798 réponses à ce sujet

[anmiro]

While I do believe that the Alliance has cut all official ties with Cerberus I also think there is enough evidence in the 1st game alone to suspect that either Adm. Hackett himself or someone else of equal rank in Alliance command is still working with Cerberus.

Why I think so (not to be confused with PROOF)

After Admiral Kahoku lost contact with his scout team, his clearance was revoked and he was restricted from the area. I don't know how the System Alliance rank structure works, but Admiral happens to be one of the highest ranks in the military. Whoever stripped Kahoku of his clearance had both authority to do it and a motive for covering Cerberus's tracks.

Modifié par anmiro, 19 octobre 2010 - 06:48 .

[Arijharn]

I think Hackett is a participant in Cerberus' ideology and I think so regardless of how closely linked Cerberus is to the Alliance proper .

1) He's ruthless enough to potentially kill off Lord Darius (he tells you to negotiate or somesuch though) He does what he thinks is needed.

2) Shutting down the real concerns of a Major who seeks to question Shephard about his apparent ties with a 'known terrorist' organisation, even if the Admiral was truly supportive of Shephard's actions in the past just smacks of stupidity imo given the lengths that the Alliance has 'taken' in the past to shut down Cerberus activities.

3) Cerberus, despite those 'efforts,' still exists. It seems likely to me that someone high up must be feeding Cerberus with intel so Cerberus can make adjustments even offering sacrificial lambs on occasion.

[Asari]

After reading the OP. Council uses the Salarian STG (remember Virmire?) Why can't Alliance use Cerberus like this? or the council for that matter..

[Voutsis1982]

Hang on. What's the point of the Alliance putting Shepard on a Cerberus vessel in the first place?

[jojon2se]

Plausible deniability.

[Voutsis1982]

Don't need Cerberus for that. You could use any number of civilian fronts or pre-established "mercenary" companies, they'd all have deniability, and they'd all have less operational limits than Cerberus. So why put Shepard on a Cerberus vessel?

[jojon2se]

I'll admit this is my first foray into this thread and that until just now, I hadn't even read the original post -- bad form; my bad. Alas I think I'll stay with that bad form, rather than trying to catch up with twenty pages of arguments.

But to give some sort of answer anyway, rather than leave, which I should, I guess the idea is that after being outed, through previous events, Cerberus has transformed from a covert black ops outfit, into something that retains all its old associations, but is now blatantly displayed with a huge "those are DEFINITELY not our guys" type disclaimer -- something like the nasty fellows from the film "Swordfish" (which, it seems safe to conspire, was an underhand effort to seed acceptance for questionable methods, among the general populace), although the comparison stumbles, because those remained top secret and did indeed go fully autonomous. Anyway, I believe a certain old propaganda minister said something to the effect that the bigger a lie is, the easier it is for people to swallow, because it just seems to incredelous to be believable. (EDIT: 'thought unbelievable that anyone would make that blatant a lie, that is...)

Through Cerberus, under the theory of maintained relationship (which, unless I've misunderstood, the thread is all about), the Allience would have some extent of influence on Shepard and be able to keep him/her extraordinarily supplied and free to manouver, whilst being able to claim no responsibility, maybe even publicly condemn indiscressions, should the need arise.
Shepard on his/her part, would be the ultimate undercover agent, being unaware him-/herself of being anything of the sort. This of course takes a ridiculous amount of confidence in his/her character and abilities - but hey; it's pulp and we're the chosen one.

Modifié par jojon2se, 25 octobre 2010 - 09:27 .

[Arijharn]

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Don't need Cerberus for that. You could use any number of civilian fronts or pre-established "mercenary" companies, they'd all have deniability, and they'd all have less operational limits than Cerberus. So why put Shepard on a Cerberus vessel?

Because Cerberus is still under Alliance (nominal?) control. If Cerberus is a wheel for the the Alliance, then why invent a new one?

Cerberus has a big word on it; it's labelled (and label is the keyword here) as a terrorist organisation to which the Alliance obviously refuses all contact with. Public perception.

[Voutsis1982]

Arijharn wrote...

If Cerberus is a wheel for the the Alliance, then why invent a new one?

Cerberus is the unnecessary invented wheel. There are better ways to be denied than branding your operation a terrorist organization, considering all the costs of that branding. For example, imagine if the Girl Guides were a merc band.



