Remove ads

A Flame of Hope in the Grim Darkness (A 40k/Multicross Quest)

Reader mode
patrickmm1 said:
because it's the system that most of us wish that we had instead of the capitalist shit that we are currently dealing with IRL.
because Capitalism is absolute shit, only surpassed in its shittyness by Feudalism and the like.
because a Social Liberal economy is prone to slowly backslide into being a purely Capitalist economy due to it not actually stopping the slow accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the Owner Class.
because centralized Socialism is prone to being hijacked by greed, corruption, and Authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Now, I'm not going to get all political, but it sounds like you've never lived in a socialist state, ever. Because they are every bit as hellish as any and every other type of economic system. Believe me, I've heard the stories from my grandparents, and none of it's pretty. And it's only really something achievable with Clarketech levels of bullshit central planning and an AI that can control everything and know everyone's wants and needs before they know it/whenever they need it.

Which, granted, the confederation has. In the real world, something like this would never work, but we have what is effectively just technology that can do the work for us.

Actually, @BobTheNinja, under this economic system, what is the state of private ownership? Can people own things, themselves and, if someone desires, be employed by another person instead of the government?

BobTheNinja said:
My impression is that it's more a shambling, cludgy mix of State Industry (Mechanicus and such) and Feudalism/Neo-Feudalism, with a side order of market economics (likely highly corrupt) filling in some of the spaces in between.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On this, Imperium's economic system is quite weird. They have a form of currency, but that's something almost every single economic system has, but the means of production is almost entirely state-owned. You either work for the state/collective, or you don't work. When I said it was Socialist/Communist/Fascist I was more looking at it from the angle that there is no such thing as private industry, because all industry is owned by the Imperium, either directly or indirectly.

Realistically, it's more Socialist/Fascist than Communist, but to be honest, they're the same ideology in a differently painted trenchcoat.
 
Last edited:
Narsauce said:
Now, I'm not going to get all political, but it sounds like you've never lived in a socialist state, ever. Because they are every bit as hellish as any and every other type of economic system. Believe me, I've heard the stories from my grandparents, and none of it's pretty. And it's only really something achievable with Clarketech levels of bullshit central planning and an AI that can control everything and know everyone's wants and needs before they know it/whenever they need it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the USSR is on my list of Socialist states that were hijacked by Autocracy for a reason- as Socialism without Democracy is a recipe for corruption to make everything worse. really, unless we can get a Democractic Socialist state into existence that is using full modern technology with all of the automation that it allows then we will not be seeing the full potential of Socialism.

basically, my view on the previous major attempt at Socialism is that it arguably happened one or two(depending on where you put the dividing line between the first modern computers and the revolution that was the sheer level of processing power and interconnectivity that basically started in 2010 or so) technological revolutions too early.

basically, name a current or past 'socialist' state, and I will give you several reasons why it either failed or isn't doing so well.

honestly? the closest thing that we have to actual functioning socialism today is Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

because North Korea is a complete dictatorship, and that is not socialist, China is still Autocratic and is not socialist anymore, while Vietnam, Venizuela, and Cuba have all been sabotaged in one way or another, to the point where Cuba is the only one of those that I would consider to be currently Socialist, and it's been cut off from trade with the rest of the world.

I cannot stress this enough, but Socialism without Democracy isn't true Socialism.

Narsauce said:
Actually, @BobTheNinja, under this economic system, what is the state of private ownership? Can people own things, themselves and, if someone desires, be employed by another person instead of the government?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
in actual, true socialism, people can own things that aren't the Means of Production(which is to say that while they cannot own the factory and the machines in it, save for as a partial owner due to working there, they can own their own house, car, computer, television, and everything else that is a final product whose primary use is doing something other than producing more stuff for the common market), and can be employed by another person, so long as said other person is agreed to be in charge by those that work with/under them.
 
Last edited:
patrickmm1 said:
honestly? the closest thing that we have to actual functioning socialism today is Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
None of those are socialist, even remotely. They are normal, Liberal states with safety nets, they are not socialist. Calling them socialist because they have "free" healthcare and college/University just isn't true, from a historical perspective or a theory perspective.
patrickmm1 said:
Venizuela, and Cuba have all been sabotaged
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Venezuela fucked itself by relying on Oil as the only means of propping their economy up, and the Trade sanctions placed on Cube by the USA only target specific luxury goods. And they only affected USA-based companies. Cuba's biggest trading partner, in fact, is the USA.
patrickmm1 said:
I cannot stress this enough, but Socialism without Democracy isn't true Socialism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is also incorrect. Socialism without democracy is Socialism. I would even go so far as to say that socialism must be totalitarian, as it must encompass all extant forms of value production within society to be considered "true socialism".
patrickmm1 said:
in actual, true socialism, people can own things that aren't the Means of Production, and can be employed by another person, so long as said other person is agreed to be in charge by those that work with/under them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've met a lot of socialists that would disagree with you on that. In fact, I've heard that that thinking makes you, by definition, not a socialist.

