What happens if you save Sloane?

That's simplifying it down beyond the bare bones, to actually grinding the bones into bone-meal.

In the southwestern area of Kadara's badlands, just over the hill from that loan turian exile, there is a building perched on the edge of the cliff. It overlooks the stronghold of the Three Sabers. You find the Collective's torture den inside. No quest leads you there; you just have to find it exploring.

I'm in PT number three, and I've only now discovered "Tech Danny Messier" in Prodromos. I'm not sure finding him was to anyone's benefit, but there he is.  I only noticed him because of a comment on the forums.

In this game, who you choose only affects who shows up at the end of the game. I expect the decision to have more diverse consequences later in the series. It's like ME1 that way.

My Ryder made choices with her gut. She didn't trust Reyes but she had a better feeling about him than Sloane.

WAY too many fucking words later...


Like, seriously, get a snack, I think I put all my thoughts about Kadara out here...



As for why Sloan and the Outcasts aren't a mob...

There's a better analogy for what Sloan and the Outcasts are in Kadara during the time of Soane's reign. The Outcasts aren't a mob- they're the proto-state of a city-state.

This seems like a rhetorical hand wave- 'it's not illegal if the government does it'- but it's more than that. The divide in Kadara isn't simply 'Sloane vs Charlatan' or 'Outcast vs Collective,' where the change of a name doesn't change the circumstances- it's also the difference between order or chaos, or law or crime. Harsh, draconian law... but law none the less.

Really, it's a dilemma between state-building and anarchy, under circumstances less than amiable to western liberalism sensibilities.


It's easy to dismiss any defense of Sloane as a legitimate governing authority by attacking the strawman of 'it's not illegal if you're in charge,' but it's still a real point: Kadara only exists as a polity thanks to Sloan, and her regime is basically a city-state being forged out of anarchy (and worse). Measures taken in the past have to be judged by the context of the times if they're to be used against her vis-a-vis Reyes.


Sloane is, and isn't, a conquering authority. She conquered the Kett, sure. But what she didn't conquer when she installed herself afterwards was an actual polity. She didn't usurp any sovereign authority in the process of making it a refuge for the Nexus exiles. Kadara Port isn't an Angaran colony-world like Aya or the rest. It's not part of the greater Angaran polity led by Aya, an Angaran world kept from joining the Resistance against the Kett by Sloane's intervention. It's a place of the Angaraan's own outcasts and deserters, and so estranged that the Resistance more or less gives up recruiting efforts for a lack of volunteers. Kadara Port is a place that Angara live, but it's not a part of Angaran space as the greater Angaran society view it.

This matters because when Sloane comes in, she's not supplanting any established 'legitimate' government. She's not 'stealing' sovereignity. The Kett are no one but themselves' idea of a good time, but at the same time there aren't leaders leading resistance as a government in exile or government institutions in place. There are people without organization that Sloane brings. Sloane is basically starting in a blank slate in the absence of effective government.

In effect, anarchy.

The state- historically, not just by modern sensibility of what a 'good' government should be- basically exist and legitimize itself above anarchy by providing three essential services. It defends against external enemies (provides a common defense), it ensures enough access to necessary resources like food and water (survival), and it provides a way to keep the public peace (internal security, aka law and order). In exchange for these services, it's understood that regimes need a certain degree of obediance to given edicts (following the laws) and that the people benefiting from these services can be expected to provide the state resources to continue on providing these services (taxation).

This is social compact at it's most basic. Everything else we like and believe should also be 'necessary' in a modern state are more like add-ons. States can exist without modern liberalism. Modern liberalism can not survive without a state that provides those three resources.

The thing is, liberalism- let's call it 'nice governance'- is often unsustainable when any of these things is lacking. Without external security, invaders can overrun and kill/take everything. Without resources, people will either die. Without some measure of public order, a society can fracture and turn against itself. If a nice government fails to provide these three functions, it will soon be replaced by someone who can, even if they aren't as nice, because- again- these are fundamental requirements for a society to be governed. And, of course, doing all these things requires resources- which must be gathered from somewhere- which via taxation comes from the people being governed.

