The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Murphy in Peace Talks (WoJ spoilers)
Arjan:
--- Quote from: peregrine on August 31, 2017, 12:26:28 AM ---Because he was lying.
--- End quote ---
When Nicodemus has a good motive to lie he will do so. It is in his nature, it is what he does. He even lies when it is against his interest for example when he stated his goals to Harry. Lies and betrayal are what they do, they can't help it. It is their nature.
He may add some truths to make it believable but you can safely assume his essential message is a lie. Especially if he has good motives for it and here he can achieve several goals by lying.
Never use Nicodemus statements as proof for anything except maybe the opposite of what he is saying.
jonas:
--- Quote from: Arjan on August 31, 2017, 05:51:48 AM ---When Nicodemus has a good motive to lie he will do so. It is in his nature, it is what he does. He even lies when it is against his interest for example when he stated his goals to Harry. Lies and betrayal are what they do, they can't help it. It is their nature.
He may add some truths to make it believable but you can safely assume his essential message is a lie. Especially if he has good motives for it and here he can achieve several goals by lying.
Never use Nicodemus statements as proof for anything except maybe the opposite of what he is saying.
--- End quote ---
I have trouble thinking of anytime that it's shown Nic has outright willfully lied about something. He tends to play it like the fae in that regard, he knows the game well at hand.
huangjimmy108:
--- Quote from: DonBugen on August 30, 2017, 01:47:51 PM ---OK, first thing – Mira, some of the things you said weren’t true. Harry is under Nick’s command as he is commanded by Mab to offer Nick what aid he requires. Second, him moving Butters into Michael’s yard is in no way similar to him killing Butters; Nicodemus states that Butters must die because he’s a threat to their operations: not only does he know too much, but he’s affiliated with Marcone, their target. Moving him to the yard does nothing to resolve this situation.
You say potato, I say po-tah-to. Sure, I’ll agree to that. They mean the same.
Nope. I lawyer myself with the mere excuse that “Harry Forzare-ing Butters does not in itself signify a refusal to kill him.” This puts him out of Nicodemus’ reach, but still perfectly killable by Dresden. Now, if Nick’s last command was “Stand aside so I can end him for you,” then he would be defying Nicodemus.
Nope. She merely has to point out that he neither disobeyed a direct command nor offered him violence.
The unseelie accords are excellent examples. As a guide for etiquette between powers written by Mab herself, it gives us an excellent view into her interpretation of treachery and underhandedness. Similar to her laws at Harry’s party, adhering to the letter of the law is what is important, not the spirit of the law. And it is not an insult to her character to use this; as it is her law, it is evidence.
Yes! Absolutely. This is exactly my point. Mab didn’t swoop in and kill Harry and the Redcap before the end of the fight, just because it was probable that blood would be shed; she stepped in when the deed was done. And at this point, Harry has not yet disobeyed Nick.
Yup! Thank you for arguing my point.
Crossing Michael’s fence does not determine beyond a doubt that he won’t die. It only determines that Nicodemus won’t be holding the axe that does it. You are correct, though, that there is a time limit; I was mistaken to say that Harry could come back years later. Nick states that the reason for ending Butters is due to the danger he poses from the operation and his connection with Marcone; one would assume that as soon as Butters is away from the conflict and in a position to contact others, he would be out of play and Harry’s opportunity to follow Nicodemus’ commands would be over.
So he’s not disobeyed just yet. Until Butters gets up and runs into the house, Harry (or, I suppose, Murphy) could still shoot him. They’re both mortals and wouldn’t be affected by the angelic protection.
Um, yes. Absolutely. She is Mab, not some sort of mortal ruler that will be so completely disrespected by that. Her Knight disobey her law, thumb his nose at it as if he was somehow an equal to him? She would visit such horrors on him that he could not comprehend, and when he died, she would find a knight that would actually follow orders. Maybe Thomas.
I mean, come on. Mab’s already made it clear that she will not tolerate a knight in rebellion. Santa Claus warns Harry of the same exact thing – don’t disrespect her in front of others. Besides, Sarissa’s pretty clear that Harry needs to follow these laws on pain of death.
And onto the last one…
No – the breaking of Fidelacchius is not some sort of offering in order to cover a debt that Harry incurred to Nicodemus. It doesn’t work like that. The truce between them is in effect until such time as Harry helps Nicodemus remove the contents of a vault. Once broken, it’s broken. Besides, Nick earned that breaking of the sword by his actions; he worked his butt off to get it. It was no offering given as recompense.
