Archon Delaine--Symbol of Eudaimonia.

Cool. Let's leave the drug cartels alone. And the terrorists and the wackjobs, and the psychos; basically everyone that wants to rob, murder and torture their way to the top of the food chain and start their own malevolent little empire. Let's just sit back and let them do it, because obviously any lifestyle is legitimate no matter how it harms those around it, and one man's freedom ends... where? Where he runs into someone with a bigger gun?

You're welcome to live in that world if you want to. Until the Empire rides in and burns you out of your homes with cleansing plasma like the abominations you are. :)

Well, hence the "in the name of justice I shall exterminate xxx."

It gets kind of old, why not just put it bluntly?

"I dislike the XXX culture, and I'm going to use our society's morals and norms to judge XXX and exercise my society's punishment to rid of the world of XXX's stain, just because I feel like it."

Don't you see? There is no food chain in the way you described, it's just communities that have different life styles. People there will adapt and survive. If anything the lives lost and hurt by staging a moral crusade are unfortunate sacrifices of a faction's conceited desire.

If you believe power is used to dominate others, then I guess a man's freedom ends at seeing a larger gun. But if you actually believe in some sort of virtuous highground, then it seems that power is used merely to stand firm in neutrality and focus on the maintenance of one's culture without interfering with others unless extremely provoked.

If Empire really think that it will lead humanity, I wish to see some actual traits that reflect said intention.

The choice is simple, either admit to Empire's intrinsic value and worth is identical to Archon Delaine and cease the unnecessary hostile relationship to become an innovation within history. Or, claim to have some sort of moralistic duty and continue on with the oppression and repeat the history of humanity.
 
Last edited:
My eyes have always been open. This truth has always been a part of the Empire; we do not deny it. We let our citizens rise and fall; we do not enshrine parasitism. We earn the loyalty of our people and enforce it when we must. And when the forces of corruption reach out to ensnare our people and refuse to see reason, we burn them to ashes, enslave their lackeys, and make everything that they were serve us until it is us. That is the way we have survived and thrived while the Federation has rotted under the burdens of which it refused to relieve itself.

Oh dear, then the Empire really is just another sad repeat of human history...
 
I believe that power may be used to dominate others when it must, but that it need not always. The Empire has done so in many cases and will do so in many more. We make no denials about what we are, we only point out that we frequently do not need to use it, so well have we executed our stewardship.

Archon Delaine has stated openly that with him and his, only power rules. This is how it must be; so be it. We shall deal with him in the manner that he understands and prove that we understood it when he was a suckling babe.

Archon emphasizes strength over weakness. This strength can be interpreted on multiple layers.

Archon made no claim that it will invade nor conquer any power. Despite that, no diplomatic channel was opened before a full assault just came out of nowhere.

If that is what the Empire believes is fitting diplomatically, I don't see it being different than a tyrant.

- - - Updated - - -

The Kumo Crew is certainly nothing new.

It appears otherwise from what is seen here.
 
Last edited:
Preamble
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to oppose the political bands which have connected humanity with one another for so long, and to assume among the powers of the earth and galaxy, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Statements of wrongs to be addressed.
Firstly, that the Empire and Federation have attempted to govern the affairs of man in such a way as has led to a deep divide between human kind, that seems at once irreparable and has led to further divides between kith and kin.


Secondly, that despite constant request for redress, the systems are run with disregard for the individual and their expression of freedom. This is proven by innumerable laws against particular avenues of production and is visibly identifiable by the bland variety of stations and docking ports across the known galaxy.


Thirdly, we include The Alliance in this system of corruption due mainly to it’s insistence that free states be ruled by economic might and power. Corporate greed is the beginning of all evil.


Fourthly, the intolerance for religious belief and actions that might lead to the questioning of authority claimed by the ‘leaders of the known galaxy.’ Religious freedom is the right of all free humans, regardless of its faults and inadequacies.


Fifthly, we believe it is the right of all free peoples to conduct their own commercial trade free of Federation regulation and Imperial oversight, that it is within a system devoid of corporate conglomerates, governmental inspection and interference that true wealth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be enjoyed.