But people don't like giving up money. Governments wouldn't get started if everyone had to pay voluntarily. The age-old nature of taxation, therefore, is that it's not voluntary. If you refuse to pay you can be compelled- and if you can't pay you are failing to uphold the social contract by which government provides those key services to you. Everything culture and context is different, but even 'nice governments' have their own forms of response to people who won't or can't pay taxes... including eviction from valuable, safer, land and housing in favor of tax-paying citizens.

The flipside of this flipside, though- what makes it acceptable taxation rather than just extortion by people who then go on to pay tribute to someone higher- is when the process is routine and uniform, consistently executed, and the funds are actually put towards collective goods rather than stolen for corrupt personal gain.

All of this seems abstract, but it's to make a point: Sloane is running a state on Kadarra. The Outcasts ARE a government, even if a rudimentary one, by virtue of fulfilling a de-facto social contract. It's not 'it's not against the law if you're in charge'- it's the basic establishment of what 'the law'is, and the requirements thereof when creating a state. Societies and nice governments don't just form out of an ether- even the Initiative basically relies on the continuity of governance back from the Milky Way that started harsh and is just now taken for granted.

Kadara didn't have that advantage- it was isolated from the Angara before and emerged from the Kett in anarchy- and so it has to start from the fundamentals of what a 'state' even is.

Do the Outcasts provide common defense from external threats?

Yes- the Kett most notably, but also from raiders and gangs below the mountain in the wilds. Later on- if you establish a colony with Sloane- Outcast forces conduct patrols and protect the exposed colony as well, despite this being much more expensive than just defending Port Kadara itself.

Do the Outcasts provide access to basic needs for citizens fulfilling their end of the social contract?

Yes- as much as can be expected in a famine/drought situation. Potable water is scarce- the world isn't a garden world- and supplies have to come offworld. But on top of Sloane being willing to supply the food kitchen down below when things are stabilized, a patron of the bar says that food is also provided beforehand. There is hunger- but there is not mass starvation- which is something the entire Andromeda initiative is facing at the start.

Do the Outcasts provide for public order/internal stability?

Yes- brutally as it may be to modern sensibilities, it's significantly less than what also exists in real world societies in the past and in the world day. Laws are minimal, but lawbreaking is hindered. Public threat and violence are kept low (and rise if removed). Persistent dangers to society are addressed with exile. There is even a fail/detainment facility which people can be penned up and released from, indicating a rudimentary justice system.


Finally- taxation.

Are taxes collected openly, consistently, and with minimal corruption?

Yes- and with all signs being that they are used towards the purposes of state (security, supply, administration),rather than personal enrichment. Punishments for not paying taxes (protection fees) are clear and consistent. They even demonstrate the escalatory principle of punishment and the law being non-discriminatory, applying to both Angaara and Milky Wayians.



None of this is to say the government is nice, merely that it is legitimate. Now- what makes Sloane's outcasts and the 'pay or be exiled' protection money different from a mob extortion racket?

Two main things: actually providing a service, and the legitimacy of the source.

The difference between an extortion racket and protection racket, to start things off, is who the payer is defended against. They're both coercive, but conceptually distinct- an extortion racket protects the payer from the extorter (pay me or I will hurt you), while a protection racket protects from an outside but expected source of danger (pay me or someone else will hurt you). The rhetoric gets flipped about alot, as it's every extortion racket's goal to be seen as a protection racket, but conceptually a protection racket actually does provide a service. When it's not coercive or monopolitive, this ranges from between a luxury to borderline necessity (ie, bodyguards).

When it is monopolistic, when it's something no one else can or is providing, it has another name: common defense, ie a fundamental role of government.

At their most basic, before even the social contract, governments are protection rackets with benefits. They provide security, and you pay. If you don't pay, you don't get (as much) security. If you don't pay, you're punished. Payment is ritualized and consistent and legitimized as taxation.

