Wow.
No actual thoughts into the ending? No reflection or deeper questions? No alternate perspectives?
Shoot, how I would love to live in the world of... well, you.
You take things at face value... I'm still concerned people like that exist.
They weren't very public about it. Kahoku more or less fell off the grid. He was a whistle-blower that was stopped before he could really raise the alarm, so to speak. Cerberus wasn't out to send a message to the government, they were out to burn a loose end. They didn't send any videos to alliance HIGHCOM where they beheaded Kahoku. They didn't send any coercive or subversive messages or warnings. They simply took him out without anyone every really figuring it out sans Shepard. Had Shepard not investigated, no one would ever have found out anything.
Note that the Alliance covers up Kahoku's death, according to Citadel news reports which say he died of natural causes. (Unless Shepard's covering it up, but that would be ridiculous.)
I don't know. My Shepard was willing to profit by giving the information to the SB.
But yeah, the information on Kahoku disappeared really quickly, and considering the alliance involvement in the operation, I feel that the alliance was definitely involved with the operation, willingly sacrificing their own troops to test the tactical validity of Thresher Maws. Granted, I think the results are a bit mixed.
I don't know. My Shepard was willing to profit by giving the information to the SB.
But yeah, the information on Kahoku disappeared really quickly, and considering the alliance involvement in the operation, I feel that the alliance was definitely involved with the operation, willingly sacrificing their own troops to test the tactical validity of Thresher Maws. Granted, I think the results are a bit mixed.
Cerberus was actually part of the Alliance at one point. Plus didn't Hackett even suggest discomfort at the implications? I seem to recall him having something vague to say about the thersher maw attack after Shepard discovers Cerberus orchestrated it.
Cerberus was actually part of the Alliance at one point. Plus didn't Hackett even suggest discomfort at the implications? I seem to recall him having something vague to say about the thersher maw attack after Shepard discovers Cerberus orchestrated it.
I thought that got retconned? As soon as ME2 hits you get the hit that Cerberus was started by a manifesto, which is supported by the events of Evolution. Except for that blip from the door guards, nothing we hear of Cerberus' origins starting with ME2 fits into them originating as a Alliance black ops cell.
Possibly. Though does it really rule it out completely? TIM was in the Alliance at the time and this was after the war. Tensions were high. It could had started off as a black ops but just splintered off later. It isn't like the Alliance hasn't done some really shady stuff in the past. Look at Brain Camp.
RE: themikefest video above
LMAO!!!
I can only assume Raphael and Kimberly got terrible direction for this. 
They weren't very public about it. Kahoku more or less fell off the grid....Cerberus wasn't out to send a message to the government, they were out to burn a loose end....Hell, Kahoku's efforts and their being blocked imply that someone high up in the Chain of command was in on what was going on.
There's nothing in that definition that mentions publicity, just an attempt to coerce a government to act in a certain way -- aka, don't mess with Cerberus. Someone high in the Chain of command being sympathetic towards Cerberus or even being actively involved doesn't change that.
No, I'm saying that Cerberus does not meet all 3 criteria.
I think you're misinterpreting how the criteria is used. You are defined as a terrorist if you meet all of the criteria for international and domestic terrorism. As I've said before, the primary intent of terrorism is to coerce a population or government into meeting their demands through fear and violence. Cerberus is not trying to do this.
Criteria 1: Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
Check.
Criteria 2: Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Meets part ii for sure, meets iii as well (assassination of political figures to insert their favored politicians). Chek.
Criteria 3: Automatic check -- at this point we're defining what TYPE of terrorism it is.
I learned a lot of this under British system growing up. Not once did they label it terrorism.
I'm not saying secession and rebellion to make it look good. I'm saying it because that's what it was. If anyone was defining it as terrorism, it is incorrect. Granted, I'd wager that some did call it that to provide extra justification for British actions to crush the Revolution.
