Fyraltari watches The Clone Wars (2008) for the first time

[Keltest]

Defining corruption as being based on illegality inherently precludes the top officials in an autocracy who make the laws from being corrupt though, since they can just make things legal and boom, now its not corrupt even though its transparently exploiting the government for their own benefit.

[hamishspence]

Is still before the Empire.

Corruption doesn't go away just because of a name change. Palpatine and Tarkin were corrupt Republic officials - when the government received a change, they became corrupt Imperial officials - Emperor and Governor - abusing their power for their own gratification.

[dancrilis]

Defining corruption as being based on illegality inherently precludes the top officials in an autocracy who make the laws from being corrupt though, since they can just make things legal and boom, now its not corrupt even though its transparently exploiting the government for their own benefit.

This is correct.

Corruption doesn't go away just because of a name change. Palpatine and Tarkin were corrupt Republic officials - when the government received a change, they became corrupt Imperial officials - Emperor and Governor - abusing their power for their own gratification.

Princess Leia was a corrupt Imperial Senator who used her office to try and undermine the Empire she was in theory supposed to be serving (and her corruption may very well have led to the deaths of the individuals she was supposed to be serving) - but she was not (as far as I am aware) a corrupt representative of the New Republic.

[Keltest]

This is correct.



Princess Leia was a corrupt Imperial Senator who used her office to try and undermine the Empire she was in theory supposed to be serving (and her corruption may very well have led to the deaths of the individuals she was supposed to be serving) - but she was not (as far as I am aware) a corrupt representative of the New Republic.

Well, in short, I dont believe your definition of corruption is correct. It has nothing to do with the legality of one's actions, but rather the abuse of power. Leia was working to protect the interests of the people she governed. Palpatine and Tarquin were looking to take advantage of and misrule the people they governed. Hence they are corrupt and Leia is not.

[Peelee]

This is correct.

This is a terrible definition of corruption that only seeks to see what is legal rather than what is moral.

[Jasdoif]

Defining corruption as being based on illegality inherently precludes the top officials in an autocracy who make the laws from being corrupt though, since they can just make things legal and boom, now its not corrupt even though its transparently exploiting the government for their own benefit.

You'd have to go beyond "transparently" to "explicitly" for that to stop being corruption....Of course that assumes we're only talking about political corruption, and not considering ethical corruption.

---

EDIT: Almost forgot!

Next up: Secret Weapons. The Separatist just never learn, do they?

I just want to say "Good luck, we're all counting on you."

Not a fan of the next few episodes, but once you pass The Point of No Return, you're golden until the end.

Oh, great.

That arc was certainly the weakest of the season, but the episodes weren't that bad...okay Secret Weapons itself was; but the A Sunny Day in the Void and Missing in Action were surprisingly good. (Point of No Return starts declining in quality as the episode goes on, if I recall correctly....)

[dancrilis]

This is a terrible definition of corruption that only seeks to see what is legal rather than what is moral.

Being morally corrupt is difficult to quantify (being corrupt in the workplace can also be difficult to quantify, but I would say much easier) - if you move matters to moral corruption then anyone can do anything and whether they are corrupt or not would be in the eyes of the beholder.

An enforcer of the state taking a sack of cash and looking the other way letting a criminal go would in my mind be corruption (in most cases - perhaps the system allows them to do so in which case not corrupt).
An enforcer of the state looking the other way and let a criminal because the criminal is a family member would in my mind be corruption (in most cases - perhaps the system allows them to do so in which case not corrupt).

Both or either of those might be moral, immoral or amoral subject to other circumstances.

[Peelee]

Being morally corrupt is difficult to quantify

No, it's pretty easy. Abusing your power for personal gain. Bam, done. Quantified. Supreme Chancellor Palatine declares himself emperor? Abused his power for personal gain. Sober Bob at a frat party takes advantage of drunk Betty? Abused his power for personal gain.

Pretty cut and dry there. And hey, no need to worry about whether something is legal or illegal, cause it doesn't matter! Handy!

[dancrilis]

No, it's pretty easy. Abusing your power for personal gain. Bam, done. Quantified. Supreme Chancellor Palatine declares himself emperor? Abused his power for personal gain.