Suppose the Alliance established them as a black ops front. By not advertising an Alliance affiliation, they can operate freely in the Terminus systems and blame their actions on their clients. Like a Corsair, with the crew answering to Shepard and Shepard answering covertly to the Alliance. Since this a combat op role, they could leave the illegal experiments and torturing Jack to Cerberus.



Unlike Cerberus, they haven't been put on the ten most wanted list. So if Shepard was put on a Girl Guides ship instead of a Cerberus ship, you’d still have all of Cerberus’ deniability and law breaking powers. BUT you would also enjoy the following perks:

A Girl Guides Normandy can meet up with an Alliance cruiser to refuel, rearm, pick up a hundred marines and three hundred nukes, then go off and kill some Collectors with them
A Girl Guides Normandy can team up with a wing of Alliance “Corsairs” and put ten times as much firepower on a target
A Girl Guides Normandy can operate freely in the Attican Traverse and the Skillian Verge, where a Cerberus Normandy would have issues with Council and Alliance patrols - handy if you want Shepard to work outside the Terminus some day or if the Collectors change targets
A Girl Guides Normandy can fight alongside Alliance vessels, or its crew alongside Alliance troops, without having to skip town in a hurry afterwards

Simply by not being Cerberus, a Normandy working in the Girl Guides merc band gets a lot more freedom and access to firepower. Better to have the choice and not need it, then need it and be on the ten-most-wanted list. And you still get deniability. Cerberus hasn't got a monopoly on front companies.

Short version: using a front company makes sense. Using Satan as a front does not. Being Cerberus doesn’t empower Shepard – it gets in the way. It's an unnecessary wheel.

And yet there's more. With Cerberus out of the picture that reduces hostility from the Council, eases tension with any recruits who might have bad blood with Cerberus, and makes Shepard more obedient because Shepard wouldn’t be answering to the head of Cerberus, but someone from the Alliance. Involving the Illusive Man is just another unnecessary compllication.

A lot of people invoke Cerberus as if it's some kind of leprechaun. Say “Cerberus!” and suddenly you’re wearing a black hat that magically gives you the power to “Get Things Done”. This is sloppy thinking that begins with the idea that lawbreaking makes you more free, and then halts any thought about whether this is actually the best way to do something. Or even not a completely crazy and stupid way.

Any organizational name could be used by the Alliance as a black ops front, and pretty much any of them would get you more freedom, more firepower, and most trust out of Shepard. We know Bioware has thought of this with the Corsair program, and the widespread application of merc groups in the Terminus. Connecting Cerberus to Shepard’s mission doesn’t help in any way. It just limits your operational areas, cuts Shepard off from enormous firepower and material assets, and introduces an element of disloyalty that wasn’t there before. The Alliance has far better options for Shepard’s mission then Cerberus.

So again, why would the Alliance put Shepard on a Cerberus vessel?

Modifié par Voutsis1982, 26 octobre 2010 - 07:43 .

[Manic Sheep]

It possible but as the poster above so masterfully outlined why would they want Sheppard with Cerberus rather than putting him/her into something like the corsairs? Wouldn't have thought having your former poster child with what is considered terrorist organisation would be great for public opinion either.
Whether or not Cerberus is still part of the alliance tho they must be backed from someone high up in the alliance brass and still have a fair amount of influence.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 26 octobre 2010 - 08:14 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Short version: using a front company makes sense. Using Satan as a front does not. Being Cerberus doesn’t empower Shepard – it gets in the way. It's an unnecessary wheel.

Short version: The Alliance did not use Cerberus to empower Shepard. The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus.

[Fixers0]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Short version: using a front company makes sense. Using Satan as a front does not. Being Cerberus doesn’t empower Shepard – it gets in the way. It's an unnecessary wheel.

Short version: The Alliance did not use Cerberus to empower Shepard. The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus.

Is there any Hard Proof to support that claim?

[lovgreno]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Short version: using a front company makes sense. Using Satan as a front does not. Being Cerberus doesn’t empower Shepard – it gets in the way. It's an unnecessary wheel.

Short version: The Alliance did not use Cerberus to empower Shepard. The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus.

Well that plan worked if that is true, the Cerberus missions Shepard does is way more sucessfull than the usual Cerberus failiure. But it still don't change the fact that Shepard could have had much more resources and less suspicion while working for someone who didn't manage to make enemy with almost the whole galaxy. The Alliance and Council can provide this, especialy to a spectre.

[Zulu_DFA]

Fixers0 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Short version: using a front company makes sense. Using Satan as a front does not. Being Cerberus doesn’t empower Shepard – it gets in the way. It's an unnecessary wheel.