What the founding fathers did fits neatly into the category of "Domestic Terrorism" (assuming you substitute "British Empire" for "U.S."). That doesn't mean I think the American Revolution was wrong, just that it fits the definition of terrorism from the British side. Hence the whole cliche of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Again, that doesn't mean I think the Founding Fathers and ISIS are essentially the same thing or something. Just that the enemies of both groups could accurately refer to them as terrorists.
You're limiting variables to a point where you're trying to corner my position.
Yes. That is precisely what I am doing. I am backing you into a corner to see where a logical position leads in the worst case/most extreme scenario. This is the normal in ethical/philosophical discussions because otherwise we spend too much time quibbling about variables rather than get at the heart of the discussion. Situations where you have a person tied to a trolley track and five people tied to another trolley track aren't exactly realistic either.
I'm saying that Cerberus would use the serum in a controlled environment, and find a way to make the serum more efficient. If the results from the survivors was promising or positive (i.e. the increase in intellect or health or whatever was really what you're making it be), then yes, I'd look for ways to deploy it in less than reputable areas while increasing its survivability if possible. If I couldn't, as you seem to want me not to, then I'd use the serum anyway and restrict its deployment to undesirable elements of society.
My point is that this testing has already been done. The survivors do in fact result in the positive benefits mentioned but even the least lethal version of the serum caused 80% fatalities. You have the best version of the serum you can reasonably get. So what do you do with it?
Saying something like "Well, we wait another fifty years to try to improve it with new science" is simply another way of saying "The cost of the serum is too high at the moment." Which I think is what most people would say. The question is what CERBERUS would say -- extreme methods, extreme solutions, right? Like dumping Element Zero on colonies to try to generate biotics, which presumably Cerberus approved of (or might have even done, I forget). To quote the wiki
"Eezo exposure is by no means guaranteed to result in biotic ability. On the contrary, most fetuses that are exposed are not affected at all. Others will develop brain tumors or other horrific physical complications. In humans, only about one in ten eezo-exposed infants will develop biotic talents strong and stable enough to merit training, and these abilities are not always permanent."
Why would you/Cerberus restrict deployment to undesirable elements of society? Isn't the goal to eventually use the serum to transform humanity into beings with twice the lifespans and 50% more intelligence?
I have been playing ME3 and I find it clearly superior to ME2 in all respects. The story feels better
Hahahahawaitareyouseriousletmelaughevenharder.gif
There's nothing in that definition that mentions publicity, just an attempt to coerce a government to act in a certain way -- aka, don't mess with Cerberus. Someone high in the Chain of command being sympathetic towards Cerberus or even being actively involved doesn't change that.
I don't think you understand what you're quoting in regards to terrorism. Cerberus is not openly, even by government positioning, trying to make a coercive stance on what it's doing. It's covering a loose end. Nobody in the government at that point even knows that Cerberus is involved sans Kahoku. Internally and externally, Cerberus is not performing public actions with the intent to promote their agenda, or declaring as such.
That is not terrorism.
Criteria 1: Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
Check.
Criteria 2: Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Meets part ii for sure, meets iii as well (assassination of political figures to insert their favored politicians). Chek.
Criteria 3: Automatic check -- at this point we're defining what TYPE of terrorism it is.
Cerberus does not meet part II at all. They are not trying to coerce a population or government into anything. See my above post.
What the founding fathers did fits neatly into the category of "Domestic Terrorism" (assuming you substitute "British Empire" for "U.S."). That doesn't mean I think the American Revolution was wrong, just that it fits the definition of terrorism from the British side. Hence the whole cliche of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Again, that doesn't mean I think the Founding Fathers and ISIS are essentially the same thing or something. Just that the enemies of both groups could accurately refer to them as terrorists.
You would be functionally incorrect by saying that we were terrorists. We were not. They did not go to England and slaughter people. They did not align themselves as a non-state entity to specifically carry out actions that would force the British government to cater to demands. And as I said, the British themselves did not view it as terrorism.
We broke away, as confederation entity to create our own nation state. That is not terrorism. That is secession devolving into open warfare.
