264 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

I think the SPECTRES have a necessary place in the ME universe just as the Salarian STG has value but then i think Cerberus before TIM went nuts actually had potential. They provide the necessary flexibility to bypass logjams in the slow bureaucratic process. ME1 showed SPECTRES do have oversight from the council because Saren could be held to account for going off what was seen as the reservation.

[AlexMBrennan]

Laws exist for a reason, and thus if you need operatives who are above the law you are doing it wrong.
As such, paragons should have serious reservations about the role they are given.

However, I suspect that this is a cultural issue - the USA has always been proud to not bother with international law (e.g. Gitmo, or violating the territory of a sovereign nation to execute an alleged terrorist without trial - imagine what would happen if Russia did that on American soil?) and spectres are obviously the ultimate American power fantasy.

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."... Strange how far you've come isn't it?

[shodiswe]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Laws exist for a reason, and thus if you need operatives who are above the law you are doing it wrong.
As such, paragons should have serious reservations about the role they are given.

However, I suspect that this is a cultural issue - the USA has always been proud to not bother with international law (e.g. Gitmo, or violating the territory of a sovereign nation to execute an alleged terrorist without trial - imagine what would happen if Russia did that on American soil?) and spectres are obviously the ultimate American power fantasy.

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."... Strange how far you've come isn't it?

Kind of yes, it's also one of the things that have been in the news a lot lately. It's funny how Mass Effect mirrors contemporary politics. But that's also common for most Sci-fi series.

Startrek, Babylon 5. Others.

[CrutchCricket]

StreetMagic wrote...

They're not like Spectres, because the governments or people they represent don't make the same claims. They protect specific interests. Justicars, STG, Cerberus.. all very race specific.

And Spectres are council-specific. The difference isn't fundamental, it's scale.

It's jumping from the specific to something as insane as saying "We have absolute power over millions of light years of space and trillions of lives". Scratch that, ONE person is able to wield that power.

A license to kill and minimal oversight do not "absolute power" make. If what you claim were the case you'd see plenty of little Spectre dictatorships popping up everywhere. But you don't, do you?

If anything, that notion is thrown right out the window from the get-go. In ME1 a non-council race (quarian) and a non-popular race (human) get a Spectre status revoked because they have proof of misdeeds. And if you got reinstated in ME2, why is your status lost again in ME3? They didn't even wait for proof that time.

I don't know where these views that Spectres (and by extention the council) are totalitarian when the games show quite the opposite, namely that the council is hilariously inept. Most of the powers in the galaxy don''t give a **** about the council. Batarians don't answer to the council, quarians and geth don't (the former doing so only when its in council space and needs to avoid a war), the Terminus doesn't (Aria in purgatory anyone?). I'm inclined to agree with Dean. Spectres should be scariest to tax evasionists and corrupt executives pleading the space equivalent of the Fifth.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 17 février 2014 - 06:29 .

[Jorji Costava]

CrutchCricket wrote...

I don't know where these views that Spectres (and by extention the council) are totalitarian when the games show quite the opposite, namely that the council is hilariously inept. Most of the powers in the galaxy don''t give a **** about the council. Batarians don't answer to the council, quarians and geth don't (the former doing so only when its in council space and needs to avoid a war), the Terminus doesn't (Aria in purgatory anyone?). I'm inclined to agree with Dean. Spectres should be scariest to tax evasionists and corrupt executives pleading the space equivalent of the Fifth.

I don't think that any part of the definition of 'totalitarian' presupposes competence. Even if the Stasi had been completely inept at espionage and sniffing out dissent, that wouldn't disqualify them from being considered an instrument of a police state.

Anyways, I'm in agreement with those who think that there's no legitimate reason for the existence of the Spectres as an institution. The whole idea of Spectres has a politics to it that's rather unsettling; it's the familiar idea that politicians can't be trusted because they never get anything done, so we need someone with unilateral authority who's willing to do Whatever It Takes To Get The Job Done. I don't think anyone would argue that politicians are paradigms of efficiency, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and that definitely seems to be the case here.

[eyezonlyii]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I've said it before and I've said it again: the Spectres are hilarious misused for their one actually unique asset: cutting through red tape. Giving it to paramilitary personnel to do military actions is akin to giving a high-spec car to someone who walks to work.

There's just so little reason for someone with Shepard's skill set to need it. The difficulties of sending a team of soldiers or police are political, not legal: being a Spectre doesn't actually prevent political reprecussions from occuring, and you can create whatever rules of engagement you want your special forces to operate under to legalize their actions on the ground. Not, mind you, that there's much legal obstruction to sending military teams to pirate outposts or to track down drug lords.

Spectre status is useful for moving within Bureacracies, and would be far more advantageous to solving a threat hiding within the legal system where police can't move freely. Pirates? Small scale. Future!wikileaks? Corporate manipulation of the galactic economy? Political cabals hiding behind privacy laws? That's something judicial unaccountability would actually help for... and not something paramilitary special forces can particularly help with until the takedown. At which point you can just use regular paramilitary tools.