What distinguishes a [protection racket] from a [government service], however, is, well, the existence of a government.

Protection rackets- like a Mob or a gang that keeps peace on its turf provides- do provide a service. But it's not a monopoly on the service, because there is another player who is supposed to be providing the service- the state. This is (part of) the reason that protection rackets are extortive and Bad Things, rather than a desired service: because they aren't/shouldn't be necessary thanks to a government in place. When the government is there and effective, there's no need for a protection racket. It's unnecessary and extortive. The crime exists in the context of a government.

But what about when there is no government?

When there is no government, a protection racket- again, as opposed to a naked extortion racket- is the provider of a state service. It is providing for the common defense- and that makes it providing a third of the bare essential services of the state. In the absence of any other, more legitimate, state, a protection racket is an even more fundamental expression of a social contract- of security for resources- that become the building blocks for a basic state.

So- to trace that back a ways-

A basic government provides three core services- protection, necessities, public peace- and in exchange gets civil obediance and taxes. This is the basic social contract.

A protection racket is a service in which in exchange for resources a group provides proction. In the presence of a state, this is (usually) a crime charging resources for a service the government should already provide.

In the absence of a state, a protection racket is part of a proto-state by providing a public good.

In the absence of any other legitimate state, if a protection racket starts to provide the other essentials of a state- external and internal security, and securing access essential resources- then by virtue of carrying out the functions of a state where there is no legimate state already, the protection racket is effectively the state.

States providing the essential services of governance to a population can, by social compact, expect/coerce taxation to continue supplying the public goods and services as resources allow.



Which, translated to the Kadara context...


Kadara did not have a legitimate government when Sloane arrived.

Sloane and the outcasts were the first to offer the essential services of a state in exchange for resources and authority.

A social compact was created.

Sloane and the Outcasts became the legitimate (only) state of Kadara Port, which has the responsibility to continue providing services, and allocate resources.





...and that's the hard one, since Kadara and Sloane operate in a resource-scarce environment, where safe food, safe water, and safe space are all limited commodities.



Having hopefully made a convincing case that Sloane and the Outcasts are a state, even if not a very nice one, the last bit that went into my personal evaluation of the Kadara situation is why harshness occurs. Starting premise: Harshness and cruelty exist in a world either because people enjoy being cruel, or because they feel they need to.

Most people are not, despite common video games portrayals, natural sociopaths. And while there's some words from Draak that Sloane enjoys her role a bit too much, there isn't much evidence of sadism. State-sanctioned violence occurs for a reason, and consistency as a punishment for breaking the laws of the state. A traitor is to be executed for politial reasons may be bad for Due Process, but doesn't exactly support sociopathic relish.

Instead, the harshness we see is matched with reason- and consistently within the scope of the idea of a basic (and primitive) social contract.

For example- our two main negative first impressions about Sloane's policy is a public beating and the threat of eviction to the badlands outside. In both of these cases, the cause is the same- not paying protection money. Breaking a rule is the basis of this infraction- ie, not paying your protection money gets you hurt or, worse, ejected.

Is this a valid rule? A legitimate law, in and of itself?

As archaic as the punishments are... in so much that corporal punishment is a valid punishment, it is. And the view of corporal punishment is very much a social/cultural one. It's not a punishment I'd want to live under, but that doesn't mean a law is invalid.

We've already talked about the validity of a social contract, and how it allows a state to collect taxes in exchange for services. Even if he cast calls it protection money, it's still taxes if it's done by a legitimate state upholding the social compact. 'Collect', though, is a euphism- it always means 'compel.' Paying taxes is not voluntary- and in the absence of your voluntary donation, the state can take escalatory steps against you to collect it- or punish you if you can't. Typically this is done with jail time or confiscation, but ye long time ago- when jail wasn't so common and government institutions weren't so developed- physical violence was also used.

'Jail,' then, is something only established societies with excesses of food can provide for.

