Hoo boy. A Mod was just provoked to use the red text. I feel… slightly queasy.
Gotcha, Blaze. If I’m crossing a line here, please let me know.
If it is so easy to catch a devil in a lie, the devil won't be the devil, unless you are TWG.
The fact that it is so hard to prove the lie is testament to Nick's skill, not his credibility.
How do I know? Because WoJ say that Nick is Michael nemesis in character.
We has to start with assuming that Nick is lying and go from there, not the other way around.
Being Michael’s nemesis does not imply that every word he says is a lie, unless proven otherwise. Which, logically, I and others have given ample evidence for. I don’t think that a single person is arguing in favor of Nicodemus’ credibility.
cred·i·bil·i·ty
ˌkredəˈbilədē/
noun
The quality of being trusted and believed in.
No one is believing Nicodemus on his own merits, but from the evidence of the scene. I would like to request that statements like “I cannot believe that we are arguing about Nicodemus’ credibility” would stop being made, as it is a back-door ad hominem argument. Stating “Nicodemus is not a credible person” is a good method of debate. Stating “It is inconceivable to me that someone would put efford to argue in favor of Nicodemous's credibility” attacks the people you debate with.
--
Here's the thing about Mab, though -- she doesn't want a Knight she has to keep tabs on and micromanage. Hell, that was Harry's threat -- that he'd become someone Mab had to micromanage. She seems to have picked Harry because of his ability to operate on his own and surprise her -- keeping a constant eye on him seems to go against that.
So yes, it's possible that Mab is watching everything. I don't think it likely, and I don't think it matters, because...
What Dresden threatens Mab with is not that she would have to keep an eye on him. What he threatens is that he'll have no initiative, no drive, come up with no creative solutions and basically just follow her commands literally. In this case, Mab would have to give Harry
continual commands and basically direct Harry in his actions.
"I'll do it. I'll follow your command. And I will do nothing else. I'll make every task you command one you personally oversee. I'll have the initiative of a garden statue."
...
"I think you don't have the time or energy to spare to fight your own knight anymore. I think you need me, or you wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of keeping me alive for this long, of taxing your strength this much to get it done."
Dresden's threats are related to his lack of initiation. And he doesn't say "I don't think you have the time to
watch your knight," it's "I don't think you have the time to
fight your knight."
Mab keeping an eye on the situation, or tasking one of her spies to do it, is far less taxing than if she's trying to be the brains behind the operation. And she doesn't trust Nicodemus at all - so why wouldn't she make sure that she was ensuring that her honor was never put in jeopardy? Especially when both Harry and Nicodemus acknowledge that the vault does blind Mab, changing the game?
--
I'm going to jump over to huangjimmy's argument, because both of yours are so close together it makes sense to put them together.
The order is not "Secure the mortal doctor". THe order is "End him". THe question is did Butters die or not. And don't mention it is not yet certain, because it is certain. Once Butters pass the fence into Michael's home, it is over and finalize If at that point Butters did not die, it means Harry has fail.
I
will mention that it is not certain at this point, because Michael's house does not protect a person from mortal attack. If evidence is given that Harry could
not have pulled out a gun and shot Butters in the head, then we'll talk. But the only argument against this is the argument of intent.
And yes, the Genoskwa
did incapacitate Harry a half second later. However, I don't think that Harry can be found at fault because one of Nicodemus' henchmen stopped him from fulfilling the task.
Butters was out of play for Gen and Nick, but Nick's command meant that Gen and Nick wouldn't be the one to end him, anyways.
It is the same as Harry coming back to Chicago from demonreach island after he make a deal with eldest gruf in book 10. Once Harry step into Chicago, the game is ended and Eldest gruf fail the job. There is no uncertainty about it. Harry is task to end Butters and he fail, breaking Mab's given word in the process.
If there is no uncertainty for it, please provide what evidence
this arbitrary line provides other than the more literal line of Butters literally escaping death. When Butters crosses the fence, it does not protect him in any way from the one person who is commanded to kill him. It just protects him from the monsters making the commandment.
Please note, I am not arguing that there is not a line; just that you are drawing it prematurely.
--
Do you really think Mab is going to argue that the Winter Knight that she picked personally, who she pursued for near a decade, and who she proclaimed as hers to all of Faerie... is an incompetent incapable of killing a defenseless, fragile mortal like Butters?
It's no secret that Mab believes that Harry's actions are strange, inept, and downright odd. She chastised Harry for squeamishness for not outright killing one of Nicodemus' goons when they all first met. Harry's made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want to kill mortals. And besides, Mab knows how to play the game.