But I'm going to shut up now. Because no one likes political theory and this is not the thread.

Edit: Also, votes

[X] Capitalist Economy - A fairly standard mixed market industrial/service economy, with most non-critical civilian infrastructure and capital being relinquished to private ownership. Initial allocation will be fairly equitable and based on merit. Can allow for dynamic productivity, but will most likely introduce problems of inequality, class conflict, monopolistic pressures, excessive focus on profit, and political influence accrued by the wealthy, unless diligently regulated.

[X] Social Liberal Economy - A mixed market economy with a much greater commitment to universal welfare services and public utilities, as well as expansive rights and protections for workers, though still allowing a largely privatized economy. May fall into the same pitfalls as a Capitalist economy over time.
 
Last edited:
Narsauce said:
Actually, @BobTheNinja, under this economic system, what is the state of private ownership? Can people own things, themselves and, if someone desires, be employed by another person instead of the government?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Others have weighed in on this, but for the sake of confirmation, in all of the systems proposed, citizens and denizens have personal property rights. They are able to own personal-scale goods like tools, appliances, computers, vehicles, and even single homes or micro space habitats (though land would be more complicated, more likely to be an intersection of personal and communal ownership).

Where public/communal control comes into play is with regard to larger-scale property and capital, stuff like office buildings and apartment complexes, factories, restaurants, banks, farms, data centers...basically any kind of property that requires more than one person to use and maintain. Under the socialist systems I've described, individual people would not be allowed to own the entirety of such large-scale domains. They can still run private businesses via personal trade, like food trucks or artisanal work for example, but again, once more than one person becomes needed to manage a piece of property, it enters the domain of communal, democratic ownership.

Incidentally, I disagree with your definition of socialism, and I feel that it's far too narrow. Democratic socialism specifically is a thing, and while I acknowledge that authoritarian/totalitarian socialism is/has been a thing, I don't believe that's the ideal form of socialism at all. Neither do I accept that capitalism is the end-all/be-all of human economic development.

I'm not going to demand sticking to a certain version of what socialism is, because I understand that there are multiple variants of it, and a good deal of it has not turned out well historically (and not just because of the economic factors, history is rarely ever that cut and dry). However, I would ask that you try to broaden your view of what socialism is and can be, as it can actually be pretty diverse in implementation and design.

Honestly, as cliche as it sounds, I would recommend reading the Wikipedia article on socialism as a starting point.
 
Last edited:
Alright, since this discussion has devolved, I'm just going to cast my votes.

[X] Decentralized Socialist Economy - A system in which most civilian capital is subject to public control, mostly in the form of local and regional co-operatives and other community organizations based on democratic governance, with private ownership largely being limited to personal-scale businesses. Ensures broad and highly equitable allocation of capital and resources, but may experience co-ordination problems at larger scales.

[X] Write in: Mixed Socialist Economy - A hybrid of Decentralized and Centralized Socialist economic systems in which sectors of the economy that see natural monopolies are publicly managed by a governmental administrative body or bodies, while others are managed by non-governmental, democratic organizations or private ownership as described in Decentralized Socialist Economy.
 
BobTheNinja said:
Honestly, as cliche as it sounds, I would recommend reading the Wikipedia article on socialism as a starting point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be honest, I've read a lot of socialist theory, Marx and Engles, Gramscii and a few others, and I personally don't really like the idea of it.

That said, this discussion has devolved, and I'll stop so it can get back on track.
 