Short version: The Alliance did not use Cerberus to empower Shepard. The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus.

Is there any Hard Proof to support that claim?

Request denied.

©

[Fixers0]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Short version: using a front company makes sense. Using Satan as a front does not. Being Cerberus doesn’t empower Shepard – it gets in the way. It's an unnecessary wheel.

Short version: The Alliance did not use Cerberus to empower Shepard. The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus.

Is there any Hard Proof to support that claim?

Request denied.

©

I would hardly call the that ''hard proof'' what does it say? At least nothing that is would call hard proof that can support your theory.

Of course there might be something questionable about Hackett decision. but, who knows what that for reasons he could have, At this moment neither of us can know.

[Zulu_DFA]

Fixers0 wrote...

I would hardly call the that ''hard proof'' what does it say? At least nothing that is would call hard proof that can support your theory.

Look, "hard proof" is a relative thing. It relates to the hardness of one's head. Some heads are soft enough to believe in anything Uncle Bob told them back when they were 5 years old. And some heads are hard enough to withstand direct hits by uranium-tipped ammunition. Most heads at different points of time can assume any condition in between the aforementioned two. And this has nothing to do with the actual evidential force of the incoming argument.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 26 octobre 2010 - 06:21 .

[Fixers0]

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough but i don't you got my point right,

I was trying to tell you that you can't use one vague statement as proof for your point.

[Zulu_DFA]

It's not a one vogue statement. It's total abense of any interest of the Alliance in getting Shepard back.

Like, you know,

"Lt. Cmdr. Shepard,
you are hereby ordered to report to the 5th Fleet's HQ at Arcturus Station ASAP. Acknowledge.
- Adm. Hackett"

Nothing.

Hence, "The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus", if only by not doing anything to prevent that. If it's not a conclusive proof to you, then... hell, helmets are clumsy anyway!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 26 octobre 2010 - 07:03 .

[InHarmsWay]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's not a one vogue statement. It's total abense of any interest of the Alliance in getting Shepard back.

Like, you know,

"Lt. Cmdr. Shepard,
you are hereby ordered to report to the 5th Fleet's HQ at Arcturus Station ASAP. Acknowledge.
- Adm. Hackett"

Nothing.

Hence, "The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus", if only by not doing anything to prevent that. If it's not a conclusive proof to you, then... hell, helmets are clumsy anyway!

Technically Shepard hasn't been a part of the Alliance since he became a Spectre. They can't order him to do anything.

[Inverness Moon]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's not a one vogue statement. It's total abense of any interest of the Alliance in getting Shepard back.

Like, you know,

"Lt. Cmdr. Shepard,
you are hereby ordered to report to the 5th Fleet's HQ at Arcturus Station ASAP. Acknowledge.
- Adm. Hackett"

Nothing.

Hence, "The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus", if only by not doing anything to prevent that. If it's not a conclusive proof to you, then... hell, helmets are clumsy anyway!

Technically Shepard hasn't been a part of the Alliance since he became a Spectre. They can't order him to do anything.

Technicalities aren't going to stop them from ordering or Shepard from answering if he still wishes to associate himself with the Alliance.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 octobre 2010 - 07:03 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Voutsis1982, i liked your post. It was both funny and clever.



There is one thing about the whole Cerberus/Alliance thing. And that is that Mass Effect is a game. It's made to make the player enjoy wasting his/her time. And apparently a lot of people don't enjoy that part of the game at all, i mean playing as Cerberus lackey/dude whatever. So, no matter what's the story with Cerberus, BioWare failed to make it appealing to be part of them. At least for a big group of players.

And i like Zulu's theory just because it makes playing as Cerberus lackey a little less insulting. But it would be awesome, if the game itself would support this theory a little bit more substantially. I mean, i see that the theory is valid, just as other theories may be too considering the little clear information we have (i havent read the novels yet, they are full of Cerberus, aren't they?)



So, in a way, all the discussion about what Cerberus really is, is in vain until we get some clarity.



I believe that ME3 or some DLC inbetween will shed some light because BioWare must be aware of the discontent.



So, lets see what's coming.

[Zulu_DFA]

InHarmsWay wrote...
Technically Shepard hasn't been a part of the Alliance since he became a Spectre. They can't order him to do anything.

Technically, Shepard was assigned (attached) to the spectres. As soon as his spectre status was nullified upon official confirmation of his death, he was back with the Alliance. As soon as the KIA status was confirmed error, the Alliance command had to recall him for debriefing, investigation, rehabilitation, reassignment (retirement, whatever).