Here's the thing, though- Kadara isn't an established society with established institutions and excess resources. Coming out from the Kett, it is/was anarachy. And coming to the Exiles, who left the Nexus just with what they could carry/smuggle/steal, it's poor. When the entire Milky Way population is struggling for food, jail is another mouth to feed. This is why the Exiles were exiled in the first place- because the Nexus was starving, and jail was a drain on already strained resources. The Exiles were expected to die by starvation. Kadara Port isn't exactly a garden world overflowing with surplus crops. It also doesn't have an established economy- you can't exactly automatically dock pay.

And then there's the space issue. Space is limited too. Kadara Port is an Angaaran population- with even more heavily armed Milky Wayians with a proven willingness to fight to stay there- all on a mountain top below a lot of badlands with dangerous beasts and poisonous waters. Space is limited. No one wants to go outside, because there are dangerous beasts/dangerous lands suited for ambush/dangerous people willing to ambush you.

So with a lack of jail, how does the State compel people to pay taxes- or punish them if they refuse to?

Corporal punishment, as third world as this sounds, is an effective way to keep order when you don't have access to better ways. Corporal punishments are cheap, because they don't require much more than what you already pay the enforcer. They're quick, over with quickly, and don't require spending limited food and space to keep someone for long periods of time not working. They're public, and so can serve as a visible deterrent to others. They're limited, non-fatal and able to be adjusted to the crime.

And pain is deffinately effective on those with the ability to pay. Given the choice to pay or be beaten, most people who can will pay.


The other option for collecting taxes is outright confiscation. Kadara doesn't have a seemless banking system or standard pay system which can just be taxed and siphoned off automatically. It's a shipping port of smugglers and- later- raw material export. That means that- for lack of gentler means- taking things out of cargo. And this is what Sloane does with her cut- where a portion of goods/materials being shipped through the port is collected. Docking fees, basically, and no one much protests Sloane's docking fees.

(Well, except the people who don't want to pay them... and then get robbed by the Collective.)


But- finally, and most sympathetically- what about people who aren't traders pushing goods through the port? What about them if they don't have the money to pay, or valuable goods to give?

Don't they still have something of value, though? Their houses, and space?

The people who stand to be evicted from Kadara Port for not paying their taxes are, by definition, people with homes to be evicted from after not paying their taxes. They have something of value- and remember that Kadara Port is in a period of scarcity. Not just food and water scarcity, but a scarcity of safe space. No one wants to be off the mountain the bad lands. Everyone wants to be within it's safety. Yes, it's bad when someone loses and goes outside... but the flipside of that for every person who doesn't go out, another can't come in. Space is zero-some mutually exclusive.

Space on Kadara port is a resource that must be managed by the state. There has to be a way to decide who's in that safe zone- a public good provided by the state- and who's not. The public good is desired. It also costs resources. So, what to do when someone with a resource (space) wants a public good but isn't providing taxes to sustain it?

Well, look around: how many people with 'nice' governments get to keep their homes if they don't pay taxes?


Again, it comes to confiscation or coercive punishment. Which aren't nice, but are legitimate roles of government, which again comes down to Sloane and the Outcasts serving as the state and the social compact that implies.



So that's a lot of thoughts- too many by far I'm sure- and I'll end it there.


The Final Line, last of all, is Sloane and the Outcasts aren't a mob, or unjustly extorting people like a mob.

They're a functional government- third-world as it may be- and much of what Sloane is justified by context. It could stand to be prettied up a whole lot- the game goes out of its way to cast it in unflattering lights- but the truth is is that governance at it's most basic is heavily based on coercion, not willing compliance. That's especially true in crisis situations like Kadara is, where it and the Outcasts face three separate shortages (food, water, space) before the Pathfinder comes about and fixes everything right as Reyes starts to make his push. We get to see the aftermath of the emergency period, and that shapes our perspective in a way that having to deal with the crisis- and the context- would have.