Adhoc vote count started by Npt170 on May 5, 2023 at 1:39 AM, finished with 58 posts and 24 votes.
  • [x] Decentralized Socialist Economy - A system in which most civilian capital is subject to public control, mostly in the form of local and regional co-operatives and other community organizations based on democratic governance, with private ownership largely being limited to personal-scale businesses. Ensures broad and highly equitable allocation of capital and resources, but may experience co-ordination problems at larger scales.
    [X] Write in: Mixed Socialist Economy - A hybrid of Decentralized and Centralized Socialist economic systems in which sectors of the economy that see natural monopolies are publicly managed by a governmental administrative body or bodies, while others are managed by non-governmental, democratic organizations or private ownership as described in Decentralized Socialist Economy.
    [X] Social Liberal Economy - A mixed market economy with a much greater commitment to universal welfare services and public utilities, as well as expansive rights and protections for workers, though still allowing a largely privatized economy. May fall into the same pitfalls as a Capitalist economy over time.
    [X] Capitalist Economy
    [x] Decentralized Socialist Economy
    [X] Capitalist Economy - A fairly standard mixed market industrial/service economy, with most non-critical civilian infrastructure and capital being relinquished to private ownership. Initial allocation will be fairly equitable and based on merit. Can allow for dynamic productivity, but will most likely introduce problems of inequality, class conflict, monopolistic pressures, excessive focus on profit, and political influence accrued by the wealthy, unless diligently regulated.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[X] Write in: Mixed Socialist Economy - A hybrid of Decentralized and Centralized Socialist economic systems in which sectors of the economy that see natural monopolies are publicly managed by a governmental administrative body or bodies, while others are managed by non-governmental, democratic organizations or private ownership as described in Decentralized Socialist Economy.
 
Narsauce said:
Snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Im usually pro-market ,but please bear with me

You gotta take into account that this is a wildly different situation we find ourselves in


1) economic factors:
First of all if the economic factors

Capitalism is great because it offers a flexible systems for dealing with scarce/limited resources and their distribution (keep this on mind)

Prices are broght by demand and offer,the more demand and less offer increases prices

Most socialist countries fail as result of planned economies being unable to cope with the calculation problem

The calculation problems refers to the idea that given the ever changing and ever shaping changes on offer and demand,trying to force down a specific plan will almost always come short

We face a inverse issue of the calculation problem,we dont have a lack of goods,we have too much of them to the point is impossible to sell and buy in the traditional way we know

We got matter kilns,teletransportation,super AI
so how is gonna a capitalistic economy work when there is esentially infinite offer in comparizon to demand?

Who are you even gonna dictate who owns what means of production?

Nothing stop a small group for buying materials and then building their own kilns and no longer ever having to buy anything in their lifes

Precious metals?
Mass producible with kilns
Transportation?
Teletransportation
Manufacturing costs and times?
Nano-tech and different other clark tech

Ultimately the same economic amd technogical factors that dictate the failures of most modern socialist countries,also dictate that the economy of a capitalist nation will simply not be able to work for us

When basically everything is free of cost,time and transport to produce to who are you gonna sell?
Is like trying to monetize air in earth or sunlight

2) the calculation problem and organization lf socialist market dynamics

All the examples of socialism you mentioned are those that work on the "centralized planned economy" that for reasons i already explained are awful to cope with the calculation issues

An alternative offered by other branches of socialist ideology is decentralized planned economy

To get it we gotta discuss the push vs pull logistics

A push logistic is when people on the ground are sent material based on expectations and calculations made by ghe government (there is 500 people,so you send 500 people worth of food)

Pull is when people om the ground requisition materials (a town realizes a increase on tropical diseases on their area,so they ask for more medicine to be sent to their town)

Alternative socialist models propose basing the production plans around pull logistics,with communities voting and doing requisitions of materials,and having input on the plan

You migth say "but what if the orgamization gets too big,humans cant handle or distribute too mucj information,they will suffer logistical lags"

>super AI's
>federalization (small communities can own their own local kilns,with the big scale issues being for building far reaching projects lile fleets,megastructures etc)

>being based around push logistics makes this economy act in a market-esque manner,comunnities ask what they have a need for,and sure they could ask for more than they need,but given the cost of production being so low is basically a non problem for us to basically bury them in supplies
So not much of a incentive for hoarding when production numbers sre so big that prices are worthless

3) private and personal ownership

As you know as you have read socialisg theory
Private ownership means who own the institutions,machines and terrain that are used to produce goods and services

Aka factories,buisness etc
Anything that needs teams of multiple people to operate and can be used to create valuable stuff for others

Personal property being stuff that is only relevant at individual level (like your toothbrush)

There is private and collective ownership of means of production

And as salty as this might hit many,you can have market economy with collective ownership

A Buisness can exist still,send and buy things regardless if is owner by a single man,a board of investors or a council where every workers gets a vote on the buisness direction