Instead, Shepard gets an informal request from Anderson, who is now in the diplomatic corps, and the "crash site" assignment from Hackett.

[Voutsis1982]

Short version: The Alliance did not use Cerberus to empower Shepard. The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus.

 

First, this is nonsense. The Alliance is not a charity. Blacks ops exist to provide a better way to achieve an objective, not to be a third-rate mission platform that needs a handout. This is the Leprechaun thinking I talked about, where the word “Cerberus!” is used as a substitute for actually making sense. Secondly, passing over what is obviously the more effective and better option for humanity and instead doing the better option for Cerberus is not an argument that they’re an Alliance group. It’s the other kind of argument.

Thirdly, this is an obvious deflection from the main point – Cerberus is a poor if not terrible choice for this operation, with the Alliance having access to ops with more freedom, more firepower, and getting them a more loyal soldier in Shepard. If Cerberus were an Alliance black ops group they would have never have been involved.

It's total abense of any interest of the Alliance in getting Shepard back.

More Leprechaun thinking here. You found an interesting plot point, said “This proves Cerberus is Alliance”
and didn’t take it any further.

Take Hackett, the guy who sent Shep’s dogtags to him. Ignoring the fixation on assuming the guy who sent a Spectre after Dr Wayne is working for Cerberus, let’s assume that Hackett calls in Shepard. What happens next?

Lair of the Shadow Broker tells us. Shepard gets arrested by Alliance Intel and spends the next six months getting grilled over what he was doing those two years he was gone, if he was working for Cerberus prior to his disappearance, and how he fell in with a criminal organization. The answers to those questions are nothing, no, and death, respectively, and Hackett already knows them, thanks to Liara T’Soni.

This is not a convincing argument for calling in Shepard. If Shepard is no longer loyal to the Alliance, he won’t come in. And if Shepard is still loyal to the Alliance, they’re better off leaving him where he is.

Because right now Shepard is the best foothold the Alliance has ever had in Cerberus. More importantly, Cerberus has a stealth craft with enormous potential for causing mischief but right now Shepard is in command
of it. The criminal organization Cerberus has intel and technologies outside of Alliance files, and Shepard can wet his beak. The Alliance could try to infiltrate Cerberus for ten years and not have this good an opportunity. Bringing him is simply not worth it.

Of course that’s assuming Cerberus is a criminal organization. If it were a black op, Hackett would pull Shep off that third-rate mission platform called Cerberus, slap the Illusive Man on the wrist for being presumptuous, and put Shepard on a far better supported “Girl Guides” corsair and start kicking ass in ways a Cerberus-supported operation can only dream of. The comparison is painfully clear. Cerberus as an Alliance black op is a “Wouldn’t it be cool?” fantasy, and that’s all it is.

SimontheFrog, thank you for your clarity. This forum exists for those who do not share it. I rarely get involved in discussions like this on this level. My motivation today is largely a desire to pop enormous inflated garbage balls.

Modifié par Voutsis1982, 27 octobre 2010 - 07:40 .

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...


[quote]Short version: The Alliance did not use Cerberus to empower Shepard. The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus.[/quote]First, this is nonsense.
[/quote]
It makes perfect sense to me.

The Alliance has this ruthless deep cover black ops division and it has this most successful special forces operative in history. What's so hard to get about the former being reinforced by the latter?


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
The Alliance is not a charity.
[/quote]
Of course, not. Where did I say so?

Although on one occasion, EDI seems to imply that some "private contributors" in the Alliance are. Yeah, right... I can practically see Angelina Jolie and Sean Penn helping out the victims of the next Cerberus experiment going awry.


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
Blacks ops exist to provide a better way to achieve an objective, not to be a third-rate mission platform that needs a handout.
[/quote]
Black ops still don't make their operatives on their own. They need them made the old mom&dad way... Oh wait, not any more, the System Alliance's black ops don't.


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
Cerberus is a poor if not terrible choice for this operation
[/quote]
This is highly debatable, especially seeing the results of the operation.

But  you seem to imply that the Alliance would rather make no choice at all and sit tight on their asses, than opt for Cerberus (rogue or not). Which is less commendable of the Alliance than them actually having a ****** poor black ops division.


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
with the Alliance having access to ops with more freedom, more firepower, and getting them a more loyal soldier in Shepard. If Cerberus were an Alliance black ops group they would have never have been involved.
[/quote]
The logic seems to have fully abandoned you here.