None of this is to say the Outcasts are a nice state. They aren't. They are the military dictatorship to the Nexus's civilized beuracracy. They are (kinda of) a conquering ethno-state on top of locals who aren't, prioritizing the survival/well-being of their own (Exiles and Outcasts) with less regard for the locals they rule over. They are, in a sense, nomadic conquerors starting up a kingdom and colonizing a pre-inhabited land. They could be far worse- this ain't no space apartheid- but they aren't necessarily good.

But they aren't selfish-evil either, and what they do is state-building at it's most basic. State-building is never a pretty purpose- someone has to go about enforcing the laws and collecting the taxes and forcing people to abide by the laws- but there's a lot to be said about civilization as well, even hard one. Hard societies are the only ones that can survive the hardest conditions.

My personal thought on these debates is that Sloane is burdened by being held responsible for the dark sides of state-building- made worse by being justifiably grumpy/suspicious/not inclined to kiss the player's ass- while Reyes comes in after the hard work is done pretending his hands are clean now that most of the dirty work has already been done... and that he'll be even better even as he and the Collective look to dismantle the state that was starting to form. Not because he thinks less effective governance is good or that Sloane is really bad- just for his own ambition to be someone, even if it means creating a crime network that preys upon the most vulnerable and will be a pox on Andromedea for decades or centuries to come.

Reyes isn't reforming the state Sloan's built- on that collects taxes too meanly but stabilizes the bad lands/keeps the streets safe/throws the criminals out/provides rations and a soup kitchen when there's resources to spare. He's corrupting it- undermining some of it's key benefits- and taking credit for a change of circumstance he did nothing to bring about but which of caused Sloane to relax the draconian requirements eventually regardless. Food and water rations aren't going to be in such short supply with the vault active. Safety isn't going to be a premium once the bad lands are livable and cleared again. Protection taxes on residents aren't going to be so high when people can move down the mountain because there's an entire Initiative mining colony that can be taxed instead for more.

Things are- will- get better regardless of who leads, and you don't need to metagame for that. But metagaming does suggest that the Kadara Port that Reyes leads will be a worse place as a society, because the Collective fails to uphold a real social compact

The Social Compact, once again, has three main obligations for the state and one mutual obligation. The State protects people against external threats, ensures access to vital resources, provides internal security. In exchange, it gets taxes- which are distinct from extortion money by being used for the public good, being collected consistently, and with minimal fraud or abuse for personal enrichment.

The Collective... really fails these things, at least by the standard Sloane provided, and it's far from clear that they'd offer them in the future.

For external defense, the Collective isn't a military power like Sloane was. It helps in the final battle, but more as a 'everyone pitches in' than 'unified force.' It's forces are limited- it's motives even more so. The Collective won't raid the colony, but that's because they're targetting it in other ways. They're beefs with the other criminal groups are competitional, not to protect travel across the region or the residents. Criminals who sign on with the Collective are allowed to target Kadara citizens.

For essential resources, this is something Reyes can't claim credit for because the pathfinder does it for them. The food/water shortage ends as the Vaults are activiated and off-world trade establishes. The one element Reyes can claim credit for- not evicting people from Kadara Port for not paying taxes- is of questionable worth. It certainly wasn't an overwhelming crisis for Sloane's regime.

But in terms of internal defense- of providing for law and order or at least public security... the Collective is the worst. It preys on the people outright. Murders and muggings jump. You either pay off the Collective, or buy your own security guards. Crime is a problem that always preys on the weakest first and most of all- and if there's one thing Sloane did better than the Collective, it was try to stop that. The Collective is complicit in a rise of crime, even without further subverting the nominal government through corruption.


And finally, taxation...

The Collective doesn't tax- it simply steals. There is a difference when a government and simply a more powerful actor takes stuff, and some of those are the openness of it, the established rate, and the consistency. Taxation is a legitimate function of government- selectively stealing private goods and credits isn't. It's the sort of thing that gets private security hired, and bribes payed, which is anithetial to good/legitiamte governance. Taxes should go to the public goods and services... not private bank accounts. But the Collective is motivated by profit, and Reyes hangs out in a private club room rather than a public throne room by design.


