Guest_alleyd_*
You don't have to be pro Cerberus or any sort of apologist to disagree with the lore labeling as terrorists. I cannot speak for God, but my own defense of Cerberus' place in the ME1's events is that closer examination of the timeline of events offers a challenge to the face value perceptions.
ME2 and ME3 Cerberus are dogs of a different breed. One that retrospectively I wish had been put to sleep long ago.
In some respects I agree that the label terrorist isn't technically accurate with Cerberus.
Most people would probably describe an act of terrorism as an act of violence or mass murder carried out by non-state actors with the intent of influencing a state's foreign or domestic policies through the 'terror' these attacks cause. Or at least that works as a basic definition. Obviously that some of these groups can be state-sponsored muddies the waters a bit.
I'm not quite sure however that is what Cerberus does, at least based on the little bit of information we are given. Like terrorist organizations it has committed acts of mass murder, but I'm not sure the goals fit with groups we normally might define as terrorists. Cerberus might blow up a ship laden with eezo to create biotics for example, but I'm not sure they ever set off a car bomb in a marketplace because the Alliance passed some sort of trade agreement with the Asari or Salarians.
Having said that arguing over whether or not Cerberus' actions fit common a common definition for an act of terrorism, is ultimately just quibbling over semantics. Even if Cerberus isn't technically a terrorist organization, that doesn't automatically make them noble either. Whether or not they fit the definition for terrorists, it's clear they have committed acts of mass-murder and have no qualms about killing civilians to further their goals. That much is absolute canon and isn't really debatable.
On that note I'd argue that Cerberus as an organization is as morally bankrupt as terrorists, even if they aren't terrorists themselves.
This is hilarious. God is obviously a Cerberus apologist. This harkens back to the days of ME2 when all the pro-Cerberus people were hoping for Cerberus to save the galaxy, only to have them turn into one of the big bads in ME3. Actions speak louder than words. They were the #2 big bad we were fighting. Or was that #1? I couldn't tell half the time. It seemed like they were trying to sabotage everything we were trying to accomplish in defeating the reapers. Hence: initially a terrorist organization, but they grew big enough to be a military power with Dr. Mengele performing experiments on refugees.
Well, it seems you're more content to ridicule my argument rather than actually address it. Does that mean I can mock your mockery? Yep. It sure does.
Hell, I remember David doing this to your arguments all the time, and me defending you when he did it. Guess he rubbed off on you in the wrong ways.
Whether or not they fit the definition for terrorists, it's clear they have committed acts of mass-murder and have no qualms about killing civilians to further their goals. That much is absolute canon and isn't really debatable.
On that note I'd argue that Cerberus as an organization is as morally bankrupt as terrorists, even if they aren't terrorists themselves.
No, it's really not debatable.
That said, I don't think it's all that bad either. I honestly have no problem with either function if they serve a purpose that is tangible. It's an investment in lives. Spend lives to buy time or power or technology.
In some respects I agree that the label terrorist isn't technically accurate with Cerberus.
Most people would probably describe an act of terrorism as an act of violence or mass murder carried out by non-state actors with the intent of influencing a state's foreign or domestic policies through the 'terror' these attacks cause. Or at least that works as a basic definition. Obviously that some of these groups can be state-sponsored muddies the waters a bit.
I'm not quite sure however that is what Cerberus does, at least based on the little bit of information we are given. Like terrorist organizations it has committed acts of mass murder, but I'm not sure the goals fit with groups we normally might define as terrorists. Cerberus might blow up a ship laden with eezo to create biotics for example, but I'm not sure they ever set off a car bomb in a marketplace because the Alliance passed some sort of trade agreement with the Asari or Salarians.
Having said that arguing over whether or not Cerberus' actions fit common a common definition for an act of terrorism, is ultimately just quibbling over semantics. Even if Cerberus isn't technically a terrorist organization, that doesn't automatically make them noble either. Whether or not they fit the definition for terrorists, it's clear they have committed acts of mass-murder and have no qualms about killing civilians to further their goals. That much is absolute canon and isn't really debatable.
On that note I'd argue that Cerberus as an organization is as morally bankrupt as terrorists, even if they aren't terrorists themselves.
It's sure not a company most people would care to put their foot in the door if they knew what they were about, since the likelihood of becoming fodder for some kind of Krieger-esque mad science experiment is rather high if you aren't high enough on the food chain. But, like a lot of things, duping folks makes for stellar turnout.
