feelings about Pino?

Fomoria wrote:So, yes, people who are not Pino will have entered that house at some point and he knew about them - and that means that he is vulnerable to social manipulation. Manipulation does not mean "I say just the right things to me and you tell me all your crimes and future plans", it means tricking people into giving you what you want through whatever way necessary; this includes pretending to be someone else in order to gain access to their home for the purposes of gathering evidence.

I just realized that the only cyborg capable (just capable, not able) of doing this is Petra. given that Marco is going to make a 2nd gen girl another Angie (im sure it's gonna happen) the only 2nd gen girl that can do what you think it can do is d one trained by Sandro. in short the whole discussion is useless since 2nd gens are not for social manipulation they are for blowing padania heads off less efficiently!

Fomoria wrote:Oh, so safehouses all have redundant plumbing and electrical systems? Nobody ever entering is a perfect situation until something breaks down or a fire breaks out or any number of situations that are unpredictable and disruptive. Unless Pino or your republican goons are trained firefighters, plumbers, electricians, architects, building inspectors, paramedics, glaziers or engineers you are going to have to, at some point, let people into your house

I really think you overestimate how long he ever stayed in one place. I'd estimate less than three months, with the exception of Franca's vineyard. How often does any of that crap happen to you? For me, not even every year. Maintenance on safehouses generally happens when noone is occupying them.
So, to break down your list a bit (rules for an assassin to live by):
Firefighter: if a fire breaks out, the place has attracted unwanted attention. You leave immediately, and sleep in a car if you have to.
Plumber: If the toilet breaks, and you can't jury-rig it to work at all, you call to higher and request a new safehouse. If none is available, you deal with the stink until you can leave... or, again, you leave and sleep in a car if necessary.
Electrician: electricity isn't a necessity of life. You live with no power for awhile.
Architect, building inspector, glazier, engineer: WTF? If the place is falling apart, you don't stay more than a night. Leave, sleep in a car.
Paramedics: if you need a paramedic, you've already screwed up badly. You try to get to someone you know who can help you before you die. If you go to a regular hospital, you'll most likely be killed by one of your comrades. If you die before reaching help, noone will admit to having known you.

Fomoria wrote:because they know what you don't and this is valuable to your convenient way of life.

Not everyone expects to live a life of convenience. Assassins are among those who don't.

Fomoria wrote:So, yes, people who are not Pino will have entered that house at some point

and I maintain: not at any point that he occupied the place.

Fomoria wrote:Manipulation does not mean "I say just the right things to me and you tell me all your crimes and future plans", it means tricking people into giving you what you want through whatever way necessary; this includes pretending to be someone else in order to gain access to their home for the purposes of gathering evidence.

They're free to come in at any point the place is unoccupied, which is most of the time.

Nile wrote:in short the whole discussion is useless since 2nd gens are not for social manipulation they are for blowing padania heads off less efficiently!

It's not useless. We're educating here.
Although you do have a point. Social manipulation is section one's job, and they don't try it on assassins. They infiltrate the social circles of the people who actually make decisions within the RF. Those people are quite vulnerable to the manipulation that Fomoria speaks of. Assassins just kill whom they're told, and know nothing of why.

LoC978 wrote:

Nile wrote:in short the whole discussion is useless since 2nd gens are not for social manipulation they are for blowing padania heads off less efficiently!

It's not useless. We're educating here.
Although you do have a point. Social manipulation is section one's job, and they don't try it on assassins. They infiltrate the social circles of the people who actually make decisions within the RF. Those people are quite vulnerable to the manipulation that Fomoria speaks of. Assassins just kill whom they're told, and know nothing of why.

but the whole discussion was "there is use for 2nd gens because they are used for Social Manipulation" with that job filled by sec 1 we can go back to saying that 2nd gens are useless.

West Nile wrote:but the whole discussion was "there is use for 2nd gens because they are used for Social Manipulation" with that job filled by sec 1 we can go back to saying that 2nd gens are useless.

Quoted for truth.

What hooked me to GSG in the first place is that the girls are assassins. Cold blooded, ruthless assassins. If I ever feel like I want to see Petra play sleuth, I’ll just go out and but a Nancy Drew book.

LoC978 wrote:

Fomoria wrote:Oh, so safehouses all have redundant plumbing and electrical systems? Nobody ever entering is a perfect situation until something breaks down or a fire breaks out or any number of situations that are unpredictable and disruptive. Unless Pino or your republican goons are trained firefighters, plumbers, electricians, architects, building inspectors, paramedics, glaziers or engineers you are going to have to, at some point, let people into your house

I really think you overestimate how long he ever stayed in one place. I'd estimate less than three months, with the exception of Franca's vineyard. How often does any of that crap happen to you? For me, not even every year. Maintenance on safehouses generally happens when noone is occupying them.
So, to break down your list a bit (rules for an assassin to live by):
Firefighter: if a fire breaks out, the place has attracted unwanted attention. You leave immediately, and sleep in a car if you have to.
Plumber: If the toilet breaks, and you can't jury-rig it to work at all, you call to higher and request a new safehouse. If none is available, you deal with the stink until you can leave... or, again, you leave and sleep in a car if necessary.
Electrician: electricity isn't a necessity of life. You live with no power for awhile.
Architect, building inspector, glazier, engineer: WTF? If the place is falling apart, you don't stay more than a night. Leave, sleep in a car.
Paramedics: if you need a paramedic, you've already screwed up badly. You try to get to someone you know who can help you before you die. If you go to a regular hospital, you'll most likely be killed by one of your comrades. If you die before reaching help, noone will admit to having known you.

Fomoria wrote:because they know what you don't and this is valuable to your convenient way of life.

Not everyone expects to live a life of convenience. Assassins are among those who don't.

Fomoria wrote:So, yes, people who are not Pino will have entered that house at some point

and I maintain: not at any point that he occupied the place.

Fomoria wrote:Manipulation does not mean "I say just the right things to me and you tell me all your crimes and future plans", it means tricking people into giving you what you want through whatever way necessary; this includes pretending to be someone else in order to gain access to their home for the purposes of gathering evidence.

They're free to come in at any point the place is unoccupied, which is most of the time.

Nile wrote:in short the whole discussion is useless since 2nd gens are not for social manipulation they are for blowing padania heads off less efficiently!

It's not useless. We're educating here.
Although you do have a point. Social manipulation is section one's job, and they don't try it on assassins. They infiltrate the social circles of the people who actually make decisions within the RF. Those people are quite vulnerable to the manipulation that Fomoria speaks of. Assassins just kill whom they're told, and know nothing of why.

Okay, firstly, even if said safehouses are only in use for a few months at a time there will still have to be someone who looks after it. They will be vulnerable to bluffing your way in and planting bugs. The advantage of bluffing your way in is that most of your traces will be covered by the expectations of the person who knows you came in and believes you to be a normal workman.

I remember having pointed out that Petra would never really come into contact with Pino, so I don't mind dropping that particular line of argument. As for the list of services needed, well, attacks on the staff that check over the house whilst its not in use still work using those professions as cover. As for paramedic; one wrong step and you break a bone, then there's no reason not to make use of the fine hospital facilities of Italy (though if you happen to have inoperable bone cancer as well, too bad).

As for assassins living a life without conveniences? So why do they demand so much cash? They can make the equivalent of a years worth of wageslavery in a few months of effort, but why? Bribes and security concerns don't take that much wealth when you're providing some of the details yourself and know what is truly effective, and they'll likely work more than once a year, so one can only assume they earn more per year than a wageslave and that money goes into something. Like, say, more comfortable and convenient living arrangements. Somehow, I don't think Pino would choose to stay in a hovel if there was a mansion available. We can conclude that assassins do care about modern conveniences because few people don't, and they generally get some kind of mental benefit from not using them.