Yes. That is precisely what I am doing. I am backing you into a corner to see where a logical position leads in the worst case/most extreme scenario. This is the normal in ethical/philosophical discussions because otherwise we spend too much time quibbling about variables rather than get at the heart of the discussion. Situations where you have a person tied to a trolley track and five people tied to another trolley track aren't exactly realistic either.
That is not how ethical/philosophical discussions go. You're stacking the deck. That is a fallacy. And you're presuming to use it as the basis for your inductive argument. The plausibility of the premise is less so than the plausibility of the hypothetical situation here. And it thus supersedes the plausibility of the argument as a whole. You're trying too hard to find a situation where my rationale on the issue doesn't apply.
Which is why you're wrong here.
My point is that this testing has already been done. The survivors do in fact result in the positive benefits mentioned but even the least lethal version of the serum caused 80% fatalities. You have the best version of the serum you can reasonably get. So what do you do with it?
As I said, you're trying to limit my possibilities. It's invalidating your argument.
I would make it better. That's what I would do next. Make it so that there is no 80% casualty rate.
Saying something like "Well, we wait another fifty years to try to improve it with new science" is simply another way of saying "The cost of the serum is too high at the moment." Which I think is what most people would say. The question is what CERBERUS would say -- extreme methods, extreme solutions, right? Like dumping Element Zero on colonies to try to generate biotics, which presumably Cerberus approved of (or might have even done, I forget). To quote the wiki
"Eezo exposure is by no means guaranteed to result in biotic ability. On the contrary, most fetuses that are exposed are not affected at all. Others will develop brain tumors or other horrific physical complications. In humans, only about one in ten eezo-exposed infants will develop biotic talents strong and stable enough to merit training, and these abilities are not always permanent."
Why would you/Cerberus restrict deployment to undesirable elements of society? Isn't the goal to eventually use the serum to transform humanity into beings with twice the lifespans and 50% more intelligence?
Because the rationale for it helping humanity on a whole is less when applied to a large scale number of people. You're potential wasting 80% of the population of humanity. That does not strengthen humanities position at all. That puts us at a direct disadvantage strategically and practically. Cerberus is not going to make an action that is not beneficial to the whole.
They are not going to strategically decapitate their species for a drug that makes the limited number of survivors into supermen. It weakens humanity as a whole on a physical level.
I'm just glad that Shepard didn't start throwing around the word "terrorist", because it just doesn't fit. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever happening)
I'm just glad that Shepard didn't start throwing around the word "terrorist", because it just doesn't fit. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever happening)
Not that I'm aware of, and he (and you) is correct.
Contrary to what this guy says, terrorist, by correct interpretation of the definition (which this guy is not using), is not an applicable label to Cerberus.
I'm just glad that Shepard didn't start throwing around the word "terrorist", because it just doesn't fit. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever happening)
I'm just glad that Shepard didn't start throwing around the word "terrorist", because it just doesn't fit. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever happening)
Shepard can refer to Cerberus as terrorists. Its one of the first things you can say to Jacob at Lazarus station after finding out about Cerberus' involvement.
Something something "I'll never work for terrorists!
Note: This doesn't mean I believe they are terrorists. Shepard says a great many stupid things in the trilogy, this certainly wouldn't be the first time.
The in-game Codex indicates that other organizations (Alliance, Council) view Cerberus as a terrorist group.
Indeed. This actually inspired me to go look them up in the codex. Here's what it has to say in regards to this topic:
So...yeah.
I don't think you understand what you're quoting in regards to terrorism. Cerberus is not openly, even by government positioning, trying to make a coercive stance on what it's doing. It's covering a loose end. Nobody in the government at that point even knows that Cerberus is involved sans Kahoku. Internally and externally, Cerberus is not performing public actions with the intent to promote their agenda, or declaring as such.
That is not terrorism.
At a minimum, it's assassinating political figures to get its desired people into office. It also seems well known that the Illusive Man will kill anyone trying to investigate Cerberus, so Kahoku "disappearing". It also seems to be doing things like sabotaging element zero ships to expose people in an attempt to coerce them into becoming biotics...which would be a public action with the intent to promote their agenda, no?