Honestly, I think Bioware couldn't decide if Cerberus was a black ops outfit or a terrorist organization; instead, they just took whatever they thought was cool from column A and column B and put it into Cerberus. On the one hand, Cerberus is regarded as a terrorist organization by the council (because it's cool to be feared by the galaxy), and they plaster their logo all over everything, an act which doesn't make sense if you're not aiming for some kind of publicity (think of the distinctive logo and uniforms of the Tamil Tigers for an example). But hey, logos are cool, so Cerberus has them and flaunts them.
In other respects, Cerberus doesn't seem like a terrorist organization. Indiscriminately murdering civilians in a highly public way to advance political goals is, in addition to being morally grotesque, also commonly coded as 'not cool.' On the other hand, secretive black ops missions and experiments, while often being just as bad, are often coded as cool (god knows how many books, TV shows and movies there are about guys who are willing to do Whatever It Takes To Get The Job Done), so Cerberus does very little of the former and a lot of the latter. Because of all this, I'm not convinced that there's any coherent method to their madness beyond the rule of cool itself.
I'll be honest, I don't consider what I do to be morally grotesque. I work in a field where the MO is, quite literally, 'do whatever it takes to get the job done'. The mission comes first.
If that means authorize a fire mission or CAS run on an area with civilians, so be it. I don't lose sleep over it. I've done it before, and I'll likely do it again. If I have to sacrifice innocent lives now to protect more later, it's done without a second thought.
As for logo's, I think a lot of the consensus is that most people simply don't know what the logo stands for. Hell, they Normandy is able to fly around completely unmolested on the Citadel in ME2. IMO, that means that the vast majority of people either don't know what the logo stands for, or that Cerberus has lied about what it really stands for. Either one is relatively believable. It really isn't until ME3 that Cerberus' logo becomes a known quantity. Prior to that, I'm willing to bet most people think it stands for one of Cerberus' front organizations.
I'm surprised Cerberus didn't put its logo on the Collector armor, but then I guess that would take away from the wearing-the-skin-of-your-enemy motif.
In some respects I agree that the label terrorist isn't technically accurate with Cerberus.
Most people would probably describe an act of terrorism as an act of violence or mass murder carried out by non-state actors with the intent of influencing a state's foreign or domestic policies through the 'terror' these attacks cause.
Having said that arguing over whether or not Cerberus' actions fit common a common definition for an act of terrorism, is ultimately just quibbling over semantics.
On that note I'd argue that Cerberus as an organization is as morally bankrupt as terrorists, even if they aren't terrorists themselves.
I'll be honest, I don't consider what I do to be morally grotesque. I work in a field where the MO is, quite literally, 'do whatever it takes to get the job done'. The mission comes first.
If that means authorize a fire mission or CAS run on an area with civilians, so be it. I don't lose sleep over it. I've done it before, and I'll likely do it again. If I have to sacrifice innocent lives now to protect more later, it's done without a second thought.
As for logo's, I think a lot of the consensus is that most people simply don't know what the logo stands for. Hell, they Normandy is able to fly around completely unmolested on the Citadel in ME2. IMO, that means that the vast majority of people either don't know what the logo stands for, or that Cerberus has lied about what it really stands for. Either one is relatively believable. It really isn't until ME3 that Cerberus' logo becomes a known quantity. Prior to that, I'm willing to bet most people think it stands for one of Cerberus' front organizations.
Who said anything about what you do, personally? Unless your missions involve abducting and then murdering high-ranking US military personnel, or turning American citizens into zombies or something, I'm pretty sure you're own experience isn't what is at issue.
As far as the logo, I have my doubts. Jack was able to recognize it immediately, and it appears prominently in th codex entry for Cerberus in ME2. In addition, Cerberus has released a human survivalist manifesto which was made available as a matter of public domain, so they don't lie about what they do. Is any of this definitive? Not really, but I honestly don't trust the writers to have thought through the logistics of any of this (which was the main point of my original post). At any rate, I would at least argue that if you're a secretive black ops organization that has the reputation of an international terrorist organization, then you're doing something seriously wrong, a little like being the world's most famous secret agent or something.