I also never stated that the second generation were intended to exclusively perform the job of social manipulation; they exist for the same reason as the first generation - to protect valuable CT assets. They just happen not to prevent those assets from performing the most useful of CT work. It just so happens that they're more capable of independant work and therefore in a better position to use social manipulation to achieve their aims (which means staying as close to their handlers as possible whilst in dangerous territory).

As for the idea that the girls were always inteded to be assassins; you have the MP, the Military and various special forces and black ops units that are better at this (numbers and training and reliability), so why create another experimental unit when you can simply invest in existing assets with known outcomes? Protecting your existing assets is one of the ways of getting more out of them and agents that go amongst the enemy in their colours have a good potential yield and it's generally attrition rates that keep them in line with other assets so far as benefits go. The reason the girls act as assassins is because their package is a failure due to a number of psychological limitations.

Also, assassins don't work on political entities; you can't kill memes off by killing off the extreme carriers.

Triela Vs Pino.

There is a contradiction I have always seen, that in the first meeting with Mario Bossi, Triela fought hand to hand against a couple of his captors, and won. This does give Triela enough training in street fighting. Question is, at what level?

Pino is defiantely a black belt in one or more of the Martial Arts, as taught by his ex-CIA mentor John. To get to that level, one has to know how to react without thinking and how to move as a reflex.

Triela vs. normal people, and even slightly trained fighters, there is no match.
Triela vs. Pino, here is where the problems lie.

The problem With Triela vs. Pino is that in the first mission, she was told by Hillshire to 'bring'emback alive', thus, she could not kill them. This held her back. In being arrested, Pino fought back and fought to kill or maime. Triela wanted to detain him. This proves the lack of training on her part. "When in fighting a criminal force, use the amount of force needed to stop and detain the criminal. If the criminal uses extra force in trying to escape or finish his crime, up your level of force until you can stop the criminal. This includes using lethal/deadly force."

Hillshire gave Triela added training, and it was this training that saved her from being killed by Pino the second time. She was too emotionally tied to the fight, which is a bad thing. But once she realized that Pino was fighting for keeps- thats when she let him have it.

Fomoria wrote:Okay, firstly, even if said safehouses are only in use for a few months at a time there will still have to be someone who looks after it. They will be vulnerable to bluffing your way in and planting bugs. The advantage of bluffing your way in is that most of your traces will be covered by the expectations of the person who knows you came in and believes you to be a normal workman.

Very true. Now you just have to identify and plant bugs in all of the safehouses they could possibly flee to. We're talking the efforts of an entire organization for months to bring down one man. One man who only knows who he is to kill at a given moment. Worth the effort...? I think not. Much easier to get to him from the top. Remove his support structure, and he'd have eventually been hunted down and killed through conventional surveillance and an overwhelming assault. Not to mention the benefit of actually damaging his organization.

Fomoria wrote:As for paramedic; one wrong step and you break a bone, then there's no reason not to make use of the fine hospital facilities of Italy

Sure, if they're controlled by the same people you work for. If you're an RF assassin stuck in southern Italy, though...

Fomoria wrote:I also never stated that the second generation were intended to exclusively perform the job of social manipulation; they exist for the same reason as the first generation - to protect valuable CT assets. They just happen not to prevent those assets from performing the most useful of CT work. It just so happens that they're more capable of independant work and therefore in a better position to use social manipulation to achieve their aims (which means staying as close to their handlers as possible whilst in dangerous territory).

There are far better ways to achieve that, which would draw less notice. Like what Alessandro did while working for section one... or what James Bond always seems to do. Somehow I just don't see a young cyborg girl being useful in that... no matter how well conditioned, she's still conspicuous (even dressed as a teenage prostitute, she'd make it seem you should have other things on your mind than what you're asking for. She'd just be another risk for blowing your cover.
Superhuman strength and reflexes are next to useless outside combat. The handlers would be better served with beefed up support teams, if that was really their job. Which, and I reiterate: it isn't. They're the Social Welfare Agency Special Weapons And Tactics Team. Nothing more.

Fomoria wrote:As for assassins living a life without conveniences?

I never said they live a life without conveniences. I said they don't expect convenience. As in: it's nice to have when you can afford the time to appreciate it, but you don't bitch piss and moan when you have to do without.

Fomoria wrote:As for the idea that the girls were always inteded to be assassins; you have the MP, the Military and various special forces and black ops units that are better at this (numbers and training and reliability), so why create another experimental unit when you can simply invest in existing assets with known outcomes?

I'd imagine it was first and foremost as a testbed for new technology, second because their other agents were being identified too quickly due to their training. They were predictable...

crap... back to work with me...
(8 hours later)aaand back home.

Fomoria wrote:Also, assassins don't work on political entities; you can't kill memes off by killing off the extreme carriers

true, but if they're only one small way that you're attacking the problem... especially if the problem is rooted among the rich... what better way to fight rich, pampered supporters of terrorism, than with terror inflicted on their person? (well, aside from freezing all their assets)

LoC978 wrote:

Fomoria wrote:I also never stated that the second generation were intended to exclusively perform the job of social manipulation; they exist for the same reason as the first generation - to protect valuable CT assets. They just happen not to prevent those assets from performing the most useful of CT work. It just so happens that they're more capable of independant work and therefore in a better position to use social manipulation to achieve their aims (which means staying as close to their handlers as possible whilst in dangerous territory).

There are far better ways to achieve that, which would draw less notice. Like what Alessandro did while working for section one... or what James Bond always seems to do. Somehow I just don't see a young cyborg girl being useful in that... no matter how well conditioned, she's still conspicuous (even dressed as a teenage prostitute, she'd make it seem you should have other things on your mind than what you're asking for. She'd just be another risk for blowing your cover.
Superhuman strength and reflexes are next to useless outside combat. The handlers would be better served with beefed up support teams, if that was really their job. Which, and I reiterate: it isn't. They're the Social Welfare Agency Special Weapons And Tactics Team. Nothing more.

Fomoria wrote:As for the idea that the girls were always inteded to be assassins; you have the MP, the Military and various special forces and black ops units that are better at this (numbers and training and reliability), so why create another experimental unit when you can simply invest in existing assets with known outcomes?

I'd imagine it was first and foremost as a testbed for new technology, second because their other agents were being identified too quickly due to their training. They were predictable...
(8 hours later)aaand back home.

Fomoria wrote:Also, assassins don't work on political entities; you can't kill memes off by killing off the extreme carriers

true, but if they're only one small way that you're attacking the problem... especially if the problem is rooted among the rich... what better way to fight rich, pampered supporters of terrorism, than with terror inflicted on their person? (well, aside from freezing all their assets)

Sex, sex, sex... Why is it that you guys're always obsessed with it?! It's like people can't understand a close relationship between a group of guys and girls that doesn't revolve around them having sex - like someone can't pretend to interested in the political cause of a group of domestic terrorists just to get acces to tasty information to feed to the government.

And if a person in a sort of shallow relationship (sex alone is pretty shallow) with family members of high ranking people in a group isn't under more scrutiny than the girlfriend/lover/friendly acquaintance of the new guy, then there's no way the organisation can work secretly; they might as well be phoning in their plans to the authorities. As for the mods being useless; you know what the entire purpose of a bodyguard is, right? To prevent someone from coming to harm and kill or detain those attempting to harm them. If that does not involve demanding combat, then I have no damn clue what does.

As for the girls bringing some new ideas to their organisations; who are they being trained by? Oh, yes, members of said organisations... Yeah, totally unpredictable conditioned and dogmatic order-following cyborg killers.