If he had then ran a good empire without cruelty, war or want would you still brand him as corrupt for toppling the previous corrupt system?

He would still have gained either way.

Also can you give a difference between 'abusing your power for personal gain' and 'utilising your power for personal gain'.

[Peelee]

If he had then ran a good empire without cruelty, war or want would you still brand him as corrupt for toppling the previous corrupt system?

Doesn't sound like that would be abusing his power. As is, he created planet-destroying mobile starbases to solidify his power, dissolved the Imperial Senate to solidify his power, had a personal assistant outside of both the legal system, political system, and military system able to command people in all of those to attend to his personal tasks and solidify his power, etc etc.

Yes, I defer to your assertion that if things were different, they wouldn't be the same, but I fail to see how that has any relevance whatsoever to the actual topic and am singularly disinterested in playing the "what if" game with you.

[Keltest]

If he had then ran a good empire without cruelty, war or want would you still brand him as corrupt for toppling the previous corrupt system?

He would still have gained either way.

Also can you give a difference between 'abusing your power for personal gain' and 'utilising your power for personal gain'.

Probably. He instigated a galaxy-wide war specifically to put himself in power, played both sides against the middle and betrayed everybody on all sides to their detriment. His prior actions dont go away just because he happens to be a good administrator.

[dancrilis]

Doesn't sound like that would be abusing his power.

So because you equate moral corruption with abuse therefore not corrupt.

Probably. He instigated a galaxy-wide war specifically to put himself in power, played both sides against the middle and betrayed everybody on all sides to their detriment. His prior actions dont go away just because he happens to be a good administrator.

So because you equate moral corruption differently therefore corrupt.

------------

As such I default back to my earlier take: If you move matters to moral corruption then anyone can do anything and whether they are corrupt or not would be in the eyes of the beholder.

[Jasdoif]

Also can you give a difference between 'abusing your power for personal gain' and 'utilising your power for personal gain'.

Utilizing your power for personal gain: Agreeing to let a committee of senators vote to determine how to allocate a military budget, with a stipulation that a minimum percentage be assigned to your personal honor guard.

Abusing your power for personal gain: Removing individual senators from said committee who support proposals with assignment to your personal honor guard less than the maximum amongst the proposals, by means unrelated to the senatorial proceedings.

[Peelee]

So because you equate moral corruption with abuse therefore not corrupt.

Define it however you want, dude, I'm not going to agree.

[dancrilis]

Define it however you want, dude, I'm not going to agree.

I am just using your defination:

Being morally corrupt is difficult to quantify

No, it's pretty easy. Abusing your power for personal gain. Bam, done.

[Keltest]

I am just using your defination:

I'm going to be frank, I literally cannot understand what point youre trying to make. Your sentences did not make any sense.

[Fyraltari]

EDIT: Almost forgot!

That arc was certainly the weakest of the season, but the episodes weren't that bad...okay Secret Weapons itself was; but the A Sunny Day in the Void and Missing in Action were surprisingly good. (Point of No Return starts declining in quality as the episode goes on, if I recall correctly....)

Well, that's good to hear because that episode gave off big Season One energy.

If he had then ran a good empire without cruelty, war or want would you still brand him as corrupt for toppling the previous corrupt system?

Yes, I would. "Fixing" a corrupt system by removing checks and balances to your personal authority doesn't fix jack. An autocratic pyramid like the Empire cannot work as it pushes its constituent to lie and compete with each other by any mean possible. Decay is inevitable regardless of the person at the top (it's just slower of they're trying to be a good and just ruler). The whole set-up is inherently oppressive and exploitative.

The only way this theoretical Palpatine isn't corrupt is if he'd used his coup d'état as an emergency measure and transistionned to a better system than the Old Republic, more democratic, with more checks on personnal powers of office and less power to megacorporations and crime syndicate. If he'd used his power in service of the common good and then made himself accountable again or left politics, Cincinnatus-style, then he wouldn't have been corrupt but a revolutionnary.

Like Leia.

[dancrilis]

I'm going to be frank, I literally cannot understand what point youre trying to make. Your sentences did not make any sense.

