Emperor Cole at the end of the Power Loyalist Arc...

I couldn't find one of any "Responsible" characters in the same art style.

Then again... I can think of another blind, mindless slave to the decisions of society...



Plus the Loyalist and Resistance tags came out before anyone knew much of anything about the Seers.

Did I mention that there aren't that many loyalist tags to choose from?

And I notice you didn't respond to the bulk of the well reasoned, rational, and relatively "Moderate" post you snipped that single line out of...

Typical Golden Cole tactic.

-Rachel-

It makes no difference what the motivation behind it is, if someone points a gun to your head and tells you 'Serve Cole or die,' that's tyrannical.

If that same person had said, instead, 'Rebel against Cole or die,' it's just as tyrannical, and that's almost the entire Crusader recruitment plan. If you don't join them they will kill you.

And that's why I don't get the complete and utter blindness of some people--I never said Cole was good, only that he was keeping the people alive, for the most part.

And I said that he should be taken out, when the situation is more stable.

Personally I think the best way to take him out is lure him and his invasion force away from Praetoria and any Primal Cities and take him out there--no massive collateral damage.

Besides, since they've already got the stuff modeled and have done similar things before, I see a new 'Praetorian Invasion' zone event on the horizon, so, yeah, no one's gonna stop it until after it happens.

You kinda missed the second paragraph which is a corollary. >.> You're rebelling against the tyranny of the people trying to bully you intro rebelling against someone else. I was agreeing with you, but twisting the wording just a little bit to fulfill the hypocritical device that Golden Cole uses.

-Rachel-

Eep! Go bed!

... It's almost 2am, here, too.... geeze... what the heck is wrong with me? Last night I hit the hay at 4am and was up by 8am, and I didn't sleep or nap at all today...

-Rachel-

Maybe a swastika, to show that you're only obeying orders?

The Seers are a deliberate parody of justice

Like the badge says:

Seer:

"Blind yet seeing and casting judgment yet mindless of the crime; the Seer is the instrument of control and the constant threat of the Emperor's displeasure."

A goatee universe type of "justice"

I can think of quite a few

The Seers are hardly very feminine.

Other famous symbols of evil dictatorships don't need a name on them to identify them - so just having the Tyrant star is enough to identify you as a stormtrooper

Actually, it's forcing him to say whatever he thinks will make the torture stop. Anecdotal evidence from the survivors of torture (as reported to those who work with them professionally) unanimously agrees that, while being tortured, the victim will say absolutely anything they think their captors want to hear. Scientific evidence on the issue is far less available (for reasons to do with scientific ethics) but no more encouraging for the proponents of so called "coercive interrogation."

Everything available suggests that -- despite the depictions of media AND the dictates of common sense -- torture is one of the less effective means of gathering intelligence. This has been known for decades, as far back as the KUBARK interrogation manuals of 1963. The Intelligence Science Board (part of the CIA) recently compiled a detailed report on the subject entitled Educing Information, concluding against the use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence.

It's also worth noting that the proponents of torture typically invoke the "ticking bomb" scenario as a situation that justifies torture. The Third Reich had a program of "enhanced interrogation" which they only used against non-uniformed combatants, in what they perceived as time-sensitive situations, with command oversight, and using methods to ensure that no lasting physical harm was caused to the victim.

This program was prosecuted as a war crime at Nuremberg. I realize that its value as precedent is suspect, being an alternate dimension and all, but it bears mentioning nonetheless.

Now drink your Enriche and get some sleep. It's going to be a long, long day tomorrow.

-Rachel-

I don't think the loyalists mind too much - they just like being able to torture people, even though it's not effective.

I'll try to explain, but it probably won't line up exactly with Golden Girl's opinion.

Suppose I'm walking down the street when a man pulls a gun and demands my money. It's a mugging. Let's say I resist, wrest the gun from him, and shoot him. I'm guessing no one thinks this is unjust, and no one thinks I've committed a crime. Why not? Because it was the man who initiated force against me, and I was defending myself.

Now suppose I open a local business, when a man comes in and demands protection money. He wants me to pay some amount of money every month or else he'll wreck my property. I decline, and when he comes back with his thugs to wreck my property I defend it and kill them all. Assuming the situation was clear, I'm guessing still that no one thinks this is unjust or that I've committed a crime. Again, they were initiating force and I was defending myself.

Assume I report the incident to the police, but it's clear from our interaction that they're bought and paid for. They're not going to help me.

Now suppose another man enters my store and tells me that because I killed his men, they're going to kill my family, and then if I still don't pay the fee, they'll kill me. I call my wife and kids and tell them to go hide somewhere. I follow the man back to his house, and then I go all Ghost Dog - I break in, kill him, and read his address books and phone logs to find out where the other mafia members live. I go to each of their houses, assassinate everyone inside, including wives and kids, and burn them down. Is what I did just? Did I commit a crime? I think most people would say it was not fully just, and that I did commit a crime, but with reservations. I don't think anyone would say that I'm being tyrannical - they would say that the mafia were being tyrannical, but that I reacted disproportionately.

The difference is in who initiated force, and who responded in self defense, and it's the same question when regarding Loyalists vs Resistance. The Resistance are defending themselves against the aggression of the state, who has declared them to be criminals for arbitrary crimes, including literal thought crime. But instead of buying into the idea that the state has the right to enforce arbitrary laws as most people do, they resist the state's aggression - but it's not like resisting a mugging. It's like resisting the mafia. The state will pursue you in order to assert its own power. You can try to simply hide, and many do, but that in itself is a form of concession - they've succeeded, in a meaningful way, in asserting their power over you. Or you can try to fight back, and with full moral justification, even to the point of killing those who pursue you, like the Praetors, the Powers Division, the Seers, and the PPD. After all, if any of those groups found you, they wouldn't hesitate to kill you, or at least kidnap you and put you through the corrupt legal system, probably ending in your death. It's self defense against what is essentially a super-powered mafia in a corrupt state.

The Crusaders, however, take it one step further. They kill people who are not pursuing them, like hospital residents and random citizens. Just as with my disproportionate response against the mafia, this shifts them from a position of self defense to one of aggression. But it isn't a tyrannical position - it's simply aggressive rather than defensive.

Someone like EvilGeko argues, and I don't completely disagree, that the overreaction on the part of the Crusaders is understandable and inevitable, because it's very difficult to respond proportionately to an aggressive institution that isn't responding proportionately in kind. The state had no problem, for instance, "disappearing" Wardog's family for the arbitrary crime of teaching an unapproved curriculum. In resisting an institution like that, how can you be expected to respond in a way that doesn't go too far, if you want any chance of successfully defending yourself? The state has, in essence, declared a war of aggression on its own people. In a war situation, those who attempt to act in a fully morally justified way are at a strong disadvantage - one of the reasons why war is so abominable.

But you don't have to agree with that in order to see that the Resistance is not tyranical. They're reacting to the initial aggression of the state. They may be reacting out of proportion, but they are the response and not the initial cause.

Because their position is the default position - that of non-aggression and self defense. Think of it as the political null hypothesis. The state is making the positive claim, so to speak - they're taking aggressive actions against individuals, which requires justification, which they've failed to make.

The demand the Resistance is making is for the cessation of aggression against them. This is as opposed to the the state, which demands compliance with their aggression. Whether or not the Crusaders' methods are just is something I'd consider open to debate -at the very least, they're highly dubious. But they have the more just position, and "allegiance" to that position entails a reduction of tyranny as opposed to its increase.

To go back to my mafia analogy, if I were to demand, with threat of force, that the family of the mafia stop supporting their family's mafia activities, this is not morally the same as the mafia demanding protection money from local store owners. One is straightforwardly aggressive, the other is in the pursuit of self defense though the means are morally dubious.

But they are aggressive. Very aggressive. How is a stance of 'if you don't join us we'll kill you' not aggressive?

Their demands aren't for the government to leave them alone, they want the government to fall, plain and simple.

There position isn't any more just than the governments. They aren't after justice, they're after vengeance, plain and simple--Calvin wants revenge for having his wife taken from him and he wants her back, Wardog wants revenge for his family, etc.

Calvin has NO plans after the war to keep Hamidon out and the people safe, because he does not care, if taking the sonic sensors down and committing genocide would slightly help him to get his wife back, he'd do that, happily.

The Resistance is no more just than the Loyalists. The 'Heroes,' and I use the term loosely to describe the Wardens and the Responsibility paths, are trying to make the best of a horrible situation by doing what they believe, the Loyalists believe in keeping the general populace safe (culminating in defying the emperor to save Neutropolis), the Wardens hold their ideals higher (ultimately culminating in dooming many people to take out the Enriche plant). And the villains are either focused on getting/keeping power, from the Power Loyalists, or revenge and bloodlust, from the Crusader Resistance.

In your Mafia analogy the shopkeeper who was threatened by the mafia is no longer just chasing after the mafia's family.

He's also going to the shop next door and threatening to kill them, unless they fight the mafia with him.