Who said anything about what you do, personally? Unless your missions involve abducting and then murdering high-ranking US military personnel, or turning American citizens into zombies or something, I'm pretty sure you're own experience isn't what is at issue.
As far as the logo, I have my doubts. Jack was able to recognize it immediately, and it appears prominently in th codex entry for Cerberus in ME2. In addition, Cerberus has released a human survivalist manifesto which was made available as a matter of public domain, so they don't lie about what they do. Is any of this definitive? Not really, but I honestly don't trust the writers to have thought through the logistics of any of this (which was the main point of my original post). At any rate, I would at least argue that if you're a secretive black ops organization that has the reputation of an international terrorist organization, then you're doing something seriously wrong, a little like being the world's most famous secret agent or something.
You gave more of an example of black ops missions, rather than specifying exactly what Cerberus was doing. So no, my missions don't involve the murder of higher ranking US military personnel (since they'd likely be the ones authorizing said missions) or turning American citizens into zombies (which is actually pretty cool), but in all honesty, I can't say the same about other nationalities. That's all the detail I'm going to go into there. But yes, I've seen it, I've been involved on an administrative and logistical level, and I support it on a notional level if there is relevant cause for it.
Jack was also raised by said organization, and described that she had been hunted by them for almost all her life. It makes perfect sense that she'd recognize the logo, given that she was essentially owned by Cerberus for most of her childhood.
Not quite. In many ways, we use misconception to our advantage. Psyops is all about that. They're weird. But look at the CIA, and speculation into what they do that captures the imagination, or Area 51, a region that still has very real elevated security that is one of the highest on the planet. Hell, until a few years ago the 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force) was a JSOC unit that conducted highly secretive black ops, yet everybody knew they existed. That doesn't work against them at all. Knowledge of their existence and reputation is not the same as knowing what they do, who they are, where they are, and how they work.
What I'm getting at is that Cerberus has a reputation. That's it. A reputation. That's nothing. Nobody has anything else on them, no information on what they're doing, no information on where they're at, no information on how many of them there are, and no information on who they are. Nothing but a reputation. A reputation to an organization that doesn't even have a real face (given the description of the Illusive Man). They're a phantom organization to the galaxy at large. The only solid knowledge you have on them is that they exist, and to most people, that'd be suspect given that you never see or hear about them unless they come for you (in which case, you quite literally fall off the face of the galaxy). They may have released a manifesto once, but there's nothing that indicates they put their logo on it, and it's made clear that said manifesto was released early and quickly fell out of the public mind. Nobody even knew they actually existed until nearly a decade later. Also, they don't detail what they do in their manifesto. If anything, it's a mission statement, and a clarification of goals and what they want to accomplish, not how they're going to do it. They're like Delta Force, Area 51, CIA, Mossad, Spetznas, SAS, whatever. Nobody has any actual knowledge that is substantial about them save for other groups that have just as much of a reputation (Shadow Broker and the STG are the only groups I can think of on this field).
I do agree with you about the writers not thinking through the logistics of this mess. Which is why I come in and try to fill in the gaps and take advantage of the lack of clarity and purpose given.
Their actions, if not their intentions, certainly fit into terrorist behavior.
Their actions and their intentions do not fit terrorist behavior. Morally and ethically suspect group of humans that act outside all government oversight? Perhaps. But terrorist? No.
I'd guess that's the reason why the codex calls them terrorists - it conveys their MO, if not their intentions
.
Then it's still wrong, because terrorism is not a part of Cerberus' MO.
Sure do. Granted, they could have been more thorough with how they dealt with her.
Totally succeeded by the way. Making a powerful biotic that is among humanities most powerful.
Did they? I remember the other kids being used as test beds for drugs and techniques before they were applied to Jack - not a control group. Without any sort of control group, you have no evidence that your methods made Jack any more powerful than she would have become without them.
One has to wonder whether Cerberus' research resulted in a net gain or loss for science and technology. They took the best and brightest scientists, ultimately disposing of them when they finished their Cerberus project (or tried to quit). What those scientists might have accomplished had they continued their careers and enjoyed normal lifespans is something we'll never know.
Given that we have almost no insight into the experimentation done, you aren't credible in the presentation of this statement. Maybe there was a control group and it went unmentioned. Maybe Jack was the control variable, then augmented after analyzing other results.
Also, this is supposition. If what you said was true, then Miranda would have never survived to meet Shepard, or Doctor Cole would never have been implied to be a long-term Cerberus operative. To be frank, you're making up the concept that Cerberus always killed their personnel after each assignment. There's no merit to the argument.
Given that we have almost no insight into the experimentation done, you aren't credible in the presentation of this statement. Maybe there was a control group and it went unmentioned. Maybe Jack was the control variable, then augmented after analyzing other results.
Also, this is supposition. If what you said was true, then Miranda would have never survived to meet Shepard, or Doctor Cole would never have been implied to be a long-term Cerberus operative. To be frank, you're making up the concept that Cerberus always killed their personnel after each assignment. There's no merit to the argument.
You might want to take note of the language I used before trying to assign credibility.
It was you who made a definitive statement indicating that Cerberus' efforts to make Jack a more powerful biotic were successful. I was only pointing out that it is a supposition on your part.
And I am canonically correct in saying that Cerberus made Jack into a more powerful biotic. The wiki (which is admittedly not canon, but puts things down laconically) states that she was given every possible biotic enhancing treatment that was successful in other candidates to further increase her potential. Which worked.
So yes, my statement is definitive on this. Yours is not.
Again - language.
The former Cerberus associates who survive after leaving Cerberus that we know of do so because they go into hiding or change their identity.
On Gellix, we meet 43 scientists plus research associates plus 17 family members trying to escape Cerberus. And we learn of some who didn't: https://youtu.be/0-0E2yv5XHE?t=2m21s
That's more than enough to question whether their net contribution to science & technology might have been greater had they never been associated with Cerberus.
I don't think you understand the language.
The statement that I made was that there is no evidence supporting your statement that Cerberus killed all their scientists and researchers routinely after they accomplished their goal. If what you say was true, Miranda would have been killed after her very first assignment for Cerberus. As would Dr. Cole. As would any other scientist working on the program. This is not the case. So we know that this point is incorrect. We know that you are incorrect.
The rest of this information is tangential to this statement. It does not support your position, nor is it related to your argument. The people here are being targeted because, surprise surprise, they ran away from Cerberus. They deserted. They fled. People have a tendency to not take that very well. We don't like it when people leave, even if they have cause to.
I disagree with your notion that their contributions to science and technology would have been any greater if they were unassociated with Cerberus. It's posturing on your part to further make Cerberus look bad.
And I am canonically correct in saying that Cerberus made Jack into a more powerful biotic. The wiki (which is admittedly not canon, but puts things down laconically) states that she was given every possible biotic enhancing treatment that was successful in other candidates to further increase her potential. Which worked.
So yes, my statement is definitive on this. Yours is not.
The statement that I made was that there is no evidence supporting your statement that Cerberus killed all their scientists and researchers routinely after they accomplished their goal.
If what you say was true, Miranda would have been killed after her very first assignment for Cerberus. As would Dr. Cole. As would any other scientist working on the program. This is not the case. So we know that this point is incorrect. We know that you are incorrect.
I disagree with your notion that their contributions to science and technology would have been any greater if they were unassociated with Cerberus. It's posturing on your part to further make Cerberus look bad.
Yet you still can't show how she might have developed outside of Cerberus.
Of course, when your methods require techniques that 1) no ethical organization would ever use, and 2) result in someone who rejects any futher association with you, the value of that research is questionable at best.
No, I can't, nor am I trying too. I do know that we have information that Cerberus made her more powerful than she would have been if her skills were left un-augmented.
I don't care what any ethical organization would do. If their ethical techniques don't provide the same results as the unethical ones, then I question their efficiency and legitimacy.
Not if she procreates and produces further empowered biotic children. The effects are already in place. Her skills and talent are now able to be used decisively by humanity, as shown in the war.
There is no evidence that anyone ever voluntarily left Cerberus, without having to go into hiding or change their identity. Throughout the series, we are shown plenty of evidence to the contrary - including evidence that operatives are implanted with devices capable of terminating them.
That's not my argument. My argument is that Cerberus operatives and scientists are not 'disposed of' whenever they accomplish a mission. Which was your statement. And it is incorrect. As well, this is another area that is never delved into. We never see if any member of Cerberus retires or tries to leave amicably. Shepard, in the Control ending, is the closest you could potentially get to that. He can leave Cerberus under amicable terms.