Essentially Peelee decided to being a moral element into a discussion on corruption (which at the time I viewed as relating to misuse of office in a legal context), I said that moral elements were difficult to nail down, they disagreed and indicated it was simple and gave a defination, I asked a question on this simplicity and Peelee and yourself answered it differently - one indicating that it did not seem to be corruption and one indicating that it seemed to be corruption.

This I took to prove my point relating to moral elements being difficult to nail down.

Peelee then indicated that the defination that I applied to them was my defination - and I clarified that it was their defination.

Or such is my view of the above number of post.


Frankly I find conversation on moral corruption to be largely meaningless as people can define things very differently - so I am very unsure is to if there is any actual point to be made here other then that speaking on moral corruption is unlikely to be productive.

If I have you both correct you hold that systems can be inherently corrupt (meaning opposed to what you hold to be good) and that those who are at the top of corrupt systems are therefore corrupt by defination where those who undermine them are not, and as you hold The Empire as a corrupt system you hold Palpatine as corrupt and Leia is not - that is reading a lot between the lines and I could be reading you both very wrong.

I would hold that systems are merely systems and while they may be brutal and horrific they cannot be inherently corrupt, that requires someone to be co-opting them (i.e corrupting them) and as such Palpatine is not corrupt where Leia is - in the context of the Empire.

[Peelee]

I disagreed with you because I could not understand what you were saying and thought you were basing my calls on your definition. Also, I misspoke in response to your hypothetical. I dismissed it as a worthless thought exercise I had no desire to engage in, but if you want an answer with any amount of thought I out into it, then yeah, it's still corrupt because he engineered a war that killed untold numbers of people solely to make a power grab, which is flagrantly an abuse of the power he had.

If you choose to not see it that way, feel free, but that only exemplifies why I do not think there is meaningful discussion to be had and why I choose to disengage when you play the "what if" game. I do not care about how it would be if Palps had been born in a black hole and lived on candy and rainbows and got an empire handed to him by a space unicorn and enacted a law of "be excellent to each other" because that's not what happened in the story. In the story, he was blatantly corrupt, and I do not give two whits about whether it was "legal".

[Aeson]

I would add that, even were it the case that Palpatine had taken power in some entirely legal, bloodless, and morally-impeccable way and then ruled the galaxy fairly and ably for the betterment of the people, he would still, as the architect of the 'new' system, bear a large degree of responsibility for what comes after him - and that system has quite a bit riding on the character, ability, and interest of the person at the top, with no apparent safeguards to fall back on should that person be corrupt, incompetent, disinterested, or even merely a poor judge of character, any one of which could more or less instantly erase whatever good our hypothetical Good King Palpatine may have done by usurping the Republic.

Also, coups set a rather dangerous precedent - sure, Good King Palpatine might be a well-intentioned and highly-competent politician who just wants to reform the system and make things better for everyone in the galaxy, but if Good King Palpatine stages a coup and succeeds (or possibly even if he fails) then the lesson that many other, likely less scrupulous, characters would draw from that is that coups work, or at least have a reasonable shot at success, and there's no guarantee that their coups, successful or not, and the state's reaction to them will be even remotely beneficial for the body politic. Some doors are very hard to close once they're open and as such should probably remain shut unless there is a very, very good reason to pass through them.

[Mechalich]

If you choose to not see it that way, feel free, but that only exemplifies why I do not think there is meaningful discussion to be had and why I choose to disengage when you play the "what if" game. I do not care about how it would be if Palps had been born in a black hole and lived on candy and rainbows and got an empire handed to him by a space unicorn and enacted a law of "be excellent to each other" because that's not what happened in the story. In the story, he was blatantly corrupt, and I do not give two whits about whether it was "legal".

The nominal legality of Palpatine's overthrow of the Republic is important because it establishes that Palpatine is not solely responsible for that fall. He had a supermajority of support in the Senate, in the Courts, in the Military, and even in public opinion, and while some of that was due to nefarious behind-the-scenes scheming a lot of it was pure democratic politics. Palpatine was the villain, yes, but the Republic failed. These are not mutually exclusive. The line: "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." is exceedingly important to the overall framework of the Prequels and the Clone Wars.