Archon Delaine


While it is true that Archon Delaine does personify some of these negative traits, he mostly pursues a policy that allows for the development and growth of creative trade, ideas and cultures. He is the last bastion for billions of people against an overreaching Empire and the greedy clutching hands of the Federation. While some of our collective may personally find many of his methods distasteful, in this case the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


Counter Arguments


Belief 1:
Archon Delaine is pro slavery.


Fact: Delaine allows the trade of slavery to exist within the borders of his protection, with the belief that over time the goodness of our human souls shall extinguish it. Delaine himself does require the ferrying of slaves from political dissidents and traitorous families. This is much preferable to alternative approaches of capital punishment and life imprisonment which are employed throughout the vast majority of the Federation, Alliance and Imperial systems. With times, these slaves may even re integrate themselves into society, free of the troublesome political beliefs they once believed fervently.
In the words of one ancient political leader.


“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”


Archon may be the devil to some, but to others he is the last best hope of humanity.


Belief 2:
Archon Delaine’s uprising is causing further breaking of political bonds necessary for the health of humanity.


Fact: The Archon believes in a system that allows all to thrive. It is a confederation of peoples working together for the common good without the necessity of common law that is at once oppressive to minorities and uplifting of the bourgeoisie.


Belief 3:
Archon Delaine is lining his own coffers.


Fact: It is the right of all peoples to pursue wealth if they do desire, but Archon neither expects nor forces all people to adhere to an economic system they do not believe in. Their goods are not taxed if they do not wish it, and there are a great deal of religious, secular and debauched planets within the systems of Delaine. Each to their own, and all for one another in the cause of freedom.


Closing Statement


With this document I hear by publicly acknowledge my pledge to Archon Delaine towards this end: freedom for all humanity. Freedom to pursue what religion and belief system they so choose. Freedom to be released from the chains of tyranny in its main forms; economical, religious, Imperial and regulatory.


I ask all to consider the cause and request their aid in combatting the evils of the Imperium, and the Federation, while pleading to the commanders and leaders of The Alliance that they remember their first calling. Freedom for all.

I'm writing a short story about a theoretical meeting between Antal and Archon about non aggression, mind if I quote some of this?
 
Irrelevant. Your mindset is taken to a dangerous extreme; we will respond appropriately. You personify the corruption that Arissa Lavigny wishes to burn from the stars; you shall be burned from the stars with your corruption, and those whose rule you usurped shall be added to our numbers, in many cases willingly if not most. No matter. If their loyalty cannot be earned in this generation it will be enforced, and in time their children or their children's children will recognize what was done for them and be grateful. The Empire is a thousand years old; it can be patient with the misguided subjects of dead pirates.

Does this scream brain washing or just me? Even after we left the cradle of humanity, do we seriously need to repeat and drown in the tragedy of self-righteousness?

So by dismissing my commentary, you basically convey that you are no longer capable of even communicating. Everything that fills your mind is self-justification and conceited conviction. I see that you are an "excellent" product of the Empire's brainwashing, but unfortunately there are people who wish to live without a leash, both physically and mentally.


Why? You're a cross between a barbarian tribe and a crime syndicate. Neither of those things is new, and while I am not the most diligent student of history, I would be surprised if there hadn't been a similar combination before as well. Possibly the ancient Norse raiders that were commonly called "vikings".

"Barbarian" and "crime" are nothing but subjective terms. I can easily claim that the Empire is barbaric and criminal in their approach, then how shall we determine who is inherently "correct"? By shooting at one another? By seeing which faction has more people?

I have extensive background in the theories of politics and their corresponding history, and Empire reminds me constantly of the tyrants of the past. A devolution of culture, is how the Empire is presenting itself currently.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm writing a short story about a theoretical meeting between Antal and Archon about non aggression, mind if I quote some of this?

Uh, I suggest otherwise. The thread is Mikalus' personal interpretation of Archon Delaine, from what I understand. Therefore if you are looking for a formal document on Archon Delaine, I suggest that you wait for us to collect consensus.

Thank you for taking the initiative, though, I will keep you updated.
 
Let us have tea, then.

And wait for the inevitable intervention of a moderator storming in and flipping our picnic table toward our faces out of disapproval in our peaceful thread hijacking...

Or a crowd of pro-Delaine and anti-Delaine overrunning the park...

*Sips from tea*

The stars are beautiful today...

*Chuckles in background*

May I joy you two for sip?
 