Really, the 'ideal' Spectre isn't a warhound like Shepard, or ruthless bodycount extrordinair like Shepard. The 'ideal' Spectre would be a Volus who frequently changes pressure suits and uses Spectre resources and legal immunity to audit the unethical 1% of galactic power.

I read this as saying Gianna Parasini would be an ideal SPECTRE

[shodiswe]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I've said it before and I've said it again: the Spectres are hilarious misused for their one actually unique asset: cutting through red tape. Giving it to paramilitary personnel to do military actions is akin to giving a high-spec car to someone who walks to work.

There's just so little reason for someone with Shepard's skill set to need it. The difficulties of sending a team of soldiers or police are political, not legal: being a Spectre doesn't actually prevent political reprecussions from occuring, and you can create whatever rules of engagement you want your special forces to operate under to legalize their actions on the ground. Not, mind you, that there's much legal obstruction to sending military teams to pirate outposts or to track down drug lords.

Spectre status is useful for moving within Bureacracies, and would be far more advantageous to solving a threat hiding within the legal system where police can't move freely. Pirates? Small scale. Future!wikileaks? Corporate manipulation of the galactic economy? Political cabals hiding behind privacy laws? That's something judicial unaccountability would actually help for... and not something paramilitary special forces can particularly help with until the takedown. At which point you can just use regular paramilitary tools.

Really, the 'ideal' Spectre isn't a warhound like Shepard, or ruthless bodycount extrordinair like Shepard. The 'ideal' Spectre would be a Volus who frequently changes pressure suits and uses Spectre resources and legal immunity to audit the unethical 1% of galactic power.

I read this as saying Gianna Parasini would be an ideal SPECTRE

I don't think she wants that job.

[shodiswe]

In RL I wouldn't want it either.
If I was made a Specter or similar in RL I would likely get fired for inactivity, or forgotten completely.
Playing a game is one thing but I wouldn't want Shepards job in RL.
It's a terrible occupation tbh.

[Dean_the_Young]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I've said it before and I've said it again: the Spectres are hilarious misused for their one actually unique asset: cutting through red tape. Giving it to paramilitary personnel to do military actions is akin to giving a high-spec car to someone who walks to work.

There's just so little reason for someone with Shepard's skill set to need it. The difficulties of sending a team of soldiers or police are political, not legal: being a Spectre doesn't actually prevent political reprecussions from occuring, and you can create whatever rules of engagement you want your special forces to operate under to legalize their actions on the ground. Not, mind you, that there's much legal obstruction to sending military teams to pirate outposts or to track down drug lords.

Spectre status is useful for moving within Bureacracies, and would be far more advantageous to solving a threat hiding within the legal system where police can't move freely. Pirates? Small scale. Future!wikileaks? Corporate manipulation of the galactic economy? Political cabals hiding behind privacy laws? That's something judicial unaccountability would actually help for... and not something paramilitary special forces can particularly help with until the takedown. At which point you can just use regular paramilitary tools.

Really, the 'ideal' Spectre isn't a warhound like Shepard, or ruthless bodycount extrordinair like Shepard. The 'ideal' Spectre would be a Volus who frequently changes pressure suits and uses Spectre resources and legal immunity to audit the unethical 1% of galactic power.

I read this as saying Gianna Parasini would be an ideal SPECTRE

Pretty much.

[CrutchCricket]

osbornep wrote...

I don't think that any part of the definition of 'totalitarian' presupposes competence. Even if the Stasi had been completely inept at espionage and sniffing out dissent, that wouldn't disqualify them from being considered an instrument of a police state.

Fair enough. Though I don't think any part of the Council organization falls under the definition of a police state.

[Sir DeLoria]

Terrible, terrible idea!

The Specters can apparently commit multiple genocides or become space Stalin and murder millions and walk away scot-free. A position with that power is ludicrous.

[marcelo caldas]

good idea

[CrutchCricket]

Necanor wrote...
The Specters can apparently commit multiple genocides or become space Stalin and murder millions and walk away scot-free. A position with that power is ludicrous.

Source?

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 17 février 2014 - 09:56 .

[DeinonSlayer]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Necanor wrote...
The Specters can apparently commit multiple genocides or become space Stalin and murder millions and walk away scot-free. A position with that power is ludicrous.

Source?

Aratoht, Tuchanka, Rannoch. The second is questionable. The first earns you a cushy house arrest. The third is utterly ignored.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 17 février 2014 - 10:00 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

Necanor wrote...
The Specters can apparently commit multiple genocides or become space Stalin and murder millions and walk away scot-free. A position with that power is ludicrous.

Source?

Aratoht, Tuchanka, Rannoch. The second is questionable. The first earns you a cushy house arrest. The third is utterly ignored.

There's a reason for it. There's a war to fight. One side or the other gets in the way of that fight. They need to be removed.

I'm a firm believer in law coming after necessity.

I don't believe in any inherent wrongness of genocide to be honest. It's an action, like any other. Reasons for doing it may be poor and irrational, but it's hardly intrinsically 'wrong'. As for anyone who says otherwise, how do you feel about killing Reapers? Or controlling them (a sentient, sapient species whose will you dominate)? Or forcing a change to all forms of life down to their very core without consent?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 février 2014 - 10:05 .