I would add that, even were it the case that Palpatine had taken power in some entirely legal, bloodless, and morally-impeccable way and then ruled the galaxy fairly and ably for the betterment of the people, he would still, as the architect of the 'new' system, bear a large degree of responsibility for what comes after him - and that system has quite a bit riding on the character, ability, and interest of the person at the top, with no apparent safeguards to fall back on should that person be corrupt, incompetent, disinterested, or even merely a poor judge of character, any one of which could more or less instantly erase whatever good our hypothetical Good King Palpatine may have done by usurping the Republic.

Autocracy, compared to democracy, is both a more powerful form of government and significantly more efficient in deploying said power. The counterpoint is that it is extremely high risk and, as you note, tends to be unstable over the long term (though in a fantasy scenario we do have to consider the possibility of nigh-immortal god-kings).

The Old Republic was too weak to effectively govern the galaxy, the Empire far too strong (coup attempts did happen, and the imperial war machine relied on an unsustainable tax burden to function, plus other problems). Exactly what sort of system would work is unknown. Legends spent the later half of its existence pondering the issue, but the need to constantly imperil the galaxy prevented them from putting forward a competent government of any kind. Disney reinstated the Old Republic only to have it collapse on itself immediately.

How do you run something this big? Is a central question of Star Wars and it is probably - possibly deliberately, the franchise is built around warfare after all - unanswerable.

[Peelee]

The nominal legality of Palpatine's overthrow of the Republic is

Irrelevant, because again, I do not consider "legality" to be a metric in determining corruption. You may. You are free to. I will not accept this and will not engage with it because I think it is a poor metric that allows rampant corruption to run amok under the guise of legality.

[Jasdoif]

As a general rule, amorality begets immorality when people get involved; and there's no point to a government without people being involved. Defining a role as able to ignore its own accountability is far more appealing to the sorts of people who want to ignore their own accountability than it is to anyone else; and those are the same sorts of people who will go to the greatest lengths to get into it.

Talking about the structure/design of system of laws in isolation from the people they'll be applied to is fine; but overlooking that they eventually will be applied to people, all but guarantees an eventual failure to work as intended.

---

...lived on candy and rainbows and got an empire handed to him by a space unicorn...because that's not what happened in the story.

Aww.

[Fyraltari]

Season 5, Episode 10: Secret Weapons

Spoiler: Recap

Show

Title card's blue. Why's the title card blue? What is this, The Rise of Skywalker?

Anyway, the Republic has intercepted a message from Grievous to... err... someone? It's heavily encrypted, however, so they can't tell what the message is. They know it's from Grievous because they can see him in the message. I guess the hologram isn't as encrypted as the sound? Weird. They suspect it's about a major offensive, so the Jedi mount a commando mission to get hold of a Separatist encryption chip. And who is going on the mission? A bunch of astromechs (including R2) who are being briefed by a few Jedi, namely Windu, Kenobi, Skywalker, Secura, Sinobe and a dude with a 1.50-meter-high fin on his head. They have to get onboard a specific Separatist dreadnought to steal the decryption key (it looks like an actual key on a chip, love it). And here comes, late, the last member of the team, not an astromech but a DUM-serie droid (those with a conical head that can fold and unfold like in Watto's shop) and our protagonist of the day: WAC-47. he bumbles his way to his comrades and tries to act excited. Then windu says some of them may not make it back while looking directly at him. Cold, Windu, cold. This team is the titular "secret weapons", not sure that makes sense, but whatever. Windu then introduces their commanding officer for this mission (shouldn't he be the one doing the briefing?), one of the Republic's strategic command's finest minds and a veteran of the (Second, I assume) Battle of Geonosis, colonel Meebur Gascon! And he's twenty-centimeter tall. The little frog-man then shows a map of the dreadnought, explains they have to bypass security in two places, distract some superdroids, break a code, avoid "swarm-mines" get the key and get back in time for him to be promoted to brigadier-general. He ignores WAC trying to ak a question and marches them out. WAC then hit the door leaving.