Genghis Khan was a positive influence, being a true meritocracy. Archon shares these traits too.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is there is more similarities than differences between the Archon and the Empire.

The core concept of Honour in the Empire is self determination.
Even the Imperial Slave have that, as it was though there own choice they sell themselves into servitude.
To not do so would be a loss of face, and you are no longer in control of your own fate, but at the mercy of your debt.
To go back to the OP, even in physical servitude to another to pay the debts, that YOU have chosen that destiny, and thus you can still find Eudaimonia
"It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience"


To be free and a master of one's own destiny is the key tenant of both, though the Empire is old, and time enough has passed that some have risen to rule over others, either as Patrons, or the Duvals themselves, the Imperial Family, but the old tenants still remain, after all the Patron Client relationship is about a mutual gain, without the support of the clients the patrons fall, without the support of the people, the Senate cannot govern, and what is an Emperor when there is no Empire.

Vim and potestas mean new things, when the weak can use the structure of society to dominate the strong, the corrupt to imprison the just, the lazy to steal from the diligent as the ruler-ship of virtues gives way, as time demonstrates is inevitable, then the Ancient regime will fall and we will begin again.

Duval or Delaine AM and PM on the same clock
 
Can't say that you're entirely wrong, but the first Duval rose to power by charisma and an iron will; he didn't bludgeon his way to the top. That's not to say the Empire as a whole is always above such tactics; we do what we must, but we did not start out that way; it is not our core. Look at Archon's origin, and compare the Empire to that... as he has started so shall he continue.

The core is freedom, the combination of potential and choice and and the vim and vigor to achieve it.
The First Duval was a "She", Marlin Duval, prima inter pares, but her brother Henson may have bludgeoned his was to the top but certainly established the Hereditary nature of the Empire.
 
Last edited:
"Barbarian" and "crime" are nothing but subjective terms. I can easily claim that the Empire is barbaric and criminal in their approach, then how shall we determine who is inherently "correct"? By shooting at one another? By seeing which faction has more people?

Well, I can certainly tell you why I oppose piracy in quite simple terms: I like my property, and I've got a mighty need to hold on to it. So if you're wanting to go around taking my property without my permission, you and me are going to have some problems, see?

And if I hypothetically didn't have such a mighty need to hold on to my property, well then I wouldn't have anything for you to pirate and piracy wouldn't exist in the first place now would it?

So piracy can only exist in a condition where someone has property that they wish to keep, and another party wishes to deprive them of their rightful property without due compensation. In other words, it can only exist as a form of infringement on others' rights. Such a state of affairs would surely represent a perpetual threat to the safety and wellbeing of anyone who travels through space, and thus it is a state of affairs we should strive to avoid. Thus it stands to reason to regard the civilian practice of piracy as criminal.

By extension, a state carrying out piracy on its own population would be violating their natural rights and guilty of oppression. A state carrying out piracy against the population of another state would be engaging in an act of war. If such an act of war is carried in such a way that it serves no military purpose except to cause unnecessary civilian suffering, it would then be escalated to a war crime.

Slavery and murder can be argued against on similar grounds. I like my liberty and my life, and I've got a mighty need to hold on to them. I don't suppose I should have to explain why people don't like being enslaved, imprisoned, or murdered. To imprison or kill someone you better have one heck of a good reason and be acting on some strong authority. Slavery is right out, as nothing can justify the abhorrent practice of owning another human being like an animal. Slavery gets special mention in the context of war crimes too: enslaving a prisoner of war can never serve any legitimate military purpose, it only causes unnecessary suffering.

Of course, as long as you are only oppressing your own people or waging war on our other enemies it is pragmatic for the Federation to leave you alone so we can focus on bigger tyrants, like the Empire. It doesn't make you right, it just makes you temporarily useful so long as you are a thorn in the Empire's side and not ours.

Were you to engage in open war against the Federation though, appeals to pacifism or "live and let live" would be foolish. By waging war on us you clearly wouldn't be letting us live, so why should we let you? The phrase "it takes two to fight" is foolish nonsense: it takes two to make peace, it only takes one to beat down. To refuse to fight back when you are under attack isn't nobility, it's suicide. To insist that the other party engage in pacifism while you attack them isn't reason, it's hypocrisy.