There is nothing just about that. He's not just attacking people related to the crime, he's attacking people who didn't know there was a crime committed and have no connection to the crime.

-Rachel-

aaaahahahahaha, just stopped by to check if this thread was locked yet, good wording, Ben!

EDIT: the posts I've enjoyed the most so far though, are that of Cpt. Geist. XD

Attention, Duelists! The Captain is here to entertain and keep some levity in a conversation that is, in essence, Steampunkette getting worked up over Golden Girl saying "Evil is what I say it is, in America!"


So yeah, as to the whole "Rebel or die" thing. It comes down to this:

As long as the Crusader's actions are against the state and those who actively, willingly serve the state, their actions are justified. Gassing the PPD? Alright. Feeding cops to ghouls? Sure. Deactivating the seer program? Right on! Going undercover to help Powers division, then throwing Ricochet under a bus so you can seal the deaths of four Top Dogs? Well, she knew what she was getting into when she took the job, even if she DOES totally flip out on you when you do it. (Nova Crusader, Betray at the end, Imperial City power as a spy. It was hilarious. And yes, Scott's okay with it)

But then they start doing things like bombing hospitals and unleashing clockworky doom on civilians? And I'm not talking just "government supporters" here. I'm talking six year old Cindy Lou who's getting her tonsils out. Exploded. Without ever knowing why. And she never did get that "all the ice cream you can eat."

Once they start directly attacking civilians, then it becomes a problem. I'm not even talking things like collateral damage, like the Enriche bottling plant's explosion causing people to get sick. I am talking about how you go out of your way to ensure that there are NO important targets in Nova Praetoria when the Clockwork go haywire so you specifically CAN hurt as many civilians as possible before law enforcement can get the situation under control.


Back to the Mafia example, what the Crusaders are doing here is not saying to Joe the Baker "Stop paying the Mafia's protection money or I'll kill you" so much as it's coming into the Bakery in the middle of the day with an AK-47, shooting Joe and all his customers, and screaming "HEY, GIOVANNI!* WEREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THIS?"


And Calvin Scott's okay with this.

My feeling: Your right to fight for your freedom ends when it takes away from people other than the oppressors more freedoms than you're claiming you've lost.

...You know, if "freedom" to these people means blowing up hospitals, maybe denying them these freedoms is a good thing.


*This is no way meant to imply that all people named Giovanni are evil. It is only meant to imply that the closest thing I've had to actual mafia dealings have all involved Team Rocket.

I find a couple things disturbing about your characterization of dictatorships here.

First, you seem to have the implicit notion that if the government declares something to be a crime, then it is a crime - your only quibble being with the severity of the punishment. So if the government declares that speech critical of it is a crime, then it is indeed a crime, and we can talk about what the most just punishment for that is. On the contrary, I would assert that political speech is not a crime, and that if the government asserts that it is, they're wrong. There's a meter for just and unjust laws - they're not arbitrary. We can talk about how we define the metric, but it's not ad hoc.

Second, you seem to have confidence that a dictatorship will apply the law even-handedly. So you may disagree with a punishment or a law, but at least you know that if you don't break it you're safe. But actually dictatorships don't work like this - there are so many laws that it's impossible to be law abiding, which gives the regime an excuse to punish anyone they want at any time. This is especially true when subversive thought is a crime. They may want to make an example of someone, or there may be some strategic or personal gain for someone in the regime for punishing you. But the law is essentially ad hoc - they can do anything to anyone at any time.

Compare this to the above description. I've already conceded that the Crusaders' actions aren't justified, or at least are highly dubious. The question is, are they tyrannical? Lets say that a Crusader does what you say - he approaches a random citizen, and demands assistance or death. Moreover, is it true that, "the Resistance takes it a step further than the Government?"

Consider that Cole's regime already encompasses within it what you're saying about the Resistance: join us or die. That's something common to both sides. It seems that the random citizen is under threat from one or the other. What happens, though, if they join the Resistance? It seems to me that although it's much more dangerous, it's also much less tyrannical. And the only reason it's dangerous is because of persecution from Cole's regime. Consider that when you're in a Resistance base, you can freely criticize Scott, DeVore, or Belladonna without having to fear retribution from them. You can go where you want, choose to follow or not follow anyone's orders, choose to take whatever risk you want, without fear of anyone other than Cole's regime punishing you for it. They'll even help smuggle you out entirely. It seems you're much more free, although in more danger. So I don't think the claim that the Resistance is even more tyrannical than the state holds up. They might be crazier, but they're far less tyrannical on balance.