compared to the Kohaku stuff.
On the other hand, the person who would reveal that... why, no one would question them. Why would such a person lie about their reasons for hurting Cerberus, even as they continue to funnel technology, weapons, and do favors for such a group?
You see it as vindication of your innocence and antagonism. The cynical see it as the expected actions of a Cerberus ally trying to hide himself.
There is a world of difference between grudgingly working with the enemy of your enemy and compliantly working with the enemy of your former allies. Any halfway intelligent person can make that distinction. Moreover, I think it's important to point out that if Shepard's Spectre status is re-instated, he technically does have the license to conduct what essentially amounts to an espionage operation of his own volition, without the go-ahead of the Alliance and maybe even without the direct approval of the Council (Spectres have been said to act on their own).
Of course there's a world of difference... for you. But no one, and I do mean no one, is obliged to see things your way. Anyone inclined to read malice will read malice no matter the actions. Anyone inclined to see conspiracies will see conspiracies. This isn't about intelligence, but projection: anyone, no matter how smart or dumb, can read motivations other than your own onto your actions.
Spectre status only applies in Council space, and does not cover treason against the Council species (singular and plural). Moreover, Spectres can always be hung out to dry for political considerations: even Saren knew that the Alliance would have his head if he simply killed Anderson during the training mission.
Retour en haut