A fun note about the Empire though: a lot of the Empire is based on nostalgia for Rome, but Rome was a republic before it was an empire. In fact, its golden age of development and expansion occurred during its 500 year Republican period.

The rise of the Caesars and the abolishment of the senate were the beginning of the end, that began Rome's long, slow decline into oblivion. But the Caesars became the popular image of Rome, because they just so happened to be in charge during the time that a certain carpenter started preaching, started a rather popular religion, and got crucified. Rome's collapse was already beginning at that time, but it would be a couple hundred years before it became obvious and a few hundred more before it finished. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither would it be destroyed so quickly.
 
Last edited:
I'm writing a short story about a theoretical meeting between Antal and Archon about non aggression, mind if I quote some of this?

Not at all. Just post me a link or something so I can read it afterwards :)

EDIT: Fang makes a valid point, this is just a theory posited, it's not official and certainly not a consenus of the Kumo Crew in general :)
 
Last edited:
Incapable, no. More like unwilling to take this much further. And I don't need to justify myself to a pirate. You've spoken, elsewhere, about hypocrisy; as the man who says "'Barbarian' and 'crime' are nothing but subjective terms", you are the pot calling the kettle black... or perhaps the pot calling the milk black? Though I doubt you'll agree.

The Empire does not always determine who is correct by shooting. Far from it. However, when we run into someone who tolerates no other way--as expressed by Archon Delaine himself, on more than one occasion, he does not--we are certainly capable of doing so. That's the great thing about the Empire: we have higher principles, but when we run into someone who does not, we will gladly take the gloves off and dive in, guns blazing, and without being untrue to ourselves or our core beliefs. Because in the end, we have only one:

The Way of Duval has kept the Empire alive and thriving through the worst kinds of adversity for a thousand years, and SHALL continue to do so!


Isn't it obvious that you are claiming Archon having no tolerance without any basis? Also claiming that Archon doesn't have higher principles is basically paraphrased ethnocentrism and jingoism at this point. Stow that, if you really believe in some sort of inherent morality.

Like I emphasized the negative connotation that come with the name "pirate" or "smuggler" really shouldn't be there, while what is truly negative is the attitude of obvious intolerance and the ostentatious need to going around and "correcting" people's culture.
 
Well, I can certainly tell you why I oppose piracy in quite simple terms: I like my property, and I've got a mighty need to hold on to it. So if you're wanting to go around taking my property without my permission, you and me are going to have some problems, see?

And if I hypothetically didn't have such a mighty need to hold on to my property, well then I wouldn't have anything for you to pirate and piracy wouldn't exist in the first place now would it?

So piracy can only exist in a condition where someone has property that they wish to keep, and another party wishes to deprive them of their rightful property without due compensation. In other words, it can only exist as a form of infringement on others' rights. Such a state of affairs would surely represent a perpetual threat to the safety and wellbeing of anyone who travels through space, and thus it is a state of affairs we should strive to avoid. Thus it stands to reason to regard the civilian practice of piracy as criminal.

The problem lies in your understanding of property. As Emerson and Goldman repeatedly emphasized, that government secured property and law created on that basis are inherently non self-reliant and the cause of countless dispute. Piracy includes negotiation with traders and agreeing to an amount of "protection fee" or "safe passage fee" similar to taxes or the toll one pays when crossing a certain area.

Just because a civilization find piracy illegitimate doesn't mean it extends to all culture. You don't see the US launching a war on China for its severe copyright infringement and piracy, but by working out agreements and law that will effectively limit its impact on the US.

By extension, a state carrying out piracy on its own population would be violating their natural rights and guilty of oppression. A state carrying out piracy against the population of another state would be engaging in an act of war. If such an act of war is carried in such a way that it serves no military purpose except to cause unnecessary civilian suffering, it would then be escalated to a war crime.

That can be negotiated. Plus the Kumo Crew isn't completely known for piracy, therefore two countries can safely establish a mutual agreement in terms of where is a piracy-free zone and where is not.