Cut to a droid assembly line where Gascon introduces them to Dr. Gubak, a Parwan. WAC interrputs to point out that he's not an astromech, as the colonel addressed them all as such previously, calling Gascon a corporal in doing so. The colonel then goes back to explaining the good doctor is going to give each of them a tactical upgrade for the mission. Except for WAC, who Gascon calls "cyclop" who is sent to prepare their shuttle. Gubak gives R2 more powerful rocket boosters than can keep him flying for longer periods of time. Not I have ever seen him be forced to land. The next one, QT-KT, gets a remote-controlled, "extremely powerful" magnet that can attract anything metallic in a seven-meter radius (not that powerful, then. Also I wonder how he can control the drone with a magnet like that attached to it). U9-C4 gets a laser-cutter that can cut through almost anything but has quite the recoil. Which U9 demonstrates by veing lauched across the room. recoil on a laser, sure. The last one, M5-BC doesn't get anything new, they're taking his memory banks out to make room for the colonel's mobile command center. Gascon is indifferent to this lobotomy, since M5 is only a droid and Gubak points out he won't remember anyway.

The team gets aboard the shuttle and WAC (who still can't get the colonel's rank right) asks why he isn't getting upgraded. Because he's just the pilot. WAC resolves to prove otherwise. The shuttle approaches the Separatist's fleet and Gascon comes in the cockpit telling WAC to notify him once they're in radio range of the dreadnought, he's got a plan to get their attention. But WAC already put a plan of his own into motion and put them in a collision course with the ship. Yeah, that'll get their attention. They're immediately caught in a tractor beam and brought to a hangar. B1s boards and dismiss the droids aboard while looking for intruders (what do they think they are, gundarks?). The team is taken in for interrogation (the colonel hiding inside M5). Once in a corridor, R2 takes out a B1 and WAC tells the second one he's the leader of the team, distracting him long enough for QT to zap him. They hide the "corpses" and Gascon gives them directions to C-deck (where the decryption module is) and has WAC lead the way, so he can tell anyone who asks he's taking the astromechs to maintenance. WAC calls him "captain".

Once there, the colonel orders C4 to cut the main power-line to temporarily shut it off. He does so despite forgetting to brace for his recoil. On the bridge, a B1 informs the local tactical droid of the loss of power, but since it came back quickly, they don't do anything. However this means the security is now in "manual" override, but someone still has to distracts the B2s up ahead. WAC excitedly volunteers, still calling Gascon a corporal. He walks to the two superdroids and claims to have been sent by Grievous to test security. The believe him, in a frankly average display of separatist competence, and he leads them into a closet, and tells them they'll be safe there while he creates a power surge as part of his test. M5 then attempts to open the comm-vault's doors but is shocked by a booby-trap, sending the colonel flying out. He claims to not be responsible for M5 "terminating" himself since he didn't order him to attack the access panel. He still needs someone to open it, and quickly. He refuses to do it himself, saying he isn't trained for "crisis maneuvers". WAC brings up the battle of Geonosis. Gascon admists he didn't technically fight in that battle. He's a military analyst. A map-reader as WAC puts it. He eventually admits that the reason he was chosen for this mission was mostly his size (I wonder how many of his species are in the GAR). While he's busy ranting that that doesn't change anything, he's still their commanding officer, R2 opens the door.

Gascon jumps ontop of U9, recaps the next part of the plan (take out the mines and steal the key) and asks if anyone has any questions. Mine would be how U9 knows to change the hologram to what he's going to talk about just before he does so. WAC's only slightly more relevant question is whether he's actually been in any battles. gascon says he hasn't, but if WAC wants to fid out what he's made of, they can fight there and then, and be captured an executed by the seppies or they can carry out the mission and be heroes. Good comeback. WAC agrees, on the condition that he stops calling them derisive nicknames like "cyclops" or "flat-top". He accepts... until one of them screws up again. A B1 informs the tactical droid of another disturbance on C-deck (M5 being fried, I suppose) and the tactical decides to investigate himself.