As for terrorising the rich; the rich have more power and generally more credulity than poor people (not wanting for anything tends to lend more worth to your words) so terrorising them is one of the best ways for you to begin to gain the true ire of some of the most powerful people - you can't terrorise the powerful easily - and for word to get out to the public about what you are doing.

Fomoria wrote:Sex, sex, sex... Why is it that you guys're always obsessed with it?!

Sorry, it's just all this talk about Petra... it pretty much just leads right in, y'know?

Fomoria wrote:...like someone can't pretend to interested in the political cause of a group of domestic terrorists just to get acces to tasty information to feed to the government.

true, but what the hell do you need a cyborg for in that situation?

Fomoria wrote:And if a person in a sort of shallow relationship (sex alone is pretty shallow)...

I... I'm not shallow! Well, okay, for anything beyond friendship...

Fomoria wrote:...with family members of high ranking people in a group isn't under more scrutiny than the girlfriend/lover/friendly acquaintance of the new guy, then there's no way the organisation can work secretly; they might as well be phoning in their plans to the authorities. As for the mods being useless; you know what the entire purpose of a bodyguard is, right? To prevent someone from coming to harm and kill or detain those attempting to harm them. If that does not involve demanding combat, then I have no damn clue what does.

awright, awright, they do make good bodyguards. It's not their primary duty, but they'll do in a pinch. Problem is, it's like you think they're spending millions of euros on a damned contingency plan. One doesn't James Bond his way into a party of terrorist highrollers expecting a fight. That'd be idiotic, no matter the firepower you have concealed in your 'date' (unless it's a nuke for a suicide mission).

Fomoria wrote:As for the girls bringing some new ideas to their organisations; who are they being trained by? Oh, yes, members of said organisations... Yeah, totally unpredictable conditioned and dogmatic order-following cyborg killers.

there's a HUGE difference between a few months of training in firearms and blending in put into a little-girl-cyborg, and years upon years of training and experience put into a valued counter-terrorist operative. The little girl isn't going to have the sort of disciplined bearing and well-educated speech patterns that a good CT operative has. That is why they're harder to spot. Well, that and the fact that very few people feel threatened by the presence of a little girl.

Fomoria wrote:As for terrorising the rich; the rich have more power and generally more credulity than poor people (not wanting for anything tends to lend more worth to your words) so terrorising them is one of the best ways for you to begin to gain the true ire of some of the most powerful people - you can't terrorise the powerful easily - and for word to get out to the public about what you are doing.

when you work for people who are just as, if not more powerful... well, they can sort it out upstairs. Also, I'm not talking about threats over the phone or any of that sophomoric bullshit. I'm talking about practically untraceable, ruthless killings of family members, friends, and business associates. Random ones. Nothing jumps the gun quite like a paranoid rich person...

LoC978 wrote:

Fomoria wrote:Sex, sex, sex... Why is it that you guys're always obsessed with it?!

Sorry, it's just all this talk about Petra... it pretty much just leads right in, y'know?

I couldn’t of said it better myself.

LoC978 wrote:true, but what the hell do you need a cyborg for in that situation?

awright, awright, they do make good bodyguards. It's not their primary duty, but they'll do in a pinch. Problem is, it's like you think they're spending millions of euros on a damned contingency plan. One doesn't James Bond his way into a party of terrorist highrollers expecting a fight. That'd be idiotic, no matter the firepower you have concealed in your 'date' (unless it's a nuke for a suicide mission).

there's a HUGE difference between a few months of training in firearms and blending in put into a little-girl-cyborg, and years upon years of training and experience put into a valued counter-terrorist operative. The little girl isn't going to have the sort of disciplined bearing and well-educated speech patterns that a good CT operative has. That is why they're harder to spot. Well, that and the fact that very few people feel threatened by the presence of a little girl.

when you work for people who are just as, if not more powerful... well, they can sort it out upstairs. Also, I'm not talking about threats over the phone or any of that sophomoric bullshit. I'm talking about practically untraceable, ruthless killings of family members, friends, and business associates. Random ones. Nothing jumps the gun quite like a paranoid rich person...

You need a cyborg in the situation where you're infiltrating a domestic terror group because, when (not if) they discover your agent is sending information about their operations to you, they're going to be mighty pissed off and probably send you a corpse or an ear and/or a horses head in your bed. This has the noticable effect of preventing you from reusing that agent as well as preventing him from giving you the most recent information. So you give them some kind of discrete protection, like a little girl who can pretend to be their daughter or a young woman who can pretend to be a girlfriend, that helps them avoid getting captured (sure, it'll require some bluffing to get around the fact that you just killed someone in the group, but better that than he die).

This is not a contingency plan, but a very useful addition because the discovery is all but inevitable (unless the group is totally incompetant, in which case you want to ignore them and move on anyway). It can also help if you want to, for some reason, foil a particular plot of the group (not killing them, since martyrs for a religious or political cause only attract more people to it) because a combat-capable operative that is able to get close to the group prior to the bust will help make sure everything goes over smoothly - cyborgs would seem to excel at the violence side of things, after all.

The girls will not have the discipline or communication skills of a proper highly-trained organisation and that will make them less effective for any kind of dedicated combat operation that requires anything more than rudimentary co-ordination with other professional combat assets. That means that they are better off working alone or with people that they know well, like a handler, in a situation in which they're not constantly receiving support from anyone.

You cannot assassinate high profile targets or use assassinations to intimidate them; it's too obvious and will outrage the public, leading to your department being shut down with members being sent to prison for all manner of trumped up offenses or else being retired permanently on a smaller pension than they should. By analogy, if one of the our (I say that as a subject of the United Kingdom) Princes died in suspicious circumstances after the Queen used her veto on a law that the government wanted passed then it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on. Same goes for if extended family or friends of a high profile rich supporter of the republican cause turns up dead in unlikely circumstances; cogs will turn in most peoples' heads and people will suspect the government of assassinating them to try to put pressure on that person, and - if they want to be - a rich person can be very high profile. Very quickly.

You can only assassinate low profile targets safely and those are too insignificant to really matter enough to justify assassinating (unless the group is organised with too much vertical hierarchy and they occupy a significant position). You still want to capture people, though, because it allows you to humiliate them in the public eye and discredit their cause by showing their activists as flawed, pathetic people who commit horrible crimes that seriously hurt everyday people in furtherance of their extremist doctrines. War is about propaganda and terrorism is simply remote, deniable, asymmetrical and irregular war.



And as for your (collective) attempts at wit in response to my comment on your sex obsession - are you admitting that you find Petra to have a sexually attractive character design?

Fomoria wrote:You need a cyborg in the situation where you're infiltrating a domestic terror group because, when (not if) they discover your agent...

You're making a very big assumption there. That's pretty much assuming mission failure. Fact is, most spies don't get caught. It's just that the ones that do are the ones you hear about.

Fomoria wrote:they're going to be mighty pissed off and probably send you a corpse or an ear and/or a horses head in your bed. This has the noticable effect of preventing you from reusing that agent as well as preventing him from giving you the most recent information.

Yeah, too bad for him. Shouldn't have gotten caught.

Fomoria wrote:So you give them some kind of discrete protection, like a little girl who can pretend to be their daughter or a young woman who can pretend to be a girlfriend, that helps them avoid getting captured (sure, it'll require some bluffing to get around the fact that you just killed someone in the group, but better that than he die).

So, you're talking about a deep cover agent with a partner, then... I've never seen one who didn't work alone, have you? People don't generally approach an organization looking to join in pairs. I imagine they'd come under some pretty heavy scrutiny if they did.

Fomoria wrote:This is not a contingency plan, but a very useful addition because the discovery is all but inevitable (unless the group is totally incompetant, in which case you want to ignore them and move on anyway).

More like if your spy is incompetent. Where the hell do you get your information? Admittedly, mine is mostly from US Army Antiterrorism and ComSec training. (can't remember what the information security class is called... it's kind of a long acronym, and I haven't taken it again since I left Germany)

Fomoria wrote:The girls will not have the discipline or communication skills of a proper highly-trained organisation and that will make them less effective for any kind of dedicated combat operation that requires anything more than rudimentary co-ordination with other professional combat assets. That means that they are better off working alone or with people that they know well, like a handler, in a situation in which they're not constantly receiving support from anyone.

everyone is better off (in combat or short-term infiltration) with support. I'm not talking about another team at your side, I'm talking about a communications/surveillance crew.

Fomoria wrote:You cannot assassinate high profile targets or use assassinations to intimidate them; it's too obvious and will outrage the public, leading to your department being shut down with members being sent to prison for all manner of trumped up offenses or else being retired permanently on a smaller pension than they should.

if you can cover your tracks, you can.

Fomoria wrote:By analogy, if one of the our (I say that as a subject of the United Kingdom) Princes died in suspicious circumstances after the Queen used her veto on a law that the government wanted passed then it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on. Same goes for if extended family or friends of a high profile rich supporter of the republican cause turns up dead in unlikely circumstances; cogs will turn in most peoples' heads and people will suspect the government of assassinating them to try to put pressure on that person, and - if they want to be - a rich person can be very high profile. Very quickly.

It would be a better analogy to use a member of Parliament or a US senator instead of a prince. And general feelings of "I think the government killed him" aren't going to get people canned in an organization the public doesn't know about.
also, Italy isn't the US or the UK

Fomoria wrote:You can only assassinate low profile targets safely and those are too insignificant to really matter enough to justify assassinating

GSG canon would beg to differ. If you recall two assassinations made by Rico... Congressman Mascarl was a fairly high-profile target, and Colonel Gagne may have been low-profile outside the military, but he was also an important kill.

Fomoria wrote:War is about propaganda and terrorism is simply remote, deniable, asymmetrical and irregular war.

this is true. the thing of it is, in GSG, the Social Welfare Agency is fighting terrorism with terrorism. The Italian government has plenty of other ways they're fighting it (in the GSG-verse, of course), the SWA is just one of their more direct organizations.

Fomoria wrote:And as for your (collective) attempts at wit in response to my comment on your sex obsession - are you admitting that you find Petra to have a sexually attractive character design?

Admitting? I've never denied it! After all, I am the guy who made these:

LoC978 wrote:You're making a very big assumption there. That's pretty much assuming mission failure. Fact is, most spies don't get caught. It's just that the ones that do are the ones you hear about.

Yeah, too bad for him. Shouldn't have gotten caught.

So, you're talking about a deep cover agent with a partner, then... I've never seen one who didn't work alone, have you? People don't generally approach an organization looking to join in pairs. I imagine they'd come under some pretty heavy scrutiny if they did.

More like if your spy is incompetent. Where the hell do you get your information? Admittedly, mine is mostly from US Army Antiterrorism and ComSec training. (can't remember what the information security class is called... it's kind of a long acronym, and I haven't taken it again since I left Germany)

everyone is better off (in combat or short-term infiltration) with support. I'm not talking about another team at your side, I'm talking about a communications/surveillance crew.

It would be a better analogy to use a member of Parliament or a US senator instead of a prince. And general feelings of "I think the government killed him" aren't going to get people canned in an organization the public doesn't know about.
also, Italy isn't the US or the UK.

GSG canon would beg to differ. If you recall two assassinations made by Rico... Congressman Mascarl was a fairly high-profile target, and Colonel Gagne may have been low-profile outside the military, but he was also an important kill.

Every attempt to communicate with your department/team has a risk of being uncovered associated with it, and the observation/counter-observation techniques are in an arms race even at the most basic levels. It is all but inevitable that you are going to be discovered some day, especially if you're trying short-term infiltration and therefore have to continually deal with new unknowns. Political/Military/Industrial spy and CT infiltration operations have different pressures; the former tend to have a higher secrecy necessity due to the possibility of a diplomatic incident should their existance come to light. The latter has a greater pressure on the time taken since they tend to make use of concentrated attacks on identified weak points and can put a plan into action rapidly, if need be, due to limited group size.

When speed is of the essence you sometimes have to sacrifice secrecy and that is why you need some kind of protection; because you are going to eventually get discovered in a bad situation and any way of keeping yourself alive is better than none. Getting discovered by a single guy is not mission failure, but him alerting everyone else in the group is, and then you have to go in and wipe them out and cover it all up and blood does not come out of a suit this nice easily, damnit!

If the person gets caught it's a terrible loss of an asset that could be re-employed elsewhere; these people are rare and valuable enough as is and investing in some decent semi-autonomous protection is probably worth it for the dividends it'll produce in keeping your agent safe. Live agents get to send back reports about that upcoming truckbomb attack on your government buildings by a remotely controlled truck and a ton of ANFO.

I wasn't actually suggesting that the cyborg necessarily join; but being in a relationship or having a child can make you seem more normal than a young or middle aged guy with no attachments, at the very least it's a potential prop that allows you additional options.

I have to admit to pulling this stuff right out of my arse, with a level of general plausibility examination. I'm just a young guy who is far too interested (at least judging by the society I live in) in the way the world is run, so I'm taking bits and pieces from everything I've learned from persuing that interest and a fair few assumptions. I'm enjoying improvising and arguing, because that's the kind of person I am.

I had gotten that they would have a support crew, but was not so much discussing them because they're a vital component of any kind of infiltration and don't require specialist communications procedures for co-ordination as police and military combat support does. My point was that the girls don't have the training necessary to even work well together; they all split up and execute a defeat in detail attack across multiple fronts; relying on the fact that they are true combat monsters to win (the entire first generation is probably capable of killing any concentration of Padania they're likely to encounter, even without working together).

The given example was a hyperbolic example of the logic, the Queen would never refuse to sign in a law - the royal family is more savvy than that - I was just trying to point out how silly the prospect of using assassinations for intimidating rich people actually is. I do know that Italy is different, but it is still a democracy, right? Murder has been used previously in all kinds of things, it still doesn't change the fact that when a government agency does it, supposedly in the name of justice, it will offend the population and that will draw large amounts of ire. After all, if you really want to intimidate rich people, simply audit them and their close acquaintances; that'll at least communicate your displeasure with them.

Also of note is that it doesn't matter if the public at large know of the specific agency; if they believe it was probably the government assassinating their own citizens in order to intimidate another of its citizens they are going to go berserk and be calling for blood and/or major body parts of those responsible. Politicians ultimately have to cave in to popular demands because they need to be re-elected and provide a semblance of justice (plus, assassinating the fellows of rich people is generally unpopular with politicians as well; who pays for their campaigns and gives them really nice lunches for free?) and at the same time a wayward department/team is in need of being reeled in - someone gets strung out to dry because they did something stupid and because the public needs to be placated, and the next guy in charge might avoid doing something so brazen.

Let me clarify my point; you can't attempt to intimidate public figures that are known to have disagreements with the existing order, and as for the existing GSG assassinations; they were both ostensibly on the side of the SWA. That is important because it means they were "known" to be opposed to republican extremists by the public and the blame can therefore be shifted to them. Furthermore, if members of the military inquired into the death of their Colonel then the SWA or one of its parent departments can present the evidence they had acquired that lead to them deciding to kill the Colonel. If it is insufficient they'll probably get a gag order from above due to political maneuvering and favours owed.