I mean, I get that you like Cerberus. So here's a question: let's say Cerberus publicly commits an unequivocally terrorist action. Would you suddenly stop liking them? Presumably not, at worst you'd think that their goal is still good and the ends justify the means overall. So why are you so against the idea of them being terrorists?
You would be functionally incorrect by saying that we were terrorists. We were not. They did not go to England and slaughter people. They did not align themselves as a non-state entity to specifically carry out actions that would force the British government to cater to demands. And as I said, the British themselves did not view it as terrorism.
We broke away, as confederation entity to create our own nation state. That is not terrorism. That is secession devolving into open warfare.
You haven't explained how that doesn't meet the FBI's definition of terrorism.
1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
Yep, the founding fathers definitely were involved in acts dangerous to human life that violated British law.
2. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;
The whole revolution would fall under ii or iii at a minimum, even if we assumed every civilian in the 13 colonies wanted to "break free."
3. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the British Empire
Well...yeah. Duh.
That is not how ethical/philosophical discussions go. You're stacking the deck. That is a fallacy. And you're presuming to use it as the basis for your inductive argument. The plausibility of the premise is less so than the plausibility of the hypothetical situation here. And it thus supersedes the plausibility of the argument as a whole. You're trying too hard to find a situation where my rationale on the issue doesn't apply.
Have you never heard of something like the trolley problem?
Pretty famous ethical/philosophical discussion/scenario.
As I said, you're trying to limit my possibilities. It's invalidating your argument.
I would make it better. That's what I would do next. Make it so that there is no 80% casualty rate.
Ten years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then? Another twenty years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then? Another fifty years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then? Another 120 years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then?
We're 200 years in the future and you're still refusing to deploy it. Which in and of itself tells us that you think the cost is too high. By not using it you *are* answering the question.
Because the rationale for it helping humanity on a whole is less when applied to a large scale number of people. You're potential wasting 80% of the population of humanity. That does not strengthen humanities position at all. That puts us at a direct disadvantage strategically and practically. Cerberus is not going to make an action that is not beneficial to the whole.
They are not going to strategically decapitate their species for a drug that makes the limited number of survivors into supermen. It weakens humanity as a whole on a physical level.
So where's the dividing line here? If it killed 1% of the population but turned the rest into supermen it sounds like you and Cerberus would be happy. How about 10% the population? 20%? 30%? 50%? At what point would you say the cost is too high?
The in-game Codex indicates that other organizations (Alliance, Council) view Cerberus as a terrorist group.
This can mean one of several things:
- The definition of terrorist has changed by 2183
- Cerberus is held responsible for some off-screen actions that qualify per our current definition
- The groups that labeled them as such were mistaken
I guess its up to us as individuals to determine what the writers intended to convey with that Codex entry.
It's definitely the third option, given what we're presented with Cerberus actions.
At a minimum, it's assassinating political figures to get its desired people into office. It also seems well known that the Illusive Man will kill anyone trying to investigate Cerberus, so Kahoku "disappearing". It also seems to be doing things like sabotaging element zero ships to expose people in an attempt to coerce them into becoming biotics...which would be a public action with the intent to promote their agenda, no?
I mean, I get that you like Cerberus. So here's a question: let's say Cerberus publicly commits an unequivocally terrorist action. Would you suddenly stop liking them? Presumably not, at worst you'd think that their goal is still good and the ends justify the means overall. So why are you so against the idea of them being terrorists?
No, it would not be a public action, especially if no one knows that it is them. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term terrorism. They would need to claim responsibility and further promote an active agenda or list of demands to be met publicly. They do not do this, even privately.
You are correct. The reason I am against the idea of them being terrorists is because, by definition, they are not terrorists. They do not fit the listed criteria given. They are not trying to coerce any government or group into actively following their agenda based on direct action or threat to direct action. You are objectively false here. It's nothing to do with personal values. It's to do with the fact that you are incorrect.
You haven't explained how that doesn't meet the FBI's definition of terrorism.
1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
Yep, the founding fathers definitely were involved in acts dangerous to human life that violated British law.
2. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;
The whole revolution would fall under ii or iii at a minimum, even if we assumed every civilian in the 13 colonies wanted to "break free."
3. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the British Empire
Well...yeah. Duh.
Because there was no overt act of violence aimed towards the British institution itself. I don't believe you understand terrorism or secession, and the differences between such terms. They can be overlapping terms, but they are not something that inherently go hand in hand. We announced that we were no longer considering ourselves a part of the British Empire. We were declaring our independence from that government entity, and we wished to be recognized as a state. The British considered this an act of Rebellion, of Secession, not terrorism. We were leaving their jurisdiction and authority to create our own, not threatening or attacking them to cater to our demands. Thus, it jumped to war when the British decided to squash the secession.
If we had made poignant demonstrative attacks against British institutions in the colonies and on the Islands themselves, then it would have been terrorism. As it was, we no longer considered ourselves part of their monarchic system and were thus considered an entirely separate entity.
To take a page out of a following academic journal post:
Have you never heard of something like the trolley problem?
Pretty famous ethical/philosophical discussion/scenario.
Yes, and its suitability here is suspect. To answer it is superficially easy. Derail it and let one man die so that 5 can live. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Unless that man can present a suitable reason why his value is more than that of 5 people. It's not all that difficult. He may be a powerful politician, or business man, or be an intellectual scientist. Hell, he could be an average man with a genius level intellect. The other 5 could be blue-collar workers of average or below average intelligence or reasoning ability. In those circumstances, I would not divert the trolley.
But on the other hand, I can also side step the issue as I mentioned. You're trying to place practical limitations to an implausible scenario that relies on a stance that no possible change in ability or application will exist in regards to field that is constantly changing or evolving. You're limiting external variables and auxiliary assumptions to a point where the position you postulate about the serum is no longer credible.
Your claim is implausible to such a degree that invokes the Surprise Principle: you are stating that the serum research cannot advance. I am stating my skepticism to this and believing that you're (condescendingly or desperately) trying to frame an implausible premise to be plausible and credible. It is not.
Ten years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then? Another twenty years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then? Another fifty years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then? Another 120 years of research and no improvement. Would you deploy it then?
We're 200 years in the future and you're still refusing to deploy it. Which in and of itself tells us that you think the cost is too high. By not using it you *are* answering the question.
See my above argument. You are artificially restraining my options to the point of diluting your argument to be implausible and uncredible. I refrain from answering on this principle as you are using such a premise to manipulate my ideology against me.
So where's the dividing line here? If it killed 1% of the population but turned the rest into supermen it sounds like you and Cerberus would be happy. How about 10% the population? 20%? 30%? 50%? At what point would you say the cost is too high?
This part I can and will answer. The cost is too high when the application of the serum was to reduce or dilute the production possibility of humanity, and decrease the potential benefit to where the human race would not be able to make up its numerical loss with returns in quality. Look up an economic production possibility curve. Once we lose optimal efficiency in the practical gains versus net loss of life from the deployment of the serum, the cost becomes 'too high'. It's squandering resources and using them less than is most efficient. Be that a percentage of 8% or 80%, whatever causes us to lose more than what we gain is when the price becomes too high. And this is not on an esoteric or metaphysical level. This is on an applied resource-utility level. And there are of course alternate variables to include, such as population demographics to determine what the percentage level for what demographic is most acceptable.
Pretty sure that that Cerberus is objectively trying to coerce the Alliance into taking a more pro-human stance....
They are not trying to coerce any government or group into actively following their agenda based on direct action or threat to direct action.
...
Pretty sure that that Cerberus is objectively trying to coerce the Alliance into taking a more pro-human stance.
Not publicly, and not that anyone is really aware of what's going on. I'm not arguing with you, but if you believe that the intent is to show that Cerberus is a terrorist organization, then it's invalid. That's no different than any special or private interest group or lobbyist trying to coerce government officials and politicians to take a stronger stance towards whatever they're advocating.
They aren't out stating 'be more militantly pro-human or we will nuke Manhattan!'