QT uses his magnet to gather the flying mines and the team proceeds, but just as R2 was flying towards the module (which is plugged in (I think?) up in the air, not very convenient to access), the tactical droid and a mixed squad of B1s and B2s barge in. However, R2 connects to the room's artificial gravity controls and turns it off. Everybody immediately floats up. U9-C4 uses his laser to take out a few droids. Hey, what about the recoil! Recoil still exists when there's no gravity, he's free-floating he should have been launched at high speed! QT takes out a few more by throwing the swarm-mines at them. R2's boosters allow him to fly up to the decryption key, but the tactical droid catch him by the ankle... -thingie. Gascon jumps from a wall to the tactical, forcing him to let go of R2 but getting dangerously close to his gun. WAC swims (in mid-air, what the ****?) to the tactical and beats him up with his own severed leg. The seppie retaliates, but the chaos allows R2 to grab the key. The tactical grabs R2 again, so WAC swims (again, swimming in the air) to the gravity controls and turns it on. Everybody falls down but r2 who uses his suction cup? magnet? to grab the ceiling and then falls down right on the tactical, taking him out. The team leaves, but the tactical's still functionning head rings an intruder alert.

The droids stop before M5-BC's "corpse" and R2 insists they take him with them. Gascon agrees and says they can repare him on the shuttle. They make their way to the shuttle, with b1s ignoring them as just astromechs. Gascon says the funny thing about droids is that they don't expect other droids to betray them, the team laughs. I don't think that was a compliment, guys. They fly out of the dreadnought without issue (what about the tractor beam?) The colonel auto-congratulates and say the droids might make decent soldiers. WAC calls him colonel.

Spoiler: My thoughts

Show

The English pronunciation of colonel as "kernel" is killing me. Still, I'm glad the frog called Gascon doesn't have an outrageous accent.

This was a meh episode. Not too shabby, but big season 1 vibes. The slapstick was vaguely tolerable but still a bit grating as was the general humor around WAC (great name, isn't it).

Mostly, I think it's funny that R2's already OP enough that they couldn't think of any actual upgrade for him.

You know, everything about the galaxy Far Far Away is designed with creatures of about human height and physiology in mind. I have to wonder how tiring it was for Gascon to navigate the Jedi Temple.

Next up: A Sunny Day in the Void.

[Keltest]

The title card was blue because this is part of a real world event promoting r2 and the droid team. Expevt more of the same this arc.

[Fyraltari]

The title card was blue because this is part of a real world event promoting r2 and the droid team. Expevt more of the same this arc.

Oh, goodie.

[Keltest]

Imo this arc really brings a problem with the show to the forefront and that is that neither side scrutinizes their droids at all, even though both sides have used turncoat droids before. You would think that when one side uses droids as their main fighting force, the Republic in particular would take a little bit more care about which droids they let into things like major power plants, or that the Separatists might have some stronger cybersecurity given the number of times their officers brains have been stolen and hacked

[McNum]

Imo this arc really brings a problem with the show to the forefront and that is that neither side scrutinizes their droids at all, even though both sides have used turncoat droids before. You would think that when one side uses droids as their main fighting force, the Republic in particular would take a little bit more care about which droids they let into things like major power plants, or that the Separatists might have some stronger cybersecurity given the number of times their officers brains have been stolen and hacked

Yeah, if you want to spy on the Empire, you just need a handful of compromised mouse droids and you're golden. It's a common theme of Star Wars that the bad guys ignore droids and that coming back to bite them.

This is actually covered in a few episodes of Rebels, thanks to C1-10P being a little too good at it, so the Empire finally tries something to stop droid infiltrations. Of course, Chopper is the kind of droid who understands rubber hose cyberattacks (beat the guy with a rubber hose until he tells you the password) so it goes as well as it could. Still, points for trying.

But the whole not understanding enemy droids is a common flaw of, well, everyone in Star Wars. Only the heroes really care about droids, and that's how you identify the heroes.

[Mechalich]

But the whole not understanding enemy droids is a common flaw of, well, everyone in Star Wars. Only the heroes really care about droids, and that's how you identify the heroes.

Droids are one of the elements of Star Wars that the setting is, broadly, simply not willing to fully grapple with the implications of their existence - morally, economically, legally, psychologically, etc. - and as a result they are deliberately deemphasized most of the time. So when they do get featured, it feels weird. Star Wars generally works better if no one thinks about droids too hard.

[Fyraltari]

I saw the trailer for Tales of the Jedi.

A) A Dooku and Qui-Gon story? Neat. Pretty sure they'll make Dooku already villainous, though.
B) They really can't let go of the late Old Republic/Empire era, can't they?
C) "By the creators of The Clone Wars and Bad Batch" wow, Rebels and Resistance get no respect.