LoC, the exclamations relating to finding her attractive was a light hearted ad hominem. Just as the example involving the UK royal family was a bemused strawman; I know what I'm doing and how fallacious it is, but I do enjoy it so.

LoC978 wrote:

:lollol: I must have missed this the first time around.

Fomoria wrote:Every attempt to communicate with your department/team has a risk of being uncovered associated with it,

this is true to a point. However, the level of electronic surveillance the Italian government can employ is much more advanced than the stuff from 80s spy movies. Tiny spy cameras embedded in the pocket of a shirt, glasses, a ring, et cetera, that communicate sporadically in short bursts to the surveillance team are not beyond the realm of possibility. (apologies for the run-on sentence)

Fomoria wrote:and the observation/counter-observation techniques are in an arms race even at the most basic levels.

an arms race in which the Italian government has clearly outstripped the RF on every level.

Fomoria wrote:It is all but inevitable that you are going to be discovered some day, especially if you're trying short-term infiltration and therefore have to continually deal with new unknowns.

this is where we're gonna continue to disagree. Especially on the short term bit. I'm talking about a matter of hours when I say short-term. It would go something like this: Get in (no easy task), ascertain the presence of the target, hang around for a bit to see if anything interesting is said, kill everyone present, go out for some gelato. That is short-term.

Fomoria wrote:Political/Military/Industrial spy and CT infiltration operations have different pressures; the former tend to have a higher secrecy necessity due to the possibility of a diplomatic incident should their existance come to light. The latter has a greater pressure on the time taken since they tend to make use of concentrated attacks on identified weak points and can put a plan into action rapidly, if need be, due to limited group size.

quite true. this is why infiltration of small terrorist cells is all but impossible. Those small cells are much like the government's field agents. They know little of why they do something. So, you infiltrate higher in the organization, where money speaks louder than words (or action, for that matter).

Fomoria wrote:Getting discovered by a single guy is not mission failure, but him alerting everyone else in the group is, and then you have to go in and wipe them out and cover it all up and blood does not come out of a suit this nice easily, damnit!

nah, none of that is mission failure, it's just failing to complete tertiary objectives. And noone ever said being a secret agent's dry cleaner was an easy job.

Fomoria wrote:If the person gets caught it's a terrible loss of an asset that could be re-employed elsewhere; these people are rare and valuable enough as is and investing in some decent semi-autonomous protection is probably worth it for the dividends it'll produce in keeping your agent safe. Live agents get to send back reports about that upcoming truckbomb attack on your government buildings by a remotely controlled truck and a ton of ANFO.

all the more reason to only infiltrate the highrollers... though I suppose section one's infiltrators could benefit from another, completely autonomous (and I repeat: infiltrators do not come in pairs) infiltrator capable of killing everyone in a 1-klik radius with ease... You may actually be onto something, though I feel I must reiterate: that's not section two's job. They are probably trying to get to the point where they can utilize cyborgs like that, though.

Fomoria wrote:I wasn't actually suggesting that the cyborg necessarily join; but being in a relationship or having a child can make you seem more normal than a young or middle aged guy with no attachments, at the very least it's a potential prop that allows you additional options.

depends on what your cover is. As a mercenary, you'd be expected to be single, and possibly a womanizer. As a sympathetic tycoon, there aren't many expectations, you can get away with being single, married, with children, without, with one foster child, et cetera. I really don't see it bringing more options to you. What sort of cover story are you thinking of for an agent?

Fomoria wrote:I was just trying to point out how silly the prospect of using assassinations for intimidating rich people actually is. I do know that Italy is different, but it is still a democracy, right?

if you want to get down to technical definitions, no. But then, neither is the United States. They're both Democratic Republics.
Here's a quick Wikipedia breakdown:

Wikipedia wrote:The 1948 Constitution of Italy established a bicameral parliament (Parlamento), consisting of a Chamber of Deputies (Camera dei Deputati) and a Senate (Senato della Repubblica), a separate judiciary, and an executive branch composed of a Council of Ministers (cabinet) (Consiglio dei ministri), headed by the prime minister (Presidente del consiglio dei ministri).

The President of the Italian Republic (Presidente della Repubblica) is elected for seven years by the parliament sitting jointly with a small number of regional delegates. The president nominates the prime minister, who proposes the other ministers (formally named by the president). The Council of Ministers must obtain a confidence vote from both houses of Parliament. Legislative bills may originate in either house and must be passed by a majority in both.

The houses of parliament are popularly and directly elected through a complex electoral system (latest amendment in 2005) which combines proportional representation with a majority prize for the largest coalition (Chamber). All Italian citizens older than 18 can vote. However, to vote for the senate, the voter must be at least 25 or older. The electoral system in the Senate is based upon regional representation. During the elections in 2006, the two competing coalitions were separated by few thousand votes, and in the Chamber the centre-left coalition (L'Unione; English: The Union) got 345 Deputies against 277 for the centre-right one (Casa delle Libertà; English: House of Freedoms), while in the Senate L'Unione got only two Senators more than absolute majority. The Chamber of Deputies has 630 members and the Senate 315 elected senators; in addition, the Senate includes former presidents and appointed senators for life (no more than five) by the President of the Republic according to special constitutional provisions. As of May 15, 2006 there are seven life senators (of which three are former Presidents). Both houses are elected for a maximum of five years, but both may be dissolved by the President before the expiration of their normal term if the Parliament is unable to elect a stable government. In the post war history, this has happened in 1972, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1994, 1996 and 2008.

A peculiarity of the Italian Parliament is the representation given to Italian citizens permanently living abroad (about 2.7 million people). Among the 630 Deputies and the 315 Senators there are respectively 12 and 6 elected in four distinct foreign constituencies. Those members of Parliament were elected for the first time in April 2006 and they have the same rights as members elected in Italy.

The Italian judicial system is based on Roman law modified by the Napoleonic code and later statutes. The Constitutional Court of Italy (Corte Costituzionale) rules on the conformity of laws with the Constitution and is a post—World War II innovation.

Almost closer to a facist republic, really (and so very similar to the USA's electoral college!). You can see in here how the Prime Minister has easily seized control of the nation's media.

Fomoria wrote:Murder has been used previously in all kinds of things, it still doesn't change the fact that when a government agency does it, supposedly in the name of justice, it will offend the population and that will draw large amounts of ire.
...
Also of note is that it doesn't matter if the public at large know of the specific agency; if they believe it was probably the government assassinating their own citizens in order to intimidate another of its citizens they are going to go berserk and be calling for blood and/or major body parts of those responsible.

the problem with your reasoning here is how do the people know with absolute certainty that it was a government agency, and to those who suspect, how are they supposed to know which one? The Social Welfare Agency did it? The one that helps out crippled and dying kids with experimental medical technology? Anyone spouting that kind of drivel on the street is simply gonna be labeled a crackpot.
I think one of the major problems you're having here is that you apply certain aspects of yourself to "normal people". As you said:

Fomoria wrote:I'm just a young guy who is far too interested (at least judging by the society I live in) in the way the world is run

Don't get me wrong, I applaud you. But really, are most people like you (or me) in that respect?
No.
Most people are perfectly content so long as they have a steady paycheck, enough money to afford a bit more than basic creature comforts (say, a house, a car, cable TV, a cell phone, and internet)... and beyond mutterings of "Damn, this is one fucked up world, look at how those kids on the street have to live.", they do nothing. Change is bad when you're comfortable.

Fomoria wrote:After all, if you really want to intimidate rich people, simply audit them and their close acquaintances; that'll at least communicate your displeasure with them.

the problem with that is that it can only be done through official channels. Meaning it's easily traceable. So now everyone knows the government is displeased with them, so they can now play the "Facist!" card. That will draw ire from the people. In today's society, it's one thing to kill an individual's family... but to bankrupt a corporation?! (thereby taking away the livelyhoods of some comfortable people) Oh, now that is just evil.

