This keeps coming up, and it's worth noting that this never happens in canon with any fey deal we get any details on.Yeah, she can 'just' play all manner of fuck-fuck word games, which if she pushes it far enough, can get her close enough to the same result. Linguistic drift, among other things, could be used against us. As could picking and choosing what definitions of a word, even if said definition is not in common use any more or perhaps never was in *common* use, playing games with intent/manipulating others into doing stuff to hurt us without 'technically' any intent to do us harm (say, if she mentally formats it as 'defence of reality' like almost everything else she does), and many other things that I'm probably not thinking of at 8 in the morning.
The fey will rules lawyer you on exact phrasing, play implication games, try to leave vague clauses in that let them manipulate their obligations, and dozens of other tricks.
What they don't do is go "ha ha, I was speaking 14th century English and therefore inverted the meaning of this critical clause".
There are a few possible reasons for this. It might be that they can't. That the same rules that stop them from lying compel them to speak in an understandable local language and dialect so that they can't do something like "invent" a language that sounds just like English or whatever, but has some critical semantic differences that let them lie to your face.
This would be a reasonable assumption, since we know the courts are designer organisms built for the gates and that their bindings are made to facilitate using them for that purpose.
It could also be that they're simply smart enough not to do this, because trying stuff like this would absolutely burn their ability to make deals.
They fey have to do a lot of business with a lot of people to stay in operation, they can and do play like contract lawyers but they can't play like sore losers.
I don't really agree with this characterization of her, or of the implications you're drawing.Again, I think I was misunderstood. Let's do this point by point. My opinion is:
1) Mab is capable of making deals where both parties objectively benefit
2) Mab is fundamentally incapable of trusting anyone and always expects betrayal
3) Mab is wholly dedicated to her mission / goal / function, to the point where calling her a paperclip maximizer is, while not strictly correct, isn't totally wrong either
4) Outside of her mission-related actions and behavior, Mab is, at best, a broken nearly insane woman worthy of pity. At worst she's a sadist actively deriving pleasure from suffering of others.
5) Because of point 2, any deal Mab makes (barring exceptional circumstances where she is forced to act otherwise) has to benefit Mab no less than the other party. So, for example, if we gain X units of "power" out of a deal, Mab also has to gain X or more units of power out of said deal. To do otherwise would be to make herself more open to betrayal than she was prior to the deal, and to risk her mission / goal / purpose. Because she expects everyone to betray her and can't trust anyone.
Firstly, she isn't human and hasn't been for a long time. Playing arm chair psychologist is a mistake because Sidhe do not think like or have the same needs as mortals even if they're close in a lot of ways. Treating her as mentally broken and pitiable woman with godlike power is an excellent way to underestimate and misunderstand what she can and will do, which is often a fatal mistake.
Secondly, it's objectively false that Mab can only offer bad deals. She says she doesn't trust people, but she effectively replaces that with her trust in other's motives and interests.
A fundamental part of doing business is finding what the relative value of the available goods/services are and trading things that each party values more than what they gave up to get them.
What she will do though is get the absolute most she can for her money, and be unapologetically ruthless about it.
If she couldn't do that the Accords wouldn't exist, and she couldn't effectively operate in the favor economy of immortals.
For your proposition to be true and canon to look the same she'd have to be able to stomp on most of the world's face and make them like it. Mab is very skilled at all kinds of things, has either the strongest or one of the strongest supernatural nations, and significant personal power; none of it would be nearly enough to make something like that work.
If she tried Winter would bleed influence like a stuck pig until the Mothers stepped in, her own nobility ate her alive*, or other powers got together and pressured the court (politically and militarily) into a settlement.
We don't have to like Mab, she is a monster in a lot of significant ways, but treating her like she's whatever mix of mentally incompetent and scary that is needed at the moment to justify throwing hands with winter is a mistake.
* Possibly literally. Winter doesn't play around.
Edit: minor tweak to fix run on sentence.
Edit: autocorrect
Last edited: