I'm not gonna bother qouting all that up there. But again it just shows that when the evidence is there Pro-cerberus people just close there eyes walk away and hope nobody saw it.
and again no matter how many times you say it "Overlord did happen"
Hell what makes all Husk, Rachni, and other experiements Cerberus did on unwilling (or unknowing) humans worse is that the just said "Oops, lets pretend it didn't happen" meaning all those people lost there lives for nothing.
Cerberus IS part of the Alliance. It never went "rogue". [WITH PROOF]
Débuté par
Zulu_DFA
, mars 07 2010 05:12
Retour en haut
#627
Posté 05 janvier 2011 - 07:34
RiouHotaru
-
- Members
- 4 059 messages
Eh, wolf, let Zulu have his cake. Project Overlord is canon, whether he likes it or not. He simply chooses not to do it because it somehow offends his sensibilites. If you want to know specifics ask him to post a link to that thread. I'm sure he'll be glad to accomodate you.
#628
Posté 05 janvier 2011 - 08:44
hawat333
-
- Members
- 2 974 messages
Cerberus isn't part of the Alliance.
Maybe they haven't gone rogue, but they are a Black Ops organization at the very best.
Which means they don't exist, not on any paper, and absolutely not as part of the Alliance.
But it's very likely there are supporters within.
Maybe they haven't gone rogue, but they are a Black Ops organization at the very best.
Which means they don't exist, not on any paper, and absolutely not as part of the Alliance.
But it's very likely there are supporters within.
#629
Posté 05 janvier 2011 - 09:10
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Yeah, that's right. Cerberus does not exist. We have dismissed the claim. Therefore it can't be part of the Alliance.hawat333 wrote...
Cerberus isn't part of the Alliance.
Maybe they haven't gone rogue, but they are a Black Ops organization at the very best.
Which means they don't exist, not on any paper, and absolutely not as part of the Alliance.
And the cake is a lie too.hawat333 wrote...
But it's very likely there are supporters within.
#630
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Posté 05 janvier 2011 - 09:39
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Guest_thurmanator692_*
-
- Guests
Im fairly certain that Cerberus is the Alliance's scapegoat. The Alliance secretly funds them, Cerberus does bad things, the council gets mad, the Alliace wags a finger, "raids" a "hidden" Cerberus facility and says "those darn terrorists!"hawat333 wrote...
Cerberus isn't part of the Alliance.
Maybe they haven't gone rogue, but they are a Black Ops organization at the very best.
Which means they don't exist, not on any paper, and absolutely not as part of the Alliance.
But it's very likely there are supporters within.
#631
Posté 05 janvier 2011 - 09:58
jayred vas normandy
-
- Members
- 309 messages
If cerberus isnt alliance then y cover up causes of death in ME1, Y no Akuze investigation, Y did TIM contact alliance personally after horizon. Y did cerberus lobby for SR1 construction. how did they get SR2 specs.
#632
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 01:22
Pedro Costa
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
Yes, I mean, it's not like the Salarian STG never did anything unethical... oh, wait. Mordin even says as much "willing to do whatever it takes to get job done".wolfsite wrote...
I'm not gonna bother qouting all that up there. But again it just shows that when the evidence is there Pro-cerberus people just close there eyes walk away and hope nobody saw it.
and again no matter how many times you say it "Overlord did happen"
Hell what makes all Husk, Rachni, and other experiements Cerberus did on unwilling (or unknowing) humans worse is that the just said "Oops, lets pretend it didn't happen" meaning all those people lost there lives for nothing.
Apparently, if Cerberus researches mindless shock troops to lessen human casualties or means to prevent indoctrination, oh, it is evil, but sterilizing a whole race? Nah, the STG is awesome! Hold the line and all that bravado! (Not to say I'm against the genophage, if Mordin is to be believed, it is actually a pretty good measure, given the alternatives, not say I'm not against some of the stuff Cerberus did, either. My point is that Cerberus is more morally grey than many are willing to accept)
Besides, there are just too many things pointing to Cerberus still being closely connected to the Alliance, and, in fact, I believe Cerberus is humanity's version of the Salarian Special Tasks Group, Miranda even says as much (what with being envious of Mordin working with people as smart as him when you question her why she likes Cerberus so much).
In Mass1, the Alliance advises Kahoku to not investigate his men's deaths.
Then the Alliance tips you about a "rogue VI" in Luna and suddenly in Mass2 Cerberus shows up with EDI, coincidence much?
From LotSB, we see Anderson chatting with a Cerberus operative,
Hackett seems to be in close contact with Cerberus aswell, since he got to Shepard to retrieve the SR1's tags.
Not to mention Cerberus were the ones who pushed for the Normandy class to be built in the first place.
Is it circumstancial? Yeah, sure, but it's still there.