--- End quote ---
If Butters did indeed die, this argument of yours would at least carry some plausibility. But Butters did not die, and supposedly he won't die, at least not in the context of the heist. In this case, Harry already broke the deal even before Nick order an attack inside Hades's vault. It is stupid to believe that the time limit can be stretch so far.
And I repeat. Harry, Murphy, Michael and Butters absolutely believed that Nick can and would kill them. It is clear in their words and actions. Harry even specifically mention the word "Quid pro quo" in his innor monolog.
At the end of the day, all of this are mere interpretations and the book held the final answer. Sure, you can interprete as much as you like, you can even say that this is all something Mab and Nicodemous constructed in a long game to trick Harry. With the limited first person PoV, such speculation are still possible even though the probability is near zero.
The only text support for this interpretation of yours is Nick's word about not really wanting to kill Harry, something that Nick himself compare with Harry's sincerity in trying to kill Butters. He might as well confess wanting to kill Harry with that comparison. Even if we discount that mocking comparison Nick made, with Nick's status as a denarian scum with no honor, his word's value can be weigh in shit.
In order for this interpretation of yours to be true, we have to ignore text evidence from 4 high intelligent and credible main characters, all of them pointed to the fact that Nick can and would kill Harry, in favor of a single sentence from a villain character with the worse reputation possible.
It is sheer Lunacy.
Mira:
--- Quote from: jonas on August 31, 2017, 06:44:29 AM ---I have trouble thinking of anytime that it's shown Nic has outright willfully lied about something. He tends to play it like the fae in that regard, he knows the game well at han
--- End quote ---
And he didn't lie, he was gloating because his plan worked so very well..
--- Quote ---And I repeat. Harry, Murphy, Michael and Butters absolutely believed that Nick can and would kill them. It is clear in their words and actions. Harry even specifically mention the word "Quid pro quo" in his innor monolog.
--- End quote ---
Which is why it was a perfect ruse.... A ruse is only as good as the belief of those upon whom it is pulled on..
--- Quote ---In order for this interpretation of yours to be true, we have to ignore text evidence from 4 high intelligent and credible main characters, all of them pointed to the fact that Nick can and would kill Harry, in favor of a single sentence from a villain character with the worse reputation possible.
--- End quote ---
We all know that Nic and and will try to kill Harry, no one is doubting that.. But at that particular moment, killing him wouldn't have served Nic's purpose... It was a ruse, a very successful ruse because all four of your main characters believed it.
When Harry says it was a quid pro quo action, it is how he believes Mab will see the events... Actions and reactions matched each other, neither he nor Nic got hurt... No agreement broken...
Nic ordered Butters killed.... Harry didn't do it.. Agreement broken? Apparently not
Nic orders Harry killed... Should of been done in an instant, no running attack from Murphy would really stop that.. Broken agreement? No, Harry is still alive...
Harry complains that Nic attacked Murphy... He points out he didn't guarantee her safety and she attacked first.. He says he is being reasonable, Harry agrees from Mab's point of view, he was...
As to time limits to the order to kill Butters... Since the whole thing was under the umbrella of double crossing vengeance set up by Mab and Marcone with the help of others upon Nic... It is doubtful that Nic's orders to Harry to kill Butters really extend beyond that moment..
Arjan:
--- Quote from: jonas on August 31, 2017, 06:44:29 AM ---I have trouble thinking of anytime that it's shown Nic has outright willfully lied about something. He tends to play it like the fae in that regard, he knows the game well at hand.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---“First,” I said, “Nicodemus is after something powerful. I don’t know what it is, but I do know that if I can get him to tell us what he’s after, it’s going to be a lie. He’d never let anyone know his true goal if he could help it.”
“I concur,” Kringle said.
--- End quote ---
Not only is Nicodemus a liar, Harry's strategy is based on it and Kringle agrees. Mark that if Nicodemus had not lied he would have had his favorite artifact and not the grail. Nicodemus lies even if it works against him.
The same in small favor. Harry's strategy is based on Nicodemus breaking the truce because denarians will always break their word, will always lie.
So in a situation where Nicodemus has something to gain and is difficult to check he will tell anything that suits him and his words can not be used to prove anything.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version