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...


[quote]It's total abense of any interest of the Alliance in getting Shepard back.[/quote]Take Hackett, the guy who sent Shep’s dogtags to him. Ignoring the fixation on assuming the guy who sent a Spectre after Dr Wayne is working for Cerberus,
[/quote]
Ignoring the point, that Hackett actually asked you to bail out Dr. Wayne's arse out of what appeared to be a serial killing spree, I've been mulling over adding this "Hackett sends back the tags" point to the OP.

Somewhere in this thread people said that they would find the theory more plausible, if the Alliance tried to actively encourage Shepard to work with Cerberus. So here you are. Hackett can't say "Shepard, Cerberus is us! Your orders are to work for them. TIM is you commanding officer". But he can send the dog tags, like a message "You are with Cerberus, that's OK by me, and you remain an Alliance serviceman all the same". What is it if not an encouragement from the Alliance?


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
let’s assume that Hackett calls in Shepard. What happens next?

Lair of the Shadow Broker tells us. Shepard gets arrested by Alliance Intel and spends the next six months getting grilled over what he was doing those two years he was gone, if he was working for Cerberus prior to his disappearance, and how he fell in with a criminal organization. The answers to those questions are nothing, no, and death, respectively, and Hackett already knows them, thanks to Liara T’Soni.
[/quote]
So why would it bother Hackett? He's got plenty of lieutenant commanders, N7 marines and even stealth frigates at his disposal.


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
If Shepard is no longer loyal to the Alliance, he won’t come in.
[/quote]
So... ain't they curious whether Shepard is still loyal or not? Don't they want to check it out?


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
And if Shepard is still loyal to the Alliance, they’re better off leaving him where he is.
[/quote]
Right, that's what I am saying. They are better off with leaving him in their black ops division.


[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
Because right now Shepard is the best foothold the Alliance has ever had in Cerberus.
[/quote]
Best foothold the Alliance ever had in Cerberus was before Cerberus went "rogue". Only Cerberus never went "rogue", so Alliance's foothold in Cerberus is as good as ever. They call him TIM.



[quote]Voutsis1982 wrote...
Of course that’s assuming Cerberus is a criminal organization. If it were a black op, Hackett would pull Shep off that third-rate mission platform called Cerberus, slap the Illusive Man on the wrist for being presumptuous, and put Shepard on a far better supported “Girl Guides” corsair and start kicking ass in ways a Cerberus-supported operation can only dream of. The comparison is painfully clear. Cerberus as an Alliance black op is a “Wouldn’t it be cool?” fantasy, and that’s all it is.
[/quote]
So where are these Alliance Girl Guides? Oh, scratch that, they are on Paul Grayson's "Cerberus' fronts" list, line 27.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 27 octobre 2010 - 09:29 .

[Arijharn]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's not a one vogue statement. It's total abense of any interest of the Alliance in getting Shepard back.

Like, you know,

"Lt. Cmdr. Shepard,
you are hereby ordered to report to the 5th Fleet's HQ at Arcturus Station ASAP. Acknowledge.
- Adm. Hackett"

Nothing.

Hence, "The Alliance used Shepard to empower Cerberus", if only by not doing anything to prevent that. If it's not a conclusive proof to you, then... hell, helmets are clumsy anyway!

Technically Shepard hasn't been a part of the Alliance since he became a Spectre. They can't order him to do anything.

Shephard (and by extension; the Spectre's) are still bound by a degree of law or oversight. Saren had his status revoked because he went 'rogue' ([zulu]or did he?[/zulu] *snicker*) by associating with the Geth (and not insomuch by his activities on Eden Prime).

Shephard also probably wont be able to respond against all contingencies in which the Alliance could arrest him. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure most 'criminals' aren't particularly happy about getting arrested (or expatriated back to home via 'backroom deals') either.

Face it, Cerberus being tactly encouraged and even supported by the Alliance explains more things like Cerberus continual operation than any other circumstance. The reason why Zulu's theory is popular isn't because it's totally plausible, but there's enough 'circumstancial evidence' that led to many people coming to the same independent conclusion.

As to why the Corsair's weren't used instead of Cerberus? Maybe because the Corsair's don't exist anymore? What point is there in having a black ops organisation that has enough 'red tape to sink a cruiser'? Also it was known to have only ever been activated by the Alliance, Cerberus has the advantage of being 'rogue.' They can't be identified with being with the Alliance just like when someone apparently dies in service to the CIA they get a black star recorded as opposed to their names.