Slavery and murder can be argued against on similar grounds. I like my liberty and my life, and I've got a mighty need to hold on to them. I don't suppose I should have to explain why people don't like being enslaved, imprisoned, or murdered. To imprison or kill someone you better have one heck of a good reason and be acting on some strong authority. Slavery is right out, as nothing can justify the abhorrent practice of owning another human being like an animal. Slavery gets special mention in the context of war crimes too: enslaving a prisoner of war can never serve any legitimate military purpose, it only causes unnecessary suffering.
I stated this earlier in the thread, please ream R.M Hare's Utilitarian defense on Slavery, I won't say much more in that regard. However I would like to emphasize that the moral high-ground taking for granted here is quite impressive.

Of course, as long as you are only oppressing your own people or waging war on our other enemies it is pragmatic for the Federation to leave you alone so we can focus on bigger tyrants, like the Empire. It doesn't make you right, it just makes you temporarily useful so long as you are a thorn in the Empire's side and not ours.

War and conflict doesn't make anyone "right." Also that is what is called a working relationship. Conflict of interest is bound to occur, let it be ideology of materialistic. Thus it is in everyone's interest to tolerate one another to the best of their abilities.

Were you to engage in open war against the Federation though, appeals to pacifism or "live and let live" would be foolish. By waging war on us you clearly wouldn't be letting us live, so why should we let you? The phrase "it takes two to fight" is foolish nonsense: it takes two to make peace, it only takes one to beat down. To refuse to fight back when you are under attack isn't nobility, it's suicide. To insist that the other party engage in pacifism while you attack them isn't reason, it's hypocrisy.

The speculation here is off the chart, we never declared or engaged in open war with anyone, we never took the initiative to conquer anyone.

The Kumo Crew has no interest in engaging in war with the Federation, or anyone, since there is no gain but exhausted resource both human and material.

A fun note about the Empire though: a lot of the Empire is based on nostalgia for Rome, but Rome was a republic before it was an empire. In fact, its golden age of development and expansion occurred during its 500 year Republican period.

The rise of the Caesars and the abolishment of the senate were the beginning of the end, that began Rome's long, slow decline into oblivion. But the Caesars became the popular image of Rome, because they just so happened to be in charge during the time that a certain carpenter started preaching, started a rather popular religion, and got crucified. Rome's collapse was already beginning at that time, but it would be a couple hundred years before it became obvious and a few hundred more before it finished. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither would it be destroyed so quickly.

I don't expect the Empire to fall, but just have some general decency and reduce its hypocrisy in its moral crusades. If it wants to take on the image of a civilization, then act accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Laws do not exist to protect people--laws must be protected by men. Breaking the law, hurting other people, are not hard. It is, in fact, painfully easy.

Archon is is correct in that regards--a man or a woman only has rights and laws that he can hold onto and enforce. It is precisely for that reason that people form societies to create laws. It is for that reason we create militarists and police force. Without force and willingness to apply that force to enforce these claims and rights, society cannot exist. We fall into anarchy where the strong prey upon the weak without limits and where power is measured simply by how many weapons that you can bear upon the target.

Reason why Archon is hated in the Empire and Federation is, because by his very existence, he highlights the failure of both parties in the Pegasi sector. In my opinion, Archon is the symptom, not a cause. He is the symptom of failure of both major factions to enforce their laws and rights in the Pegasi sector. Simply killing him will not change the factors that allowed for him to rise. Only by aiding reconstruction and enforcing laws in that sector will change come to Pegasi.
 
(RP activate!)

The Kumo Crew for me...
Well, I don't really care much for our faction's leader. Yet I can understand why he acts as the Empire perceives.

Right now, we are the target of a war we did not start. The Empire banded together and decided that we needed to be not only eliminated, but slowly picked apart piece by piece; beaten and broken down until we would roll over and submit to them. To being their prisoners, their slaves, their spoils of war. And why?
Because each and everyone one of us in this Crew identified with the term "pirate".

"Pirate" is a powerful word. It conjures up images of men who lie, cheat, steal; the type of soul you cannot trust, one who would sell their own grandmother for a sack of gold. It is a word that means criminal, scum and means that you have been labelled by society forever as outside it. As dirt.

Yet the men, woman, people of the Kumo Crew are just like any other commander. I make no secret of the fact that I will gladly befriend anyone of any faction as long as they are willing to treat me as a person and not a criminal. The only difference between a Kumo and an Imperial is that the first will take actions based on their own morals; the second because the law says they should.