#633
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 01:33
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Guest_thurmanator692_*
-
- Guests
I'm so freakin tired of the justification for Kahoku's death being "they told him not to investigate"
I freakin admire the guy for it. He refused to abandon his soldiers, who had been killed by Cerberus. I think that Cerberus is part of the Alliance, and i'd despise the Alliance for it if they really are. Black ops organizations are ugly things, no matter how much you pretty it up with the "greater good" as Cerberus themselves have proven. I want everyone exposed in ME3
I freakin admire the guy for it. He refused to abandon his soldiers, who had been killed by Cerberus. I think that Cerberus is part of the Alliance, and i'd despise the Alliance for it if they really are. Black ops organizations are ugly things, no matter how much you pretty it up with the "greater good" as Cerberus themselves have proven. I want everyone exposed in ME3
#634
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 01:48
Bogsnot1
-
- Members
- 7 997 messages
thurmanator692 wrote...
I'm so freakin tired of the justification for Kahoku's death being "they told him not to investigate"
I freakin admire the guy for it. He refused to abandon his soldiers, who had been killed by Cerberus. I think that Cerberus is part of the Alliance, and i'd despise the Alliance for it if they really are. Black ops organizations are ugly things, no matter how much you pretty it up with the "greater good" as Cerberus themselves have proven. I want everyone exposed in ME3
Very true.
Its like trying to blame the Jews for the 6 million deaths because they couldnt get out of the way of the Fascist German war machine fast enough.
Modifié par Bogsnot1, 06 janvier 2011 - 01:49 .
#635
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 02:20
nicolom
-
- Members
- 38 messages
@OP: With quotes such as: "if humanity is to survive, sacrifices must be made for the greater good. The Alliance doesn't understand this. Cerberus does." and: "if we wait for the Alliance or politicans to act, there will be no more colonies left to save" respectivly from the mind and mouth of the Illusive Man, I'm pretty sure Cerberus runs its own show or at least has a way more antagonizing relationship with the Alliance than one would expect from a covert branch under goverment command.
That said, I agree that very strong ties remains between Cerberus and the Alliance millitary-industrial complex. The amount of economical capital required to fund ridiculously expensive projects such as RESSURECTING A DEAD HUMAN, replicating the state of the art spaceship in the Alliance Navy and project Overlord SIMULTANEOUSLY - not even mentioning the numereuos space stations, labs, and military base scattered across the Terminus and Traverse - is unlikely to be obtained meerly by a few private incomes and hints at a large amount of soical capital (i.e. connections to important and powerful people) at Cerberus' disposal.
Whether Cerberus is still a part of the Alliance or not, one thing is certain; the Illusive Man has ambitions of his own. The ending of ME2 - especially if you *spoilers* keep the base - seems to hint at this. If a couple of powerful individuals sit at the very peak of the Alliance hierarchy thinking the Illusive Man is content with taking orders from them, then they're in for a big surprise in ME3, I believe.
That said, I agree that very strong ties remains between Cerberus and the Alliance millitary-industrial complex. The amount of economical capital required to fund ridiculously expensive projects such as RESSURECTING A DEAD HUMAN, replicating the state of the art spaceship in the Alliance Navy and project Overlord SIMULTANEOUSLY - not even mentioning the numereuos space stations, labs, and military base scattered across the Terminus and Traverse - is unlikely to be obtained meerly by a few private incomes and hints at a large amount of soical capital (i.e. connections to important and powerful people) at Cerberus' disposal.
Whether Cerberus is still a part of the Alliance or not, one thing is certain; the Illusive Man has ambitions of his own. The ending of ME2 - especially if you *spoilers* keep the base - seems to hint at this. If a couple of powerful individuals sit at the very peak of the Alliance hierarchy thinking the Illusive Man is content with taking orders from them, then they're in for a big surprise in ME3, I believe.
Modifié par nicolom, 06 janvier 2011 - 02:22 .
#636
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 03:47
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
nicolom wrote...
@OP: With quotes such as: "if humanity is to survive, sacrifices must be made for the greater good. The Alliance doesn't understand this. Cerberus does." and: "if we wait for the Alliance or politicans to act, there will be no more colonies left to save" respectivly from the mind and mouth of the Illusive Man, I'm pretty sure Cerberus runs its own show or at least has a way more antagonizing relationship with the Alliance than one would expect from a covert branch under goverment command.
That said, I agree that very strong ties remains between Cerberus and the Alliance millitary-industrial complex. The amount of economical capital required to fund ridiculously expensive projects such as RESSURECTING A DEAD HUMAN, replicating the state of the art spaceship in the Alliance Navy and project Overlord SIMULTANEOUSLY - not even mentioning the numereuos space stations, labs, and military base scattered across the Terminus and Traverse - is unlikely to be obtained meerly by a few private incomes and hints at a large amount of soical capital (i.e. connections to important and powerful people) at Cerberus' disposal.