That's not a good social compact. That's not a society that will grow a strong or healthy state that could- one day, with reform- reliably take care of its people when crisis occurs. It's a stagnation that relies on other people resolving problems for it, keeping the rulers and the subjects separated and not bound by common cause or mutual interest.


There's more I could say. I think having a corrupt puppet government of Reye's lieutenant is worse for the Angarans than someone with open preferences but an aknowledged and sincere interest in balancing ties. I would argue that long-term ties with the Angaarans and conceerns over human dominance might be better served by an openly admitted Exile-first liberator than the future reveal of an Angaaran collaborator who's a puppet to Milky Way criminal interests preying on other Angaaran tradeers.I view having a public despot who holds court and lets advisors speak much more likely to be challenged and reformed than a shadowy, anonymous leader only known to his closest allies. I think public beatings aren't as bad as secret torture and executations, that evictions are better than kidnappings, and that taxation is better than blatant stealing.



But somepeople prefer the personally nice guy to the state (or non-state) that he leads. Fair enough.

But when it comes to me... if Sloan and the Outcasts are the Pakistan of Andromeda, a state with real problems who's only effective institution is the military, I'll still take Pakistan with it's imperfect government rather join the person who's ambition is to overthrow the state and turn it into a Mogadishu.


The Outcasts aren't a great state, but they are the state. They have a legitimacy that Reyes lacks, and doesn't look like he intends to pick up any time soon. I prefer to reform my second-world countries, not toss them into the third world.

Nope!

A (lack of) state-sanctioned violence is neither a qualifier or disqualifier for social compact. It's one of those 'very nice to have' elements that are optional, not requirements, for a state to exist as such. Same thing with evictions, which are a separate issue. They are things you want, but the lack of them is not a failure- especially in resource-scarce environments.

Evictions and confiscation are a matter of resource management, which is an obligation of functioning states in order to main those core services. In the context of Karada where space is a premium and limited resource, property taxes are a way to ensure land is kept productive. If a state couldn't control or reallocate unproductive land AND couldn't collect taxes, then it would be a failed state, ie unable to excute core functions of a state.

Meanwhile, violence is a method to execute the functions of the state, not necessarily a failure therein. All states reserve the right to violence, and attempt to control the escalation thereof. Coercive violence is a failure when it's an inferior alternative to an alternative- when there isn't an effective alternative, it's not inferior per-see. Limited resources that limit alternative means- such as a lack of food, space for prisons, and so on- mitigate other options. Whether the option is unpopular doesn't mean it's unwise, or invalid.


Mind you that these are elements of a failed state. Whether policies are popular is separate, but unpopular sentiment doesn't a failed state make. Senses of justice aren't the same as justice, that matters little here or there.




Neither does giving food, water, and homes to people who don't work while everyone else who is working as well as starving. People who struggle to survive aren't going to be loyal to a state that gives more favors and resources to those who do less.


Again, we're in a period of limited resource and widespread shortages. This isn't a case of a prosperous society that could 'easily' get by if they just reduced wealth disparity/taxed the one percent. There's simply not enough of anything for everyone- not enough water, not enough food, and not enough space.

There's already going to be misery regardless, and misery breeds alternative loyalties and criminal recruitment. That's unavoidable.

The main way to mitigate shortage-instability it at a societal level is to increase resources to provide these essentials, or eject people until over-population is reduced and fewer resources are needed.

The question is how to do that? You could eject people along racial lines. Or you could collect taxes to pay for resources, and eject people who can't pay the taxes.

The alternative to ejecting people who don't pay taxes is to try and eject people who do pay taxes... and they, by definition, have the resources you need/want, and which they can use to protect themselves against the state.