If Nicodemus was so unwise as to have Harry killed at this point, I think that Mab could easily have sidestepped this issue, by referencing the above points and also mentioning that Nicodemus' gorilla attacked Harry almost immediately, completely stopping him from continuing his assault. All she really has to do, in fact, is just point to the literal facts of the situation. But I honestly don't think it would come to this. Again, seems to be putting far too much chance on such an important operation, and Nicodemus has never shown himself to take stupid risks.
--
If intent does not matter, Butters will have to die before the equation is balance. The final result matters, no excuses. Nick can't kill Harry, but Harry has to end Butters by all cost.
Balance is what drives the fae, and no, just because Mab's perception that matters, she can't just twist things and argue her way out of everything. There is a law governing this. If she is not bound, nobody in their right mind would want to make deals with her. She can twist everything and thereby no credibility. Do you think Mab is a freaking dishonorable Denarians?
First, I never said a thing about Mab twisting things around. But the books make it clear that Faeries twist around the truth all the time to make things
seem one way when telling the truth. Note, Lea making a deal with Teen Harry that she will give him power, when all she does is torture him a bit. Or her aid of Harry in the graveyard in Grave Peril, only for the answer to have just been running water.
What I am talking about is not a crazy distortion of the truth. In fact, it is nothing but saying the clear truth. It literally boils down to this:
"So you ordered my knight to kill the mortal, and then you killed him after his first blow."
"He moved the doctor across the fence! It's right there! There's guardian angels and stuff."
"And this fence would protect the mortal from my Knight?"
"Well, no. Not in the slightest. But it means that Dresden didn't intend to kill him after all."
"So you say. And so you killed my Knight after he let the mortal go free?"
"Well, not quite after. More like before. My mutant Bigfoot started smacking him around at that point, so he really couldn't do anything one way or another."
--
Again I mention this. If Butters truly die, this "Intent" argument of yours will be more plausible. But since Butters did not die, this excuse is not applicable.
I do not understand this argument. So, if Harry doesn't intend to kill Butters, but somehow kills Butters, then the argument that he didn't intend to kill Butters has more weight to defend why he
didn't kill Butters even though he did kill Butters? I have a feeling that this is not what you are trying to state, but I just can't figure out what you are arguing.
My argument was "Nick killing Harry at this point is premature, because Harry would still have the opportunity to kill Butters had the Genoskwa not attacked." Butters' death would make my statement nonsensical.
As for Nick gloating. Well, he is human in the end. He has just succeeded in destroying one of the holy sword. It is only reasonable that he'll take some time to celebrate. Capable as Nick is, there is still some limit. He is not perfect. Like I said, even Mab, the absolute Queen, has her emotional moments, like not killing Maeve with her own hands for example. If even Mab can show some emotional response, so does Nick. It is an understandable lapse of judgement on Nick's part. a small lapse at that, and would not have mattered at all if not for Michael and Uriel's intervention.
I have no problem with Nicodemus going into gloat-mode, like every evil overlord shouldn't. My stated argument was that if the Genoskwa was refraining from killing Harry because he somehow saw that Nicodemus' command would put his leader's life in jeopardy, as was argued, then he has nothing holding him back after the sword is broken. "He was waiting because Nicodemus was gloating" doesn't make sense. Has the Genoskwa ever shown that he cares about gloating, or one-upmanship? Or has he just been about brutal violence and killing?
Again, my question remains: Why would the Genoskwa refrain from killing Harry, when ordered to? If he wasn't given previous orders to not kill Harry, then why just stand around holding his head.
Again, I state: This is the evidence that Nicodemus' actions at this point were to draw Harry and Murphy into breaking Mab's agreement, rather than just trying to kill them outright. Every item here I've provided evidence for, so I'm just going to list them one by one.
1. When Harry asserts that ordering his goon to kill him would be breaking his contract with Mab, Nicodemus agrees.
2. When ordered to kill Harry, the Genoskwa just holds his head and squeezes for about five minutes, though his expressed inclination would be to kill him.
3. Harry does not fail to kill Butters; he strikes his first blow and is viciously attacked and restrained. This is the objective truth.
4. Butters is still on the field of battle and is vulnerable to attacks from half of the members of Nicodemus' team.
5. This heist is of grave importance to Nicodemus' long-term goals, and it is not in Nicodemus' best interest to kill Harry if there is any ambiguity as to whether or not he has broken the truce.
6. The exchange in front of Michael's house has been, from the start, Nicodemus trying to trap Harry into breaking the deal. It is not unreasonable to consider whether this is a continuation of that trap.
Because of these reasons, I believe that when Nicodemus claimed that it was a ruse, he was not lying; he was revealing a played hand to Harry to refute his claim.