Whether Cerberus is still a part of the Alliance or not, one thing is certain; the Illusive Man has ambitions of his own. The ending of ME2 - especially if you *spoilers* keep the base - seems to hint at this. If a couple of powerful individuals sit at the very peak of the Alliance hierarchy thinking the Illusive Man is content with taking orders from them, then they're in for a big surprise in ME3, I believe.
Of course, TIM is interested in "converting" as much of the Alliance to his creed as possible, and removing certain "obstacles" (see: assassinations). But so are his Human dominance patrons in the Alliance as well. I don't think people like Udina would shed any tears over deaths of pacifist popes and alien-loving politicians.
But I believe that up to this point TIM hasn't pushed much with his political agenda, and now with the Reapers in the way, he must put it on hold completely. But after they are dealt with, it's only logical to assume that he will try to totally "cerberify" the Alliance.
Hence my ME4: Civil War! idea.
#637
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 03:54
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Guest_thurmanator692_*
-
- Guests
All I had to do was read the name of your thread, and without even reading it, it flipped a switch in my head that caused me to remember all the evidence in the games that supports this theory, leading me to the same conclusion.Zulu_DFA wrote...
nicolom wrote...
@OP: With quotes such as: "if humanity is to survive, sacrifices must be made for the greater good. The Alliance doesn't understand this. Cerberus does." and: "if we wait for the Alliance or politicans to act, there will be no more colonies left to save" respectivly from the mind and mouth of the Illusive Man, I'm pretty sure Cerberus runs its own show or at least has a way more antagonizing relationship with the Alliance than one would expect from a covert branch under goverment command.
That said, I agree that very strong ties remains between Cerberus and the Alliance millitary-industrial complex. The amount of economical capital required to fund ridiculously expensive projects such as RESSURECTING A DEAD HUMAN, replicating the state of the art spaceship in the Alliance Navy and project Overlord SIMULTANEOUSLY - not even mentioning the numereuos space stations, labs, and military base scattered across the Terminus and Traverse - is unlikely to be obtained meerly by a few private incomes and hints at a large amount of soical capital (i.e. connections to important and powerful people) at Cerberus' disposal.
Whether Cerberus is still a part of the Alliance or not, one thing is certain; the Illusive Man has ambitions of his own. The ending of ME2 - especially if you *spoilers* keep the base - seems to hint at this. If a couple of powerful individuals sit at the very peak of the Alliance hierarchy thinking the Illusive Man is content with taking orders from them, then they're in for a big surprise in ME3, I believe.
Of course, TIM is interested in "converting" as much of the Alliance to his creed as possible, and removing certain "obstacles" (see: assassinations). But so are his Human dominance patrons in the Alliance as well. I don't think people like Udina would shed any tears over deaths of pacifist popes and alien-loving politicians.
But I believe that up to this point TIM hasn't pushed much with his political agenda, and now with the Reapers in the way, he must put it on hold completely. But after they are dealt with, it's only logical to assume that he will try to totally "cerberify" the Alliance.
Hence my ME4: Civil War! idea.
You sir, caused me to have an epiphany.
I'm still a little weary of the vigil thing though.
Kudos on thinking for yourself
#638
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 03:27
Zavox
-
- Members
- 403 messages
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
The nature of this game is such that not everything that is being said there is true. "Cerberus rogue" was said by an NPC who admitted himself that he was not very well informed. Plus, as I pointed out in the post that is specifically linked in the OP, the meaning of the word "rogue" may be vague and not necessarily involve the "out of control" part.[/quote]
Why do you focus on Kahoku only? There's loads of people that suggest Cerberus isn't part of the Alliance. It's drenched in about every thing that's said about Cerberus. Never have I heard anything in the game that suggested otherwise. While a plot twist is of course possible, there's never been any evidence to point towards it. You're making evidence up by supposing alot.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Fine. Than what are you doing here? Telling me Kahoku said Cerberus went rogue? Thank you so much, but I knew it long ago. Have you even bothered with reading the openning post?[/quote]
No, I'm telling you you have no evidence whatsoever. Clearly you don't understand the concept of evidence, as yours is based on alot of assuming and not taking evidence as is. And yes, I have, why otherwise would I be able to respond... not on the title solely that's for sure.
[quote]
The proof is there in the OP. Under the subtitle that looks like this: PROOF. If you aren't convinced, move along, I can't help you.[/quote]
It's no proof/evidence, look up the definition of evidence. You're assuming the reasons as to why Hacket does something, at best that's circumstantial evidence. Which I don't think it is, as there's loads of reasons as to why. No way of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt, thus no evidence.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
I havn't seen any new arguments against the theory in this thread for months. As opposed to new arguments for the theory. For example, the LotSB DLC alone added quite a few.[/quote]
Yes, one argument is clearly against, you're right.
"classified as a terrorist threat by both the Systems Alliance and the Citadel Council"
Haven't been able to find any argument for, so please enlighten me. Oh, and don't bring up the Hackett denying an investigation into Shepard, we've already adressed that one as you again assuming as to the reasons. While there's loads of reasons possible. Again, it's no evidence.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Actually, I was the first one to suggest that there will be some sort of explanation in ME3, like "the 1st term of office expired and Anderson wasn't reappointed." And that no such explanation was possible in Retribution because in some games Anderson was never on the Council. But than Dean challenged this with Drew's e-mail, and I took a closer look at it. And realized that Drew really said there: "Take it for granted, guys!". Still, I think there will be an explanation in ME3.[/quote]
Well, we're of the same opinion on this then. Anderson probably won't be taken down because of his Retribution activities if he's councilor.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Having served myself in the army, trust me, I've learnt most of what there is to know about the concept of chain of command. If my superior is simply an ****, I can **** all I want. But if he is in a clear dereliction of duty I always have an option to go to his superior and "rat him out". It's not very common though, because integrity is too valued there. Which makes people like Kahoku and Anderson, who seem to have no compunctions about washing Alliance's dirty laundry in public, rather despicable by military standards.[/quote]
Agreed, yet if your officer tells you "request denied", there's no way in hell you can go to his superior and tell him he's an ass. Your superior is just telling you to cram it, which as a subordinate you're supposed to accept. There's no way of telling if it's a dereliction of duty. Anyway, I think this shows it's not needed to completely fill the Alliance with Cerberus loyalists, just one or a few in every chain of command will do, especially higher ups.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Actually, TIM wasn't afraid. He was quite confident that in time Cerberus will recover.[/quote]
Yes, I said so myself, core activities are going to be ok. Cerberus will recover. But he also said, those who've been caught are likely to rat other agents out.
[quote]
Just like I say: TIM takes his "orders" from a very few people on the very top of the Alliance, one of whom is probably Admiral Hackett, so nobody else knows that Cerberus carries out black ops on behalf of the Alliance. And the "infiltration" is just a logistical arrangement for resource and information transfer from the official Alliance elements to Cerberus.[/quote]
Hmm? Weren't we having a discussion as to whether it's necessary to have such a high infiltration in government agencies when you're a black ops agency? You, if I recalled correctly, suggested they do not get information from higher ups. Which is entirely untrue if you look at current black ops agencies, they rarely infiltrate their own government, and they do get orders and information from higher ups, which is subsequently destroyed. There's no reason to infiltrate as highly as Cerberus does. Plus I beg to differ about Hackett, if he's Cerberus he would've ignored Shepards advise to save the Destiny Ascension.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Source?[/quote]
Several dubbed terrorist activities on both Alliance officers, humans in general and ships. Yet I know it's no clear evidence, and therefore I won't be able to know for sure but neither do you, and it's highly unlikely they weren't rogue at the time of Teltin and BAaT, due to reasons already stated in my previous post. You however conclude they were not, yet you do not provide any tantalizing evidence, or even a small clue as to why that may be. So... source?
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
In other words, the Alliance did to Jiro what Cerberus would do to a captive. Which puts the Alliance pretty much on the same side of the good and evil as Cerberus, doesn't it? You really seem to work my way here.[/quote]
Yes, if the Alliance did do it like that, they could be on par with Cerberus in that regard. Yet, there's countless of differences between them on other subjects. (Experiments, bombings, assassinations... do I need to go on?)
So no, they're not on the same side of the good and evil, only maybe on one subject.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Lol. This is the main point. And to insure there isn't a "voila domino" every time somebody slips up, TIM runs Cerberus as a network of cells. BTW, even Jiro didn't blow Grayson's cover, even after being waterboarded, er?[/quote]
There's no need to blow Grayson's cover, he switched sides remember?
Anyway, Grayson did do a voilá domino, how did he manage that eh?
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Having been on quite a few missions they sure had some baggage. However, they never needed to know that Cerberus is part of the Alliance, so they don't know it and can't divulge. Although Jacob seems to suspect something.[/quote]
Point was, they're highly valuable assets. You wouldn't want to lose them, and as they already know alot about the organisation and haven't spilled their guts, why keep such a thing from them? Jacob doesn't suspect anything of the sort... please give me a quote suggesting he does. I bet you don't come forth with anything though.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Then why haven't you commented on every piece of my evidence in the OP and are instead "nitpicking" about how Cerberus wouldn't start a second biotic lab?
[/quote]
Maybe because that hadn't come up yet (biotic lab), and others have picked apart your 'evidence' previously? I sure wouldn't mind going over it again with you though. Would you want to? It's going to be even more brutal for you than this has been so far, I can guarantee you.
The nature of this game is such that not everything that is being said there is true. "Cerberus rogue" was said by an NPC who admitted himself that he was not very well informed. Plus, as I pointed out in the post that is specifically linked in the OP, the meaning of the word "rogue" may be vague and not necessarily involve the "out of control" part.[/quote]
Why do you focus on Kahoku only? There's loads of people that suggest Cerberus isn't part of the Alliance. It's drenched in about every thing that's said about Cerberus. Never have I heard anything in the game that suggested otherwise. While a plot twist is of course possible, there's never been any evidence to point towards it. You're making evidence up by supposing alot.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Fine. Than what are you doing here? Telling me Kahoku said Cerberus went rogue? Thank you so much, but I knew it long ago. Have you even bothered with reading the openning post?[/quote]
No, I'm telling you you have no evidence whatsoever. Clearly you don't understand the concept of evidence, as yours is based on alot of assuming and not taking evidence as is. And yes, I have, why otherwise would I be able to respond... not on the title solely that's for sure.
[quote]
The proof is there in the OP. Under the subtitle that looks like this: PROOF. If you aren't convinced, move along, I can't help you.[/quote]
It's no proof/evidence, look up the definition of evidence. You're assuming the reasons as to why Hacket does something, at best that's circumstantial evidence. Which I don't think it is, as there's loads of reasons as to why. No way of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt, thus no evidence.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
I havn't seen any new arguments against the theory in this thread for months. As opposed to new arguments for the theory. For example, the LotSB DLC alone added quite a few.[/quote]
Yes, one argument is clearly against, you're right.
"classified as a terrorist threat by both the Systems Alliance and the Citadel Council"
Haven't been able to find any argument for, so please enlighten me. Oh, and don't bring up the Hackett denying an investigation into Shepard, we've already adressed that one as you again assuming as to the reasons. While there's loads of reasons possible. Again, it's no evidence.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Actually, I was the first one to suggest that there will be some sort of explanation in ME3, like "the 1st term of office expired and Anderson wasn't reappointed." And that no such explanation was possible in Retribution because in some games Anderson was never on the Council. But than Dean challenged this with Drew's e-mail, and I took a closer look at it. And realized that Drew really said there: "Take it for granted, guys!". Still, I think there will be an explanation in ME3.[/quote]
Well, we're of the same opinion on this then. Anderson probably won't be taken down because of his Retribution activities if he's councilor.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Having served myself in the army, trust me, I've learnt most of what there is to know about the concept of chain of command. If my superior is simply an ****, I can **** all I want. But if he is in a clear dereliction of duty I always have an option to go to his superior and "rat him out". It's not very common though, because integrity is too valued there. Which makes people like Kahoku and Anderson, who seem to have no compunctions about washing Alliance's dirty laundry in public, rather despicable by military standards.[/quote]
Agreed, yet if your officer tells you "request denied", there's no way in hell you can go to his superior and tell him he's an ass. Your superior is just telling you to cram it, which as a subordinate you're supposed to accept. There's no way of telling if it's a dereliction of duty. Anyway, I think this shows it's not needed to completely fill the Alliance with Cerberus loyalists, just one or a few in every chain of command will do, especially higher ups.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Actually, TIM wasn't afraid. He was quite confident that in time Cerberus will recover.[/quote]
Yes, I said so myself, core activities are going to be ok. Cerberus will recover. But he also said, those who've been caught are likely to rat other agents out.
[quote]
Just like I say: TIM takes his "orders" from a very few people on the very top of the Alliance, one of whom is probably Admiral Hackett, so nobody else knows that Cerberus carries out black ops on behalf of the Alliance. And the "infiltration" is just a logistical arrangement for resource and information transfer from the official Alliance elements to Cerberus.[/quote]
Hmm? Weren't we having a discussion as to whether it's necessary to have such a high infiltration in government agencies when you're a black ops agency? You, if I recalled correctly, suggested they do not get information from higher ups. Which is entirely untrue if you look at current black ops agencies, they rarely infiltrate their own government, and they do get orders and information from higher ups, which is subsequently destroyed. There's no reason to infiltrate as highly as Cerberus does. Plus I beg to differ about Hackett, if he's Cerberus he would've ignored Shepards advise to save the Destiny Ascension.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Source?[/quote]
Several dubbed terrorist activities on both Alliance officers, humans in general and ships. Yet I know it's no clear evidence, and therefore I won't be able to know for sure but neither do you, and it's highly unlikely they weren't rogue at the time of Teltin and BAaT, due to reasons already stated in my previous post. You however conclude they were not, yet you do not provide any tantalizing evidence, or even a small clue as to why that may be. So... source?