No, I think it's more when you try to screw them or leave with the intent to inform or stop helping them. I don't think Cerberus is going to kill the person who says 'it's been great, but I think I want to retire and go start a nursery.' You have only a select few cases under some pretty weighted circumstances to support your position. To take a quote of yours, you have no control group. You have no person who left Cerberus on good terms. Just people who fled after sabotaging plans and experiments.
"They took the best and brightest scientists, ultimately disposing of them when they finished their Cerberus project (or tried to quit)."
Okay, I'll make a minor modification.
"They took the best and brightest scientists, ultimately trying to dispose of them when they finished their Cerberus project (or tried to quit)."
This is ME3 Cerberus, not the organization prior to ME3. Indoctrination does some rather bizarre things. We have no information prior to these events, leaving your judgement suspect. Especially since the experiments in question were related to a very specific area of study.
Some were terminated upon project completion, others when they tried to quit Cerberus. Some did manage a successful escape and went into hiding.
You'll need to show a scientist who successfully resigned from Cerberus without needing to escape or go into hiding in order to prove my statement incorrect.
I need not prove your statement incorrect, you must first prove it correct. You have as much ignorance on this as I do or anyone else, yet you're drawing a conclusion that everyone who ever tried to leave the organization is killed. And you're taking it a step farther, stating that upon completion of a goal, Cerberus terminates every agent and every asset in every circumstance, and has done so throughout their entire history. You are incorrect. Otherwise, as I said, Miranda, Dr. Cole, and doubtless hundreds or thousands of other scientists and researchers and operatives would have been terminated after their first mission.
Cerberus does a pretty good job of making themselves look bad.
And no, I'm not posturing. I'm genuinely trying to figure out what they accomplished that might be useful for humanity - aside from resurrecting Shepard and providing the resources & intel to combat the collectors, which were obviously major contributions.
I think people are too caught up in what looks good and bad to actually discern what is good and bad. I'd go so far as to say that most people can't tell the difference.
Yes, you are. They created a means of overcoming indoctrination. This is what led them to the conclusion that the Crucible could be used to induce control. That's a pretty big contribution. They created a means of controlling the Geth with Overlord. They were involved with a project to utilize thorian creepers as labor-saving devices and shock troops, a project whose failure was completely beyond their ability to control. They stopped a planned Batarian assassination of the Council using a bioweapon. They proto-typed and field tested the M-44, which is rather useful. Jack's entire childhood may have been a prototype for Project Phoenix, which is actually rather successful given how they created powerful biotic soldiers. They created a means of disrupting biotic powers. They were able to create a means of creating and controlling adjutants, which could have been a valuable addition to the battlefield.
If any of these were put into place by the alliance, they would have immeasureably helped the war effort.
Cerberus doesn't make sense at all.
They're certainly organized like terrorists according to EDI. Members of one cell not knowing members of another cell etc.
But then... they have a logo... which they put on everything. Their ships, their buildings, their armor.
Imagine if Al Qaida put a logo on all their stuff.
ISIS?
ISIS?
Well, the Caliphate think that they're actually a sovereign state. They're pretty xenophobic about it too.
No, I can't, nor am I trying too. I do know that we have information that Cerberus made her more powerful than she would have been if her skills were left un-augmented.
Not if she procreates and produces further empowered biotic children.
That's not my argument. My argument is that Cerberus operatives and scientists are not 'disposed of' whenever they accomplish a mission. Which was your statement.
No, I think it's more when you try to screw them or leave with the intent to inform or stop helping them. I don't think Cerberus is going to kill the person who says 'it's been great, but I think I want to retire and go start a nursery.'
You have only a select few cases under some pretty weighted circumstances to support your position. To take a quote of yours, you have no control group. You have no person who left Cerberus on good terms. Just people who fled after sabotaging plans and experiments.
I need not prove your statement incorrect, you must first prove it correct.
You have as much ignorance on this as I do or anyone else, yet you're drawing a conclusion that everyone who ever tried to leave the organization is killed. And you're taking it a step farther, stating that upon completion of a goal, Cerberus terminates every agent and every asset in every circumstance, and has done so throughout their entire history. You are incorrect. Otherwise, as I said, Miranda, Dr. Cole, and doubtless hundreds or thousands of other scientists and researchers and operatives would have been terminated after their first mission.
I think people are too caught up in what looks good and bad to actually discern what is good and bad. I'd go so far as to say that most people can't tell the difference.