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

There's a reason for it. There's a war to fight. One side or the other gets in the way of that fight. They need to be removed.

I'm a firm believer in law coming after necessity.

Even if that were the case(which very few normal people would agree on), it can not possibly be the choice of a single man. In that case Shep is no better than any fascist dictator.

Specters can essentially play god, which is ridiculous.

[CrutchCricket]

Aratoht you're acting as Alliance, not as a Spectre. Repercussion are from the Alliance as well.

I'm assuming Tuchanka refers to sabotaging the cure, which is no more genocide than deploying the genophage was in the first place. As far as krogan extinction goes, it's clearly stated they're doing it to themselves.

Rannoch maybe, though again they're doing it to themselves. Having just replayed the Rannoch arc, my blood is still boiling at the stupidity and waste of it all. And I can't even have Shepard yell at them for that. But that's another issue.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 17 février 2014 - 10:11 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

There's a reason for it. There's a war to fight. One side or the other gets in the way of that fight. They need to be removed.

I'm a firm believer in law coming after necessity.

Even if that were the case(which very few normal people would agree on), it can not possibly be the choice of a single man. In that case Shep is no better than any fascist dictator.

Specters can essentially play god, which is ridiculous.

Why can't it be the choice of a single man? I'm really not one who believes in the idea that no one should have that sort of power? I'm a believer in certain kinds of people being capable of playing god. Because these people can. I do very much believe in there being a type of ubermensch personality type that is fundamentally a cut above everyone else, and capable of utilizing that power effectively for the long-term benefit of the galaxy (even if it doesn't seem like it at once). These people are fundamentally greater than everyone else, and meant for far better things. 

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I don't believe in any inherent wrongness of genocide to be honest. It's an action, like any other. Reasons for doing it may be poor and irrational, but it's hardly intrinsically 'wrong'. As for anyone who says otherwise, how do you feel about killing Reapers? Or controlling them (a sentient, sapient species whose will you dominate)? Or forcing a change to all forms of life down to their very core without consent?

Oh boy, tell that to the survivors of Rwanada, Cambodia or the Holocaust. Reapers as a collective are hostile and hardly innocent. It's also questionable wether AIs are even comparable to organics. Regardless of your view on synthetics it's impossible to compare the destruction of the Reapers to any other genocide. It's a special case and should be treated as such. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

In my opinion, the Spectre operatives will be lower profile than Shepard was. The way DK wrote them up they might as well have been "Men In Black." How can you gather secret intel when everyone in the galaxy knows you with your face being flashed all over the place? I mean it was a bit ridiculous in my book.

And flying around in an Alliance Frigate? Nothing like making a grand entrance. Or a Cerberus frigate for that matter. And Saren?

"Tell me Saren, where did you get that gigantic warship you've been tooling about in?"

Saren: "Oh... uh... that? Uh..... a friend of mine.... Nazara owns that. He's been giving me a lift.. and... uh... teaching me a few things."

"And who is this Nazara?"

Saren: "A very old and very knowledgeable person."

"Oh, okay then."

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Why can't it be the choice of a single man? I'm really not one who believes in the idea that no one should have that sort of power? I'm a believer in certain kinds of people being capable of playing god. Because these people can. I do very much believe in there being a type of ubermensch personality type that is fundamentally a cut above everyone else, and capable of utilizing that power effectively for the long-term benefit of the galaxy (even if it doesn't seem like it at once). These people are fundamentally greater than everyone else, and meant for far better things. 

I think Lord Baron John Dalberg-Acton summarized it perfectly when he said: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I find the very idea of the ubermensch theory to be utterly repulsive and idiotic, but that's your opinion, I can't argue with that. However I'll say this: Sure, a benevolent ruler with absolute power can greatly benefit everyone. However, not only will a failure on his/her part bring extreme consequences, but he or she can easily abuse and misuse that power to the fullest. Centuries of monarchy in Europe have proven that.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I don't believe in any inherent wrongness of genocide to be honest. It's an action, like any other. Reasons for doing it may be poor and irrational, but it's hardly intrinsically 'wrong'. As for anyone who says otherwise, how do you feel about killing Reapers? Or controlling them (a sentient, sapient species whose will you dominate)? Or forcing a change to all forms of life down to their very core without consent?

Oh boy, tell that to the survivors of Rwanada, Cambodia or the Holocaust. Reapers as a collective are hostile and hardly innocent. It's also questionable wether AIs are even comparable to organics. Regardless of your view on synthetics it's impossible to compare the destruction of the Reapers to any other genocide. It's a special case and should be treated as such. 

Why is it a special case? What makes everyone else innocent compared to Reapers. It's a special exclusion fallacy. 

As for my idea of the ubermensch, it isn't based on race or gender or ethnicity. Some people have what I'm talking about, and it really doesn't matter who they are.

I destroy the Reapers, though not out of any horror or disgust at their 'crimes'.

I destroy them because the alternative is to be destroyed by them. I kill them, but I don't hate them. I don't find the value or logic to the other decisions to appeal appropriately to the long-term destruction of the Reapers or the sense and evidence behind their explanation to be valid.