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
In other words, the Alliance did to Jiro what Cerberus would do to a captive. Which puts the Alliance pretty much on the same side of the good and evil as Cerberus, doesn't it? You really seem to work my way here.[/quote]
Yes, if the Alliance did do it like that, they could be on par with Cerberus in that regard. Yet, there's countless of differences between them on other subjects. (Experiments, bombings, assassinations... do I need to go on?)
So no, they're not on the same side of the good and evil, only maybe on one subject.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Lol. This is the main point. And to insure there isn't a "voila domino" every time somebody slips up, TIM runs Cerberus as a network of cells. BTW, even Jiro didn't blow Grayson's cover, even after being waterboarded, er?[/quote]
There's no need to blow Grayson's cover, he switched sides remember?
Anyway, Grayson did do a voilá domino, how did he manage that eh?
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Having been on quite a few missions they sure had some baggage. However, they never needed to know that Cerberus is part of the Alliance, so they don't know it and can't divulge. Although Jacob seems to suspect something.[/quote]
Point was, they're highly valuable assets. You wouldn't want to lose them, and as they already know alot about the organisation and haven't spilled their guts, why keep such a thing from them? Jacob doesn't suspect anything of the sort... please give me a quote suggesting he does. I bet you don't come forth with anything though.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
Then why haven't you commented on every piece of my evidence in the OP and are instead "nitpicking" about how Cerberus wouldn't start a second biotic lab?
[/quote]
Maybe because that hadn't come up yet (biotic lab), and others have picked apart your 'evidence' previously? I sure wouldn't mind going over it again with you though. Would you want to? It's going to be even more brutal for you than this has been so far, I can guarantee you.
#639
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 03:33
Zavox
-
- Members
- 403 messages
DarkLord_PT wrote...
Yes, I mean, it's not like the Salarian STG never did anything unethical... oh, wait. Mordin even says as much "willing to do whatever it takes to get job done".
Apparently, if Cerberus researches mindless shock troops to lessen human casualties or means to prevent indoctrination, oh, it is evil, but sterilizing a whole race? Nah, the STG is awesome! Hold the line and all that bravado! (Not to say I'm against the genophage, if Mordin is to be believed, it is actually a pretty good measure, given the alternatives, not say I'm not against some of the stuff Cerberus did, either. My point is that Cerberus is more morally grey than many are willing to accept)
Wrong on so many levels. STG ran countless simulations, all pointed to Krogan agressive expansion. Best solution given evidence was the genophage. So, while arguably unethical, it's a best solution given options. Cerberus doesn't act like that. Creating shock troops out of Rachni or Thorian Creepers? Definately not best solution given evidence. Nor all the other terrorist actions. Cerberus forces experiments without failsafes, look at Grayson or the other experiments. Again, STG does not act like that.
Modifié par Zavox, 06 janvier 2011 - 03:33 .
#640
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 05:22
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Zavox wrote...
I sure wouldn't mind going over it again with you though. Would you want to? It's going to be even more brutal for you than this has been so far, I can guarantee you.
Something tells me that even if there was a video footage at the Shadow Broker's showing TIM shaking hands and having drinks with Hackett and Udina, that wouldn't be an evidence to you, as you'd just say that they are dirty "infiltrators". So no, I don't think your participation in this discussion is longer necessary.
#641
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 06:07
Fixers0
-
- Members
- 4 434 messages
Zulu_DFA wrote...
Zavox wrote...
I sure wouldn't mind going over it again with you though. Would you want to? It's going to be even more brutal for you than this has been so far, I can guarantee you.
Something tells me that even if there was a video footage at the Shadow Broker's showing TIM shaking hands and having drinks with Hackett and Udina, that wouldn't be an evidence to you, as you'd just say that they are dirty "infiltrators". So no, I don't think your participation in this discussion is longer necessary.
But that never happend, the thing is your proof , could be explained into multiple, and unfortunately Cerberus being part of the Alliance is less obivous reasons.
Let's take the request denied for example, you interpreted that as proof that Ceberus is part of the Alliance, but equaly it can also mean that the Alliance officer (Major Antella) is like an old rival of Shepard who hates him for an old conflict many years ago.
Do you now see that your proof can lead into any direction you want them to, the Obivous reason behind the Request denied is that Hackett is still behind Shepard and that he knows he is fighting the good fight.
So basicly no of the proof your mentiond is really a concrete suggestion that Cerberus is part of the Alliance. Now it could still be evindence used for your case, but it can be explained in so many ways that you can't just use it as hard proof.