Fomoria wrote:Let me clarify my point; you can't attempt to intimidate public figures that are known to have disagreements with the existing order

... actually, it happens on occasion, to little public effect. Willfully ignorant zealots are a rarer breed than listlessly ignorant sheep.

Fomoria wrote:LoC, the exclamations relating to finding her attractive was a light hearted ad hominem. Just as the example involving the UK royal family was a bemused strawman; I know what I'm doing and how fallacious it is, but I do enjoy it so.

ah. understood. please forgive my brutish straightforwardness. I tend to take things at face value until they pan out differently.

Pino never get's enough love in this place, even his thread was turned into a half-political discussion on 2nd gens.

That's because Pino's part of the Republican Faction, defeated Triela in combat and caused her to doubt herself, murdered a young child just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.

also, much like Elsa, he's a tragic figure whose time is past. better to focus on those who are still living. My apologies, Angiegarde. I just realized that I unintentionally referenced another character there... that wound is still fresh, though.

LoC978 wrote:this is true to a point. However, the level of electronic surveillance the Italian government can employ is much more advanced than the stuff from 80s spy movies. Tiny spy cameras embedded in the pocket of a shirt, glasses, a ring, et cetera, that communicate sporadically in short bursts to the surveillance team are not beyond the realm of possibility. (apologies for the run-on sentence)

an arms race in which the Italian government has clearly outstripped the RF on every level.

this is where we're gonna continue to disagree. Especially on the short term bit. I'm talking about a matter of hours when I say short-term. It would go something like this: Get in (no easy task), ascertain the presence of the target, hang around for a bit to see if anything interesting is said, kill everyone present, go out for some gelato. That is short-term.

quite true. this is why infiltration of small terrorist cells is all but impossible. Those small cells are much like the government's field agents. They know little of why they do something. So, you infiltrate higher in the organization, where money speaks louder than words (or action, for that matter).

nah, none of that is mission failure, it's just failing to complete tertiary objectives. And noone ever said being a secret agent's dry cleaner was an easy job.

all the more reason to only infiltrate the highrollers... though I suppose section one's infiltrators could benefit from another, completely autonomous (and I repeat: infiltrators do not come in pairs) infiltrator capable of killing everyone in a 1-klik radius with ease... You may actually be onto something, though I feel I must reiterate: that's not section two's job. They are probably trying to get to the point where they can utilize cyborgs like that, though.

depends on what your cover is. As a mercenary, you'd be expected to be single, and possibly a womanizer. As a sympathetic tycoon, there aren't many expectations, you can get away with being single, married, with children, without, with one foster child, et cetera. I really don't see it bringing more options to you. What sort of cover story are you thinking of for an agent?

if you want to get down to technical definitions, no. But then, neither is the United States. They're both Democratic Republics.

the problem with your reasoning here is how do the people know with absolute certainty that it was a government agency, and to those who suspect, how are they supposed to know which one? The Social Welfare Agency did it? The one that helps out crippled and dying kids with experimental medical technology? Anyone spouting that kind of drivel on the street is simply gonna be labeled a crackpot.

I think one of the major problems you're having here is that you apply certain aspects of yourself to "normal people". As you said:

Fomoria wrote:I'm just a young guy who is far too interested (at least judging by the society I live in) in the way the world is run

Don't get me wrong, I applaud you. But really, are most people like you (or me) in that respect?
No.
Most people are perfectly content so long as they have a steady paycheck, enough money to afford a bit more than basic creature comforts (say, a house, a car, cable TV, a cell phone, and internet)... and beyond mutterings of "Damn, this is one fucked up world, look at how those kids on the street have to live.", they do nothing. Change is bad when you're comfortable.

the problem with that is that it can only be done through official channels. Meaning it's easily traceable. So now everyone knows the government is displeased with them, so they can now play the "Facist!" card. That will draw ire from the people. In today's society, it's one thing to kill an individual's family... but to bankrupt a corporation?! (thereby taking away the livelyhoods of some comfortable people) Oh, now that is just evil.

... actually, it happens on occasion, to little public effect. Willfully ignorant zealots are a rarer breed than listlessly ignorant sheep.

ah. understood. please forgive my brutish straightforwardness. I tend to take things at face value until they pan out differently.

You mention the gadgets that are in periodic burst communication with a base station. Uh, bad idea because someone would be able to identify their presence by just listening for them using pretty simple electronics (keyed to known usage frequencies). It's also possible to pat down for them; cameras are still big enough to detect this way. If any of the devices gets located then you've just signaled that you're attempting to hide something and their suspicions will come to the fore - they might not give you a chance to negotiate or bluff your way out and simply kill you and dump the body as best they can, since a police investigation has better prospects than being detected by counter-terrorist units. At worst they'll be annoyed and prevent you from getting where you want to. You can use these kinds of technology in situations in which you're not going to be frisked for whatever reason.

I do mainly agree with your assessment of short term infiltrations. I may have let my conceptions slip a little (but this is why I like arguments, it helps me reform my conceptions of the way things are). The fact that you're dealing with a mildly hostile and paranoid situation means that you have to avoid certain things that are likely to raise suspicions. What things will raise suspicions are going to change with every group you infiltrate, though. The safest way to avoid being detected is bring in nothing that will be likely to be detected by any but the most absolutely paranoid.

I do disagree with your assessment of terror cells; especially in a politcally motivated terror metagroup (I shall use this term because individual cells are really the group) which don't need controls from superiors because the political doctrine is shared across the entire metagroup and should guide the actions of the individual cells. Though there will be some respected representative they will not be in direct control because each cell will evaluate things according to the existing doctrine and determine whether they agree or disagree with what that representative says. The cells will know exactly why they do some individual attack, but won't know the strategy of the whole organisation (without control they'd revert to a base rate of activity, strategy is about varying their levels of activity to manipulate attack expectations).

Some kinds of cover can accomodate a second participant, some benefit from one and some require one. A break down in the mountains, for example, may benefit from having a second, more vulnerable, participant as a reason why you don't want to walk back to your car with the generous fellow who knows how to fix them. You can't pull off a fake medical emergency without a second person with you. A second participant can also distract and cover for you in social infiltrations (they're generally not ouright hostile to you and you can probably use their toilet without their suspicions becoming too great).

They have some kind of democratic elements, enough that a public outcry is likely to cause something to happen for the safety of the jobs of the popularly elected members of government. It is also important to note that the public need not know which agency or even ministry is responsible, and to a lot of the public suspicion is as good as proof (which is something you're overlooking). If enough believe that the killing was the result of a government attempt to intimidate someone then that alone is evidence enough for some and the outcry will prompt an internal investigation and subsequent presentation of a scapegoat or two (without revealing the truth necessarily) to appease the public's anger. The fact is that this anger need not be channeled towards an agency because there are benefits from appeasing the public sense of outrage by the semblance of provision of necessary justice - if only you call for an investigation into the source of the outcry then you can put it in your political campaign as representation of the publics whims (they like that kind of thing, gets you more votes).

Sometimes I wonder if I am too unwilling to credit the public with anything approaching sense and a reasonable nature, but then I look at the case where a group of Welshmen chased a paediatrician from his home believing him to be a child molester - paediatrician and paedophile are so very close in spelling, if I were a total moron I might get them confused as well.