They're quietly engineering events to make certain things happen prior to the series, with just about everyone none-the-wiser. Those that do know what's going on are more or less in on it.
They actively kill people who don't support their agenda. That they don't take public responsibility is irrelevant. All people need to know is that if they don't follow enough of a pro-human agenda, something bad will happen to them, as it has to others in the past. That makes Cerberus terrorists.
They don't do that in the sense you're espousing. They do what is politically convenient and supports their goals, and, prior to 3, they do it completely anonymously. This isn't a matter or public responsibility. The public is completely unknowing of what is going on.
You're also making it sound as if Cerberus targets any and all humans that hold that position. They don't even do that to any and all politicians. Otherwise, you'd have literally hundreds or thousands of dead politicians and alliance officials strewn over history.
Your definition of terrorism is as incorrect as the guy above.
Doesn't matter that it was publicly anonymous, they were clearly known enough for people to have some awareness of them. Their existence being more of a myth probably worked in their favor.They don't do that in the sense you're espousing. They do what is politically convenient and supports their goals, and, prior to 3, they do it completely anonymously. This isn't a matter or public responsibility. The public is completely unknowing of what is going on.
...
They didn't, and they didn't have to. They targetted a few, enough to scare (terrorize) and coerce the rest. That's how terrorism works....
You're also making it sound as if Cerberus targets any and all humans that hold that position. They don't even do that to any and all politicians. Otherwise, you'd have literally hundreds or thousands of dead politicians and alliance officials strewn over history.
...
Nope....
Your definition of terrorism is as incorrect as the guy above.
Doesn't matter that it was publicly anonymous, they were clearly known enough for people to have some awareness of them. Their existence being more of a myth probably worked in their favor.
Indeed. Most people who knew they existed probably held that they were a boogeyman or other group used for False Flag Operations. The few that did have concrete evidence knew they were heavily affiliated with the alliance.
They didn't, and they didn't have to. They targetted a few, enough to scare (terrorize) and coerce the rest. That's how terrorism works.
Sans the part where they tried to scare or terrorize anyone. You're pulling that out of your ass. You seem to think Cerberus was trying to actively threaten the alliance or governments that were equivalent. There is no evidence to suggest that any government entity knew or believed that Cerberus was trying to coerce them into doing or taking any kind of action or stance.
Nope.
Yes, you are wrong. Entirely so. You not liking Cerberus does not make them terrorists. Nor does it mean that their actions were wrong. You're labeling them as such without evidence or adequate explanation, instead presenting biased speculation on events we have bare knowledge about other than that Cerberus performed them. We have no context behind the actions or knowledge of their motivational intent beyond trying to advance human causes. You have no evidence or basis to make a claim that Cerberus was actively or passively threatening any government official or politician. In cases where people got to close or held views contradictory to their own that presented a credible threat, those individuals were quietly disposed of, with no one the wiser to who or what caused the loss or why.
Right... the codex entry that described Cerberus as "terrorists" really needed to spell that connection out, otherwise... well... people mightn't understand that connection between their violent acts and coercive intent. People might think that, well hell, since there's no coercive intent or direct challenge to the state specifically enunciated in the codex entry, that the "terrorist" thing is just some crap the writers put in because they don't have a clue, and that they didn't intend for us the make that clear and obvious connection at all....
You seem to think Cerberus was trying to actively threaten the alliance or governments that were equivalent. There is no evidence to suggest that any government entity knew or believed that Cerberus was trying to coerce them into doing or taking any kind of action or stance.
...
Right... the codex entry that described Cerberus as "terrorists" really needed to spell that connection out, otherwise... well... people mightn't understand that connection between their violent acts and coercive intent. People might think that, well hell, since there's no coercive intent or direct challenge to the state specifically enunciated in the codex entry, that the "terrorist" thing is just some crap the writers put in because they don't have a clue, and that they didn't intend for us the make that clear and obvious connection at all.
Sarcasm aside, they really didn't have a clue. They were, by definition, incorrect in labeling Cerberus as such. It wouldn't be the first time they screwed up in regards to their lore.
Retour en haut