We do have real functional examples of the later with spain corporation "mondragon",farmers cooperatives etc


View: https://youtu.be/zaJ1hfVPUe8

This isnt a "small experiment that only works in pretty specific small scale conditions"

It has brough more than 11 billions on profit on 2021
This form of collective ownership with market dynamics is known as mutualism

4) conclusions:

Just as modern centralizrd planned economics fail because the technology and production capabilities simply arent there

A capitalistic country simplu wouldnt work when our technology allows us to simply ignore the market and live off the the grid

So at least for me the pragmatic option is to try and regulate and include everyone into the discussion of whats produced than have them fuck off to nowhere to live on their own without ever havong to buy or sell anything

Market economics still apply to stuff that will always be scarce (art,artesanal workshops making prototypes,entertainment etc),but those can be handled mainly by small buisness or big cooperatives
 
Which is why, in an earlier post, I made note that, in this particular circumstance, we have the capability to active "Luxury gay space socialism" because of bullshit technology.
 
Narsauce said:
This is also incorrect. Socialism without democracy is Socialism. I would even go so far as to say that socialism must be totalitarian, as it must encompass all extant forms of value production within society to be considered "true socialism".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
socialism is an ecenomic system, and 'true socialism' is more about being actually fair to everyone than 'all forms of production must be shared amongst everyone absolutely equally'; being fair, getting rid of the profit motive, and ensuring that everyone has easy access to everything that they need(see the hierarchy of needs for what I'm referring to), and the ability to gain everything reasonable that they want is perfectly possible; distributing everything perfectly equally is a pipe dream on the same level as a True Utopia with absolutely no scarcity. Democracy is defined as 'rule by the people', Socialism is 'the people(as a whole) have complete control over the means of producing the goods and services that the people want and need.

Narsauce said:
I've met a lot of socialists that would disagree with you on that. In fact, I've heard that that thinking makes you, by definition, not a socialist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the fact that someone else, likely now one of your present/future coworkers who has been working there longer than you, went and checked that you were qualified to do that the work that you're doing; and that someone else was chosen by the people working at whatever place you're working at to be the person that checks that the people at said factory/shop are doing what they promised that they would do is what I was referring to.

as in someone interviews you for a position, and checks that you can do the work, and someone else, not necessarily the same person, checks in to ensure that you in fact are/did do(ing) the work that you promised that you would do is what I was referring to. the fact that the first is called 'being hired' and the second person is right now considered to be the person that you work for, is just a sad fact of life. what I was referring to is that the organization that you work for need not be called 'the government', because in the end you work for the people, in a group that is run and managed by your coworkers, with the fruits of your labor split as agreed upon in common with your fellow workers.

when I talk about Socialism, I'm not talking about a utopia where scarcity, stores, and money no longer exists; I'm talking about a system where personal property is yours, while private property is universally held in common, either by those who work with said devices, or by the collective whole of the civilization that you live in.

no profit motive removing money(our agreed upon way of measuring that added value and of acquiring limited goods and services) from the hands of those who actually generated that added value, no artificial scarcity, no being homeless when there are still empty apartments and houses, no going hungry when there is food available, no lack of potential further education just because you simply can't afford it, no being turned away from improving your health from lack of funding, no worrying about suddenly being simply that much worse off just because whatever job you did earlier was made redundant for one reason or another; no held hostage by a system that does not care about you.

that is what socialism is to me. anything more is a dream that we can work on after we have hit those basic standards.
 
Last edited:
Narsauce said:
Which is why, in an earlier post, I made note that, in this particular circumstance, we have the capability to active "Luxury gay space socialism" because of bullshit technology.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yep,im merely not apealing to the classic SV champagne socialisy kneejerk reaction of "capitalism bad because i live in the US and isnt perfect"

As merely pragmatic reasons

At the scale we operate at,traditional markets wouldnt work for the most

Full stop
 
armentho said:
Im usually pro-market ,but please bear with me

You gotta take into account that this is a wildly different situation we find ourselves in


1) economic factors:
First of all if the economic factors

Capitalism is great because it offers a flexible systems for dealing with scarce/limited resources and their distribution (keep this on mind)

Prices are broght by demand and offer,the more demand and less offer increases prices

Most socialist countries fail as result of planned economies being unable to cope with the calculation problem

The calculation problems refers to the idea that given the ever changing and ever shaping changes on offer and demand,trying to force down a specific plan will almost always come short

We face a inverse issue of the calculation problem,we dont have a lack of goods,we have too much of them to the point is impossible to sell and buy in the traditional way we know

We got matter kilns,teletransportation,super AI
so how is gonna a capitalistic economy work when there is esentially infinite offer in comparizon to demand?