To most people an audit is not a scary prospect and has the semblance of righteousness, after all they're just assessing what you earnt and owe to make sure you're not gaining any advantages over the common man - it's "just" and "right" and anyone disagreeing has to give a good reason to the public why it may not be so. For most of the rich, who make use of tax dodges and clever accounting practices that are not necessarily guaranteed to withstand the undivided attention of tax law specialists, this may be a big threat and, at worst, will make them spend money on a good accountant or five to get their things in order. You also do not go after their companies but after them personally, because their accounting is also a viable target - there are certainly a lot of things they will be spending their money on.

I make the kinds of light hearted comments in order to provoke useful and interesting reactions, people being straightforward was intended. They reveal the situation.

(Some of my previously used arguments and statements were wrong, I'd appreciate you overlooking them as I change my strategies in response to additional thought and information - I'm adapting them all the time)

As for why we've hijacked the discussion; nobody picked me up on playing devil's advocate with Pino and a good argument is entertaining.

Fomoria wrote:You mention the gadgets that are in periodic burst communication with a base station. Uh, bad idea because someone would be able to identify their presence by just listening for them using pretty simple electronics (keyed to known usage frequencies).

encryption, man. In wide usage and still takes forever (I'm talking months, and that's with the resources the NSA has) to crack. Also, you have to be able to sort it out of various civilian radio frequencies, because military commo uses the same range.

Fomoria wrote:It's also possible to pat down for them; cameras are still big enough to detect this way.
...
You can use these kinds of technology in situations in which you're not going to be frisked for whatever reason.

again, complete falsehood there. We can make 'em smaller, faster, more concealable (a lapel pin, earring, or button, for example). we have the technology. I'm completely serious about this, and I've physically held a spy camera that to all outward appearances was a button for a tuxedo jacket.

Fomoria wrote:If any of the devices gets located then you've just signaled that you're attempting to hide something and their suspicions will come to the fore - they might not give you a chance to negotiate or bluff your way out and simply kill you and dump the body as best they can, since a police investigation has better prospects than being detected by counter-terrorist units. At worst they'll be annoyed and prevent you from getting where you want to.

Even if that did come to pass, in the case of the SWA, a police investigation would be overruled by a cold, sharp-eyed blond man with very official documentation in his hands. Remember, they have the full support of a central government that hoards a lot of power.

Fomoria wrote:I may have let my conceptions slip a little (but this is why I like arguments, it helps me reform my conceptions of the way things are).

same here. you've helped me to fully think through things that I only had a general feeling about before.

Fomoria wrote:I do disagree with your assessment of terror cells; especially in a politcally motivated terror metagroup (I shall use this term because individual cells are really the group) which don't need controls from superiors because the political doctrine is shared across the entire metagroup and should guide the actions of the individual cells. Though there will be some respected representative they will not be in direct control because each cell will evaluate things according to the existing doctrine and determine whether they agree or disagree with what that representative says. The cells will know exactly why they do some individual attack, but won't know the strategy of the whole organisation (without control they'd revert to a base rate of activity, strategy is about varying their levels of activity to manipulate attack expectations).

you do have a point... but if a cell has a timeline laid out with multiple targets, simply killing everyone in a fast raid and then picking through their remains (as the SWA is wont to do) would most likely yield the same information as spying on them for a few weeks... but with less risk to their operatives.

Fomoria wrote:Some kinds of cover can accomodate a second participant, some benefit from one and some require one. A break down in the mountains, for example, may benefit from having a second, more vulnerable, participant as a reason why you don't want to walk back to your car with the generous fellow who knows how to fix them. You can't pull off a fake medical emergency without a second person with you. A second participant can also distract and cover for you in social infiltrations (they're generally not ouright hostile to you and you can probably use their toilet without their suspicions becoming too great).

plausible, but only in the short term. You're right, though. Both of those plans could easily work if you planned to kill everyone involved that night. I doubt they'd hold up for long with SWA girls (even 2nd, 3rd, et cetera stage cyborgs), they simply don't have the amount of training necessary to pull it off. That sorta bluffing takes years of study and practice to keep up for long. No amount of drugs and subconscious suggestion is going to replace that.

Fomoria wrote:They have some kind of democratic elements, enough that a public outcry is likely to cause something to happen for the safety of the jobs of the popularly elected members of government.

as I've said before (by outlining the reasons behind it), a public outcry over a few killings is highly unlikely. happens all the time, especially among politicians. Anyone who wants to raise the cry is just another of the myriad crackpot conspiracy theorists in the country.

Fomoria wrote:It is also important to note that the public need not know which agency or even ministry is responsible, and to a lot of the public suspicion is as good as proof (which is something you're overlooking).

no, I'm not. The point I've made is that the public outcry of which you speak won't happen unless a very publicly beloved figure is killed. Now, let's define publicly beloved: pop music stars, movie stars, radio personalities, et cetera. If you truly believe the general populace of Italy gives a damn about their political scene, just look at their pop culture. And then do the same with any other country. Most people want no part in politics.

Fomoria wrote:if only you call for an investigation into the source of the outcry then you can put it in your political campaign as representation of the publics whims (they like that kind of thing, gets you more votes).

actually, what gets you more votes is broad statements made on late-night TV while shaking hands with a beloved figure from the media.
...and don't forget, in Italy, the prime minister controls about half of the media in the country, including most of the news.

Fomoria wrote:To most people an audit is not a scary prospect and has the semblance of righteousness, after all they're just assessing what you earnt and owe to make sure you're not gaining any advantages over the common man - it's "just" and "right" and anyone disagreeing has to give a good reason to the public why it may not be so.

until the organization being audited calls the process 'biased' and 'unfair', making more broad statements about how they're being singled out without just cause... and most importantly, how many of their employees are going to be laid off as a result of the audit and subsequent restructuring. Oh yeah, then they'll throw in heartrending testimonies from comfortable yet hardworking people who are suddenly afraid of losing their jobs because the facist government wants to audit their employer. That one always gets a reaction.

Fomoria wrote:Sometimes I wonder if I am too unwilling to credit the public with anything approaching sense and a reasonable nature, but then I look at the case where a group of Welshmen chased a paediatrician from his home believing him to be a child molester - paediatrician and paedophile are so very close in spelling, if I were a total moron I might get them confused as well.

You seem to give 'em considerably more credit than I do. At least in terms of the desire not to be ignorant. Ignorance has been completely in vogue during the past decade or so.

Fomoria wrote:(Some of my previously used arguments and statements were wrong, I'd appreciate you overlooking them as I change my strategies in response to additional thought and information - I'm adapting them all the time)

no problem. some of my arguments haven't held the water I first thought they did either... although lately we've been getting into more concrete stuff.

Fomoria wrote:As for why we've hijacked the discussion; nobody picked me up on playing devil's advocate with Pino and a good argument is entertaining.

s'right. this topic woulda died without this argument.

LoC978 wrote:encryption, man. In wide usage and still takes forever (I'm talking months, and that's with the resources the NSA has) to crack. Also, you have to be able to sort it out of various civilian radio frequencies, because military commo uses the same range.

again, complete falsehood there. We can make 'em smaller, faster, more concealable (a lapel pin, earring, or button, for example). we have the technology. I'm completely serious about this, and I've physically held a spy camera that to all outward appearances was a button for a tuxedo jacket.