Is it any wonder some of us do as we do when choosing to live by only the laws we think are just means that we apparently DESERVE to be slowly and brutally beaten into submission?
 
The problem lies in your understanding of property. As Emerson and Goldman repeatedly emphasized, that government secured property and law created on that basis are inherently non self-reliant and the cause of countless dispute. Piracy includes negotiation with traders and agreeing to an amount of "protection fee" or "safe passage fee" similar to taxes or the toll one pays when crossing a certain area.

My property is what I own. Possession is 90% of the law after all, the other 10% are proving it and enforcing it. You want it, you better be prepared to give me something I want in return. That's called trade.

"I'll refrain from killing you" isn't a service, it's coercion. Not killing me should be a default state of interaction, and the only thing I should have to provide you for the "service" of not killing me is that I will refrain from killing you in return. If you refuse those terms, you can't complain when society decides it would be prudent to kill you on sight as a preemptive measure.

Just because a civilization find piracy illegitimate doesn't mean it extends to all culture. You don't see the US launching a war on China for its severe copyright infringement and piracy, buy working out agreements and law that will effectively limit its impact on the US.

That can be negotiated. Plus the Kumo Crew isn't completely known for piracy, therefore two countries can safely establish a mutual agreement in terms of where is a piracy-free zone and where is not.

Sometimes diplomacy is war continued by other means. At any rate, the Federation's laws make it crystal clear where the piracy-free zones are: anywhere in Federation space. We of course understand that just how piracy-free they will be is limited by our ability to enforce those laws, but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it nor does it prevent us from enforcing as much as our resources will allow. And if you make no attempt to control piracy within your own borders, well then I suppose there's no reason for us to make any attempt to trade with you.

I stated this earlier in the thread, please ream R.M Hare's Utilitarian defense on Slavery, I won't say much more in that regard. However I would like to emphasize that the moral high-ground taking for granted here is quite impressive.
There is no utility to slavery: it's grossly inefficient. Enslaved workers are less motivated to work, they require more resources and additional manpower dedicated to replacing that lost motivation. And then you've got to police for rebellion, escape attempts, sabotage, you'll spend twice as much labor keeping your slaves in line as you'll get out of them, especially with how easy it is to manufacture personal weapons with current technology. You're better off just buying their loyalty with some decent wages.

To top it off one good machine can do the work of a hundred slaves for less than 5% of the price. There's no reason to send a slave to do a machine's job.

And preferring that I don't get killed isn't "moral high-ground taking", it's basic survival. Or are you saying that if I decided that my culture demanded I kill you, you'd respect my culture and let me do so? I think it's safe to say there, common sense should trump "tolerance".

War and conflict doesn't make anyone "right." Also that is what is called a working relationship. Conflict of interest is bound to occur, let it be ideology of materialistic. Thus it is in everyone's interest to tolerate one another to the best of their abilities.

The speculation here is off the chart, we never declared or engaged in open war with anyone, we never took the initiative to conquer anyone.

The Kumo Crew has no interest in engaging in war with the Federation, or anyone, since there is no gain but exhausted resource both human and material.

As I laid out, carrying out piracy in Federation territory would be an act of war. However, at the moment we have no reason to commit our own resources when our enemies are killing each other just fine. We're quite content to let you and the Empire slug it out, it takes pressure off our own border with the Empire, who we're at war with whether we'd like it or not anyway. I'm just saying it would be beneficial for you to keep it that way. Think of it as a polite suggestion. ;)

I don't expect the Empire to fall, but just have some general decency and reduce its hypocrisy in its moral crusades. If it wants to take on the image of a civilization, then act accordingly.

Well I would expect them to fall because they're not going to do that. They're too attached to their nostalgia for a second-century system that was failing as soon as it was created. Though of course I am also aware that they're protected by plot-armor. They exist as long as the devs want them to exist, regardless of any merits or lack thereof. :p

I would love to see the situation with the Emperor's death spark a succession war though. The drama would be delicious.

Though another thing that's amusing, although I know this is just game mechanics: despite your insistence that crime shouldn't really exist as a concept, loitering is a crime punishable by death even in Delaine space. :D
 
I do think if an Empire power falls another will just takes its place. IT WILL be interesting to see what type of philosophy that replacement has.
 
Back
Top Bottom