Who are you even gonna dictate who owns what means of production?

Nothing stop a small group for buying materials and then building their own kilns and no longer ever having to buy anything in their lifes

Precious metals?
Mass producible with kilns
Transportation?
Teletransportation
Manufacturing costs and times?
Nano-tech and different other clark tech

Ultimately the same economic amd technogical factors that dictate the failures of most modern socialist countries,also dictate that the economy of a capitalist nation will simply not be able to work for us

When basically everything is free of cost,time and transport to produce to who are you gonna sell?
Is like trying to monetize air in earth or sunlight

2) the calculation problem and organization lf socialist market dynamics

All the examples of socialism you mentioned are those that work on the "centralized planned economy" that for reasons i already explained are awful to cope with the calculation issues

An alternative offered by other branches of socialist ideology is decentralized planned economy

To get it we gotta discuss the push vs pull logistics

A push logistic is when people on the ground are sent material based on expectations and calculations made by ghe government (there is 500 people,so you send 500 people worth of food)

Pull is when people om the ground requisition materials (a town realizes a increase on tropical diseases on their area,so they ask for more medicine to be sent to their town)

Alternative socialist models propose basing the production plans around pull logistics,with communities voting and doing requisitions of materials,and having input on the plan

You migth say "but what if the orgamization gets too big,humans cant handle or distribute too mucj information,they will suffer logistical lags"

>super AI's
>federalization (small communities can own their own local kilns,with the big scale issues being for building far reaching projects lile fleets,megastructures etc)

>being based around push logistics makes this economy act in a market-esque manner,comunnities ask what they have a need for,and sure they could ask for more than they need,but given the cost of production being so low is basically a non problem for us to basically bury them in supplies
So not much of a incentive for hoarding when production numbers sre so big that prices are worthless

3) private and personal ownership

As you know as you have read socialisg theory
Private ownership means who own the institutions,machines and terrain that are used to produce goods and services

Aka factories,buisness etc
Anything that needs teams of multiple people to operate and can be used to create valuable stuff for others

Personal property being stuff that is only relevant at individual level (like your toothbrush)

There is private and collective ownership of means of production

And as salty as this might hit many,you can have market economy with collective ownership

A Buisness can exist still,send and buy things regardless if is owner by a single man,a board of investors or a council where every workers gets a vote on the buisness direction

We do have real functional examples of the later with spain corporation "mondragon",farmers cooperatives etc


View: https://youtu.be/zaJ1hfVPUe8

This isnt a "small experiment that only works in pretty specific small scale conditions"

It has brough more than 11 billions on profit on 2021
This form of collective ownership with market dynamics is known as mutualism

4) conclusions:

Just as modern centralizrd planned economics fail because the technology and production capabilities simply arent there

A capitalistic country simplu wouldnt work when our technology allows us to simply ignore the market and live off the the grid

So at least for me the pragmatic option is to try and regulate and include everyone into the discussion of whats produced than have them fuck off to nowhere to live on their own without ever havong to buy or sell anything

Market economics still apply to stuff that will always be scarce (art,artesanal workshops making prototypes,entertainment etc),but those can be handled mainly by small buisness or big cooperatives
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

and the fact that if we somehow export any of our products outside our sphere of influences to the other galactic powers who's interaction to economics could be summed up into three things, indifference and mercantile hostility( imperium of man and eldar), shoot first and trade never( orks, necrons, dark eldar and various chaos aligned polities) or not understanding the concept economics and cash( tyranids and the tau(?)).

We are in 40k, where cash is only as good, if it can be spent on weapons to kill the enemies, and the reigning power is literrally a military-industrial complex on steroids playing holy roman empire in space, so that humanity can survive another day from enemies from within and external that they either made by them or someone else pointed a gun at them.

The only economic output the galaxy is producing is anything that has to do with weapons and slaves, with the tau being the excetption but only slightly due to the fact that they are a newcomer in the 40k universe, before our arrival, and they might be the only galactic nation that might be willing to trade with us that is not a independent human or alien nation that is nethier destroyed or under imperium or any other factions control.
 
dizzyrougue said:
and the fact that if we somehow export any of our products outside our sphere of influences to the other galactic powers who's interaction to economics could be summed up into three things, indifference and mercantile hostility( imperium of man and eldar), shoot first and trade never( orks, necrons, dark eldar and various chaos aligned polities) or not understanding the concept economics and cash( tyranids and the tau(?)).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are a few minor Xenos powers out there we could trade with. Though, it would have to be done carefully and any deals analyzed with a fine-tooth comb. One such species is the Stryxis. They have quite a selection of exotic goods. Keep in mind though, they WILL try to screw us over if given a chance.