Though we don't know how she might have turned out were it not for Cerberus' experimentation.
No, we don't. But evidence points to the idea that she would not be nearly as powerful as she is.
If she produces children and if they inherit biotic capabilities in excess of what they might have had without Cerberus' involvement. Whether biotics will be inherited in humans remains to be seen.
Fair enough, but I don't see why biotics wouldn't be genetic, given their elements within the body changing the host to an arguable post-human. Element Zero in the blood of the mother will go into the body of the child. It will likely develop in the body as well. Now, I'm not going to say that it will happen, but I will say that it's likely.
No, my statement was that Cerberus seeks to terminate scientists upon project completion OR if they try to quit. We have plenty of evidence that they do exactly that.
And I dispute both of these (This is what I've been saying this entire time). We do not have plenty of evidence that they do exactly that as a regular MO. Only for one select case in ME3, and even then, Cerberus has technical cause to try and kill the people trying to leave Cerberus.
Supposition.
Yes it is, but it is not invalid via supposition. Supposition is not a claim to invalidation.
Weighted circumstances? Sabotage? Where did that come from?
Personal Log: Brynn Cole
With Jacob's help, we have managed to ascertain that several of our colleagues were, in fact, killed. "Contracts terminated" is what Cerberus called it. Makeda, Scott, Daniel, Chun Hei, Anikka... and so many others I didn't even know about. All of them gone, disappeared without a trace. Just like that.
You have the events of ME3 as the weighted circumstances, not the nearly 30 years prior to then. As for sabotage, one of the scientists remarks that they sabotaged some of Cerberus works when they left. And in any event, they are turning tail and deserting. That's usually a case where people will respond negatively.
You're misinterpreting the events of ME3 to cast over the organization as a whole in its entire history. That is weighted evidence.
I provided a link - and also typed the log in this message.
A link that does not prove your intention, and a log that does not do the same. You must show me proof that Cerberus, in its entire history, did not allow anyone to leave or retire or quit Cerberus under any circumstance over their 30 year history, and you must show me proof that Cerberus terminated or attempted to eliminate any of their personnel at the conclusion of every project over their 30 year history. So no, you have no proof.
I reiterate, it is not on my shoulders to prove you wrong, it is on yours to prove yourself correct.
I didn't actually. You're adding a lot of absolutes to my original statement that were never there. All you need to do is read the notes in Gellix (for one) to learn what happens to those whose contracts are terminated - for whatever reason.
You are denying what I said you're doing, then you just did it? What kind of logic are you running on? You have just now stated that anyone who's contract is terminated for any reason is killed by Cerberus. I'm assuming that includes retirement and amicable departures.
I need to read the notes on Gellix to learn what happened to the scientist at Gellix. That's it. What happened at Gellix (I'm claiming) is not what happened in 100% of the other circumstances. You need to provide me with proof that what Cerberus was trying to do with the scientists at Gellix was what Cerberus was trying to do 100% of the time someone tried to leave the organization.
People have different values, particularly in terms of what sorts of means are acceptable in the pursuit of potential ends.
And to be frank, their values aren't always logical or rational. In particular, the intentional self-limiting to pursuing an end, to the extent where it's possibly self-defeating, is absurd.
Well, the Caliphate think that they're actually a sovereign state. They're pretty xenophobic about it too.
Sounds like Cerberus.
Sounds like Cerberus.
That doesn't sound anything like Cerberus at all.
Element Zero in the blood of the mother will go into the body of the child. It will likely develop in the body as well. Now, I'm not going to say that it will happen, but I will say that it's likely.
Wiki reference:
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. In extremely rare cases, humans who were exposed in utero but did not manifest biotic talents as children can develop them during young adulthood through additional exposure.
And I dispute both of these (This is what I've been saying this entire time). We do not have plenty of evidence that they do exactly that as a regular MO. Only for one select case in ME3, and even then, Cerberus has technical cause to try and kill the people trying to leave Cerberus.
There are other similar references in the trilogy. Sorry, but I have better things to do than search for them.
You need to provide me with proof that what Cerberus was trying to do with the scientists at Gellix was what Cerberus was trying to do 100% of the time someone tried to leave the organization.
No, actually, I don't. That they did it at all is enough for me. A huge waste of a lot of talent.
Retour en haut