Nah, not speculation, it's the systemic nature of criminal networks. Criminal cartels are not Robin Hood- they go after profitable targets based on risk and reward. Rich people have rich loot... but also can afford to pay the guards to secure them. Cost-benefit is highest and most frequent against those who can least protect themselves, and so cause the least cost. The people who can protect themselves the least are, well, the most vulnerable- and a low-level mugging isn't going to care that you might not have much in the first place. What you do lose is, of course, even worse than if a rich person lost it because it's more of your income. Crime is often the most regressive form of taxation there is.

We see it in-game with the spike in muggings in the streets of Kadara. Rich people don't get mugged walking at night- they have security or go by car. It's the poor people walking home in bad neighborhoods- neighborhoods they can't afford to leave- who are most at risk.



I don't deny Sloane lets addictive drugs be sold. I also note that you don't deny that Reyes lets it continue being sold and distributed. I could point out that Kaetus has a message saying to tone it down, but it's irrelevant- a willingness to indulge in the drug trade is a weakness they both have, and so not a unique weakness of Sloane's.

(It's also not really a factor in a legitimate state or not, as drug legalization is a state's perogative. And hey... it's medicinal!)




Ha. I laughed, and tried really hard not to make a personal zinger at you.

'Good leadership' isn't a magic fairy wand that spreads loyalty dust that keeps everyone happy and in-line. Good leadership is often controversial, unpopular, and doesn't change economic or social realities of poverty. People hate good leaders all the fucking time, especially if they have to make choices with clear winners and losers. Like, say, zero-sum decisions of overpopulation and food/water shortages..

I don't know if you've heard this, but... it's really easy to recruit poor people into criminal gangs or worse during hard times. It doesn't matter how good the leader is, how much they've improved things, or how much worse any replacement would make things. Above all, people want to survive, and after that they blame the current situation on whoever's in power.

The Soviets used to have a model for analyzing why people turn traitor. It was MICE, or Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego. In Kadara the collective is motivated by Money, and it's a damn easy thing to exploit with lots of poor people around. Ideology isn't really a factor for anyone but the Rokarr, conscience only applies to the ignorant who don't see or are about the Collective's own torture dens, but at least Reyes' is open that his primary motive is himself.

Sloane isn't facing a popular rebellion because she's violated the social compact/lost the trust of the people via bad leadership. Sloane is facing a turf-war insurgency from a money-motivated cartel because it's a poor place with easy recruitment for reasons beyond her control. The populace as a whole tolerates her, which the de-facto passing grade for public legitimacy of the social contract. When the populace sits out a power struggle- which is what the Angaara did between Reyes and Sloane- it's a pretty good indicator that they don't hate you even if they don't love you. That's what most states struggle for.


It's possible- though probably less likely than Reyes. Reyes's control of the organization is already tenuous at best- he's already had his control system subverted by low-level nobodies. Sloane is cast as relatively secure when she isn't rattled- which likely won't happen again- and according to codex she has experience fighting off APEX assassination attempts. Her record for staying on top of her organization is pretty good. Reyes's spot is worse, and structurally a lot easier to do.


Meta/narrative-wise, though... the Outcasts might be a unified gang, but the Collective will almost certainly be a non-benign force. Whether Reyes is complicit, or unable to stop it, will have to be seen.

Is that a opinion you've formed from having lived or worked in a third-world country?

Like, legitimately third-world. Failing to non-existent institutions, widespread hunger, extreme poverty at a subsistence level?

I see you are taking this debate very seriously

He acts on whatever advice you give him, and gets into trouble. His activities don't pop up as quests, but you'll see the green icon if you drive into the general map region in which he's located. It's a pretty generous, wide area of detection. I think it's triggered by entering the named region of the map. You do have to actually look at the map to notice it, though. I use the map frequently, so it works for me. I first encountered him outside Prodromos while baiting the roekarr outside Site 1.

I just ran into him on Elaaden, today. It was a surprise, since I'd put him out of my mind, and hadn't been able to play for several days.

Oh, hey, superdorkone! It's been awhile!