#642
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 06:27
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
[quote]Fixers0 wrote...
the thing is your proof , could be explained into multiple, and unfortunately Cerberus being part of the Alliance is less obivous reasons.[/quote]
Let's take the request denied for example, you interpreted that as proof that Ceberus is part of the Alliance, but equaly it can also mean that the Alliance officer (Major Antella) is like an old rival of Shepard who hates him for an old conflict many years ago.[/quote]
So who's making stuff up?
With Cerberus we have Kahoku's statement: "(1) Cerberus IS some kind of Alliance black ops organization. (2)They've gone completely rogue".
With part 2 being ambivalent as is: "rogue" = "uncontrolled/subversive" or "ruthless/evil"?
So how is it a less obvious explanation that Cerberus is still working for the Alliance, than "Major Antella has a personal grudge with Shepard"?
[quote]Fixers0 wrote...
Do you now see that your proof can lead into any direction you want them to, the Obivous reason behind the Request denied is that Hackett is still behind Shepard and that he knows he is fighting the good fight.
[/quote]
This reason is also less obvious, as we never get any indication that Admiral Hackett is a Church of Shepard sectarian.
[quote]Fixers0 wrote...
So basicly no of the proof your mentiond is really a concrete suggestion that Cerberus is part of the Alliance. Now it could still be evindence used for your case, but it can be explained in so many ways that you can't just use it as hard proof.[/quote]
In so many far-fetched, near-sighted, contradictory and self-contradictory ways...
Thank you, I'll stick to my clear and simple conspiracy theory.
the thing is your proof , could be explained into multiple, and unfortunately Cerberus being part of the Alliance is less obivous reasons.[/quote]
Let's take the request denied for example, you interpreted that as proof that Ceberus is part of the Alliance, but equaly it can also mean that the Alliance officer (Major Antella) is like an old rival of Shepard who hates him for an old conflict many years ago.[/quote]
So who's making stuff up?
With Cerberus we have Kahoku's statement: "(1) Cerberus IS some kind of Alliance black ops organization. (2)They've gone completely rogue".
With part 2 being ambivalent as is: "rogue" = "uncontrolled/subversive" or "ruthless/evil"?
So how is it a less obvious explanation that Cerberus is still working for the Alliance, than "Major Antella has a personal grudge with Shepard"?
[quote]Fixers0 wrote...
Do you now see that your proof can lead into any direction you want them to, the Obivous reason behind the Request denied is that Hackett is still behind Shepard and that he knows he is fighting the good fight.
[/quote]
This reason is also less obvious, as we never get any indication that Admiral Hackett is a Church of Shepard sectarian.
[quote]Fixers0 wrote...
So basicly no of the proof your mentiond is really a concrete suggestion that Cerberus is part of the Alliance. Now it could still be evindence used for your case, but it can be explained in so many ways that you can't just use it as hard proof.[/quote]
In so many far-fetched, near-sighted, contradictory and self-contradictory ways...
Thank you, I'll stick to my clear and simple conspiracy theory.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:27 .
#643
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 06:51
pprrff
-
- Members
- 579 messages
I don't quite understand the original post, Do you mean that Cerbrus is in some way an official (albeit secret) part of the Alliance? Or is it a separate organization that SOME of the high level Alliance officials started so that they can do things that can't be done through their official capacity. The latter case seems to fit into the lore much easier and probably requires the least amount of retcon,
#644
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 07:00
General User
-
- Members
- 3 315 messages
For me the strongest evidence that Cerberus is still very much a part of the Alliance is the simple fact that so many of their operations seem to be of the “mad scientist”, “man bites dog” variety.
If Cerberus really were a broad based, privately funded pro-human group as they claim, then we should see more of their operations of the “dog bites man” variety.
It makes sense if they leave the more sedate operations to the Alliance while they handle the wacky stuff.
If Cerberus really were a broad based, privately funded pro-human group as they claim, then we should see more of their operations of the “dog bites man” variety.
It makes sense if they leave the more sedate operations to the Alliance while they handle the wacky stuff.
#645
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 07:16
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
pprrff wrote...
I don't quite understand the original post, Do you mean that Cerbrus is in some way an official (albeit secret) part of the Alliance? Or is it a separate organization that SOME of the high level Alliance officials started so that they can do things that can't be done through their official capacity. The latter case seems to fit into the lore much easier and probably requires the least amount of retcon,
It's the latter. Although, like it's noted on this very page, Cerberus may technically not exist at all. All there is are the front corporations, such as "Cord-Hislop" and high-ranking "infiltrators" in the Alliance. It's a cabal, and an indispensible part of the regime.
You can argue, that this way Ceberus can not be considered "part of the Alliance" (and I'll let you and/or fans of the legal side of things have fun), but it can't be considered "rogue" either, if it still continues to serve its initial purpose - let the Alliance power brokers "do things that can't be done through their official capacity", or do it more efficiently, with no paper trail, etc.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:22 .
#646
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 07:28
pprrff
-
- Members
- 579 messages
Zulu_DFA wrote...
You can argue, that this way Ceberus can not be considered "part of the Alliance" (and I'll let you and/or fans of the legal side of things have fun), but it can't be considered "rogue" either, if it still continues to serve its initial purpose - let the Alliance power brokers "do things that can't be done through their official capacity".
I see what you are saying, but I think it's more than semantics here. Suppose latter case is true and Shepard decide to take on Ceberus for whatever reason, he can justify that by claiming to act in a role of internal affair and rooting the illegal elements within the Alliance. But if the former case is true, then Cerberus is technically legitmate, so Shepard really doesn't have legal gound to stand on to justify going against Cerberus.
#647
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 07:48
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
pprrff wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
You can argue, that this way Ceberus can not be considered "part of the Alliance" (and I'll let you and/or fans of the legal side of things have fun), but it can't be considered "rogue" either, if it still continues to serve its initial purpose - let the Alliance power brokers "do things that can't be done through their official capacity".
I see what you are saying, but I think it's more than semantics here. Suppose latter case is true and Shepard decide to take on Ceberus for whatever reason, he can justify that by claiming to act in a role of internal affair and rooting the illegal elements within the Alliance. But if the former case is true, then Cerberus is technically legitmate, so Shepard really doesn't have legal gound to stand on to justify going against Cerberus.
Going against Cerberus means going against the front corporations, and as long as the front corportations are legal, "going against them" is illegal. Sure, they do can be incriminated with any illegal activities of Cerberus proper. But in that case they can play victims to Cerberus "infiltration" just like the Alliance as a whole.
So it's all really complicated. It can even be speculate that the glorious Turian raid against Cerberus in Retribution can backfire against them. If anything, it gave TIM the substance to the selling part of hie lie to Aria in regards to Garyson: that there are Turian nationalists that actively seek a revanche for the First Contact War, etc. And it may have had something to do with those corruption accusations that were Executor Pallin's downfall.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:52 .
#648
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 08:00
Terraneaux
-
- Members
- 1 123 messages
Zulu_DFA wrote...
So who's making stuff up?
With Cerberus we have Kahoku's statement: "(1) Cerberus IS some kind of Alliance black ops organization. (2)They've gone completely rogue".
With part 2 being ambivalent as is: "rogue" = "uncontrolled/subversive" or "ruthless/evil"?
So how is it a less obvious explanation that Cerberus is still working for the Alliance, than "Major Antella has a personal grudge with Shepard"?
I don't really think that he cares. The point is that you fill in any uncertainty with 'well obviously you can't prove me wrong, therefore my theory is correct.' Anytime information directly contradicts your theory, you claim that it instead supports it because it's super-secret. One of two things is true, however, either your theory is incorrect, in which case life goes on for everyone except you, or your theory is correct, in which case the franchise as a whole suffers due to a completely inane plot twist designed to deprotagonize the main character in favor of TIM, who after that revelation basically has no flaws, compared to Shepard's clueless bumbling. So I think it'd be much better of Cerberus stayed villains instead of this super 1337 black-ops organization who are doing the right thing even though the rest of the setting doesn't know that your Tom Clancy-addled mind has concocted.
#649
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 08:07
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Guest_thurmanator692_*
-
- Guests
If the former is true, then Cerberus, and by extention, the Alliance, has commited several acts of war aginst the Citadel. If Shepard is still a spectre in your game, that makes him obligated to hunt and destroy the enemy. this is also where the Civil War idea comes into play. If Cerberus is an Alliance Cabal, then there will be very few people who would know of it. hell, The Illusive Man would be the only one to know every member. But if exposed, the Cerberus members in Alliance High Command would likely be attacked by both those who arent and the citadel fleet. This would effectively tear the Alliance into two warring sides, adding a thicker plot if thats going down when the reapers show up. After the Turian's raid in Retribution such exposure is becoming a realistic possibilitypprrff wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
You can argue, that this way Ceberus can not be considered "part of the Alliance" (and I'll let you and/or fans of the legal side of things have fun), but it can't be considered "rogue" either, if it still continues to serve its initial purpose - let the Alliance power brokers "do things that can't be done through their official capacity".
I see what you are saying, but I think it's more than semantics here. Suppose latter case is true and Shepard decide to take on Ceberus for whatever reason, he can justify that by claiming to act in a role of internal affair and rooting the illegal elements within the Alliance. But if the former case is true, then Cerberus is technically legitmate, so Shepard really doesn't have legal gound to stand on to justify going against Cerberus.
#650
Posté 06 janvier 2011 - 08:14
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Terraneaux wrote...
One of two things is true, however, either your theory is incorrect, in which case life goes on for everyone except you, or your theory is correct, in which case life goes on for everyone except me.
Fixed.