Even if that did come to pass, in the case of the SWA, a police investigation would be overruled by a cold, sharp-eyed blond man with very official documentation in his hands. Remember, they have the full support of a central government that hoards a lot of power.

you do have a point... but if a cell has a timeline laid out with multiple targets, simply killing everyone in a fast raid and then picking through their remains (as the SWA is wont to do) would most likely yield the same information as spying on them for a few weeks... but with less risk to their operatives.

plausible, but only in the short term. You're right, though. Both of those plans could easily work if you planned to kill everyone involved that night. I doubt they'd hold up for long with SWA girls (even 2nd, 3rd, et cetera stage cyborgs), they simply don't have the amount of training necessary to pull it off. That sorta bluffing takes years of study and practice to keep up for long. No amount of drugs and subconscious suggestion is going to replace that.

as I've said before (by outlining the reasons behind it), a public outcry over a few killings is highly unlikely. happens all the time, especially among politicians. Anyone who wants to raise the cry is just another of the myriad crackpot conspiracy theorists in the country.

no, I'm not. The point I've made is that the public outcry of which you speak won't happen unless a very publicly beloved figure is killed. Now, let's define publicly beloved: pop music stars, movie stars, radio personalities, et cetera. If you truly believe the general populace of Italy gives a damn about their political scene, just look at their pop culture. And then do the same with any other country. Most people want no part in politics.

actually, what gets you more votes is broad statements made on late-night TV while shaking hands with a beloved figure from the media.
...and don't forget, in Italy, the prime minister controls about half of the media in the country, including most of the news.

until the organization being audited calls the process 'biased' and 'unfair', making more broad statements about how they're being singled out without just cause... and most importantly, how many of their employees are going to be laid off as a result of the audit and subsequent restructuring. Oh yeah, then they'll throw in heartrending testimonies from comfortable yet hardworking people who are suddenly afraid of losing their jobs because the facist government wants to audit their employer. That one always gets a reaction.

You seem to give 'em considerably more credit than I do. At least in terms of the desire not to be ignorant. Ignorance has been completely in vogue during the past decade or so.

In order for the encrypted stream to be distinguishable from background noise, one must ensure that it is stronger than the background noise and therefore detectable quite easily. Now, you simply need to listen on known or suspected bug transmission bands for signals stronger than background noise, even if they're apparently random content.

The most basic level of traffic analysis; if there's something detectable passing through the comms medium then there's something attempting to communicate. More advanced traffic analysis can determine other things based on known protocols but that's not necessary in this case since we only want to detect their presence. The electronics is related to a radio detonator, so I don't think that they'll be amazingly rare.

Okay, so we can make them undetectable physically but the signals for communication have to be detectable or else they cannot be received. If the bugs make use of the bands of other pieces of equipment they'll need to interpolate multiple reference points to determine the signal source. You could hide one as an acceptable item to carry in everyday life that makes use of radio waves for communication, like a mobile phone. They can, however, still compare the traffic to something known traffic patterns for that kind of device. To be fair, they may ask to have those kinds of devices turned off and visible, depending on your pretense for meeting them - you might be able to get away with carrying one anyway if your pretense would contradict having one.

Aye, but agencies won't be able to justify that kind of power usage for any old possible target; one would have to be very sure that they're the right people and therefore they wouldn't need additional information on the group anyway. It is better, in many ways, to let the police take in a member or two and offer them a pleabargain that involves testifying against their fellows.

The point I was making was that the cells would be autonomous entities that make their own decisions about how best to achieve the long term objectives of their political doctrine in the current climate. They don't get given a list of people to kill, they decide that the world would approach their political doctrine faster with certain people removed from it. The role of strategy is the level of agitation that each sub-division of the country experiences, relating (somewhat tenuously) to the level of politically-inspired violence in that area.

I'll use an analogy; your body is comprised of billions of tiny individual organisms (terrorist cells) that don't directly co-operate and instead seek to achieve a limited objective according to the doctrine laid down to them in their active DNA (political doctrine, memetic makeup of the members). Nerves (locally active sympathetic political figureheads) perform the role of changing certain environmental factors that, in turn, invoke a reaction from particular cells (agitate extremist sentiment). Hormones affect cells more widely (national or global sympathetic political figureheads) and the uncontrolled environmental factors (CT activity, economics, hand of chance) may invoke differing responses depending on nervous agitation and hormonal effects. Your brain (strategic planners, should they exist) can still control your body remarkably well, without there being a need for one entity integrated into a single cell.

You're claiming, on the one hand, that people will ignore murder and pay intimate attention to the process of auditing the finances of an individual which will have little to no effect on them, on the other. I did not ever intend to say that it'd be the audit of a company and would inevitably crush it beneath the weight of a hostile bureaucracy. An audit is a pain, a bother, an inconvenience at best and is the best blatant way to indicate your displeasure; nobody is going to die for it unless they've been a really bad person (to the tune of putting them into large debt when tax is correctly assayed alongside fines) and also happen to own 75% of the shares of several large companies such that their rush to sell their assets will cause a economic slump as share prices fall through the floor by way of knock-on effects. Then, and only then, can people legitimately claim that people are going to lose jobs and die because of a financial audit.

If you happen to believe that they can raise so much ire over a mere audit, think of what a carefully worded front page article mourning the tragic loss of INSERT_SUBJECT_NAME_HERE, noted for his public disagreements with INSERT_RULING_PARTY_NAME_HERE, could do when it drops the hint from a few thousand feet onto the heads of the public that there might have been a motive on the part of the established order to kill the guy. The outrage may not be universal, but there'll be a number of people who will protest and complain, and appeasing them is better for all political parties because that way there won't be any protestors bursting into aforementioned TV appearances to publicise their cause.

Ignorance has never not been in vogue, there is just a greater emphasis on members of the largest sample of the population (generally they're quite ignorant, though less so now than any time previously in history) because they're who you can sell the most to and they like to know about people similar to themselves.

I like Pino. But don't get it wrong; I like Triela too.

He has a terrific life after all, and as you guys said, he's the mirror of the girls.

It all started from the 1st volume when I saw Rico with that-hotel-boy and I'd like to see more Cyborg's interaction with boy.

And then Pino came!

Yeah, he's the bad guy, but, come on, his life is saved by Cristiano and I think he was trying to pay it back. He has a heart at least.

Overall, I like Pino as someone who've been hurts; he just trying to stand what he believes. And sadly he's dead.

Nice fight!

Until Hillshire steps up and saw her...

Hillshire: TRIELA!!
Triela: Who!? (kidnapped)
Hillshire: I MUST TAKE YOU TO THE AGENCY!!
Triela: W-WHAT?? YOU GOT THE WRONG PERSON!!
Hilshire: NO! I SAW YOU IN MY VISION! YOU'RE MY OPERATIVE!!
Triela: HUH????
Hilshire: I AM A HANDLER!!! I PICKED A GIRL!! I PICKED A GIRL!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
Triela: HELP!! A PEDO KIDNAPPED ME!!!!!!!

Don't do that to the one adult in the series I actually have any empathy for...

With the 2nd Gen, it looks like they are doing a trade off. The 2nd Gen is not as tough as the 1st Gen, but they last longer (training and experience count for a lot), and more socially adjusted (less likely to fly off the handle like Elsa or like Henrietta at the very begining).

Also, they went with the young girls because they were more easy to cybernetically upgrade and brainwash. With the advancement of technology, they can now apply this to older girls, as well as fine tune the conditioning so that it is less destructive.

Let us not alos forget the biggest difference between the two: the 1st gen are loyal to their fratello above all; the 2nd gen are loyal to the organization above all.

Personally, I found Pino to be kind of intriguing, although I was otherwise indifferent to him... perhaps until he died. I think in terms of being a bit of a plot device, I think he was nicely placed to show that, once again, these girls aren't invincible - Triela was injured and it wasn't because she had been trying to hurting herself. A human completely tore her up, which essentially gave Pino a bit more time to be developed as a character, especially in terms of his naivety (which may or may not turn out to be the right word), and also for Triela to face her fears of inadequacy. Of course, this also meant that Triela's victory (almost at the expense of her life) and Pino's death were made a little more poignant. In the end... I think I was a little sad to see him go - but he served his purpose, in bringing out a very emotional response from Triela.