Another potential trade partner would be the Leagues of Votann. They might just be our potentially best and stable trade partner. Maybe.
 
As a gentle reminder, let's endeavor to try and keep political discussion pertinent to the conditions of the game, even if it does use IRL examples. I know that debate is inevitable, just please don't lose sight of the purpose of the discussion.

JoeHalo said:
@BobTheNinja

Do you have a set time for when the vote will end?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Voting on this topic will conclude on Saturday at 12 PM CST.
 
[x] Decentralized Socialist Economy - A system in which most civilian capital is subject to public control, mostly in the form of local and regional co-operatives and other community organizations based on democratic governance, with private ownership largely being limited to personal-scale businesses. Ensures broad and highly equitable allocation of capital and resources, but may experience co-ordination problems at larger scales.
 
[X] Write in: Mixed Socialist Economy - A hybrid of Decentralized and Centralized Socialist economic systems in which sectors of the economy that see natural monopolies are publicly managed by a governmental administrative body or bodies, while others are managed by non-governmental, democratic organizations or private ownership as described in Decentralized Socialist Economy.
 
[X] Social Liberal Economy - A mixed market economy with a much greater commitment to universal welfare services and public utilities, as well as expansive rights and protections for workers, though still allowing a largely privatized economy. May fall into the same pitfalls as a Capitalist economy over time.

[X] Write in: Mixed Socialist Economy - A hybrid of Decentralized and Centralized Socialist economic systems in which sectors of the economy that see natural monopolies are publicly managed by a governmental administrative body or bodies, while others are managed by non-governmental, democratic organizations or private ownership as described in Decentralized Socialist Economy.
 
Last edited:
I think we're going to have to have a certain degree of government ownership of some enterprises no matter what, unless we want things to get real bad.
Why ? For the simple reason that we are currently a space-faring nation hoping to go interstellar at some point in the nearby future, and that means a noticeable chunk of our population is going to be living in closed habitats, be they generation ships, orbital colonies or just sealed places on planets that haven't been terraformed yet or can't be terraformed.
That means significant life-support apparatus for those places, one which encompasses agriculture, radiators for build-ups of heat, recycling of gases through agriculture or chemical capture plants, carefully treatment of waste to not ensure toxins be released in a closed system, probably mining oxygen and water from asteroids to top off our supplies, as well as lots of other stuff I haven't thought of.
We cannot have privately owned oxygen supplies, for one.
Also, some of the compagnies we see in Macross are known for bankrolling wars, like General Galaxy, and selling material to both sides.

On a lighter note, what pairings do you want to see happen ?
I'm rooting for Sheryl/Ranka/Alto; more MCs should follow the Path of Mikazuki Augus, and Ranka and Sheryl seem to like each other a lot anyway. 😉
As for the Fate side of the crossover, I don't know who was brought along apart from the people we see during The First Day segment and the Servant list (during the faction description, it was said that Shirou, Rin and Sakura were all there), but I think Gilgamesh/Enkidu would work together as well as a friendship than as a romance.
Gil's a lot nicer when Enkidu's around, and the subtext in both Fate and the original mythology is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Oh, and Waver and Iskandar are together again. 😃

When are we making an afterlife ? It should be a bureaucratic one, with paperwork and filing cabinets; those are always fun.
 
Last edited:
Fianlly caught up, and damn am I pissed I missed this quest in the beginning. Lancer would have been so damn good. Post scarcity bullshit mechs. sigh oh well.

I'm extremely unsure what to vote for, so I think that I will abstain this time around, though I am very interested in seeing where this quest gos.

Gaurdians and Servants are probably going to get along swimmingly. They're both batshit insane, though I do have a question. Is the Guardian around? As in the player character from Destiny? Asking since they are an incredibly important character, one that was a central point for just about all the characters that are involved. Being the one that saved Osiris, Saint-14, helped rebuild Rasputin, avenged Cayde-6, along with everything else that they did, it would seem... odd if they weren't around.

Anyways, I've seen a lot people talking about tech, and no one has mentioned Destiny Glimmer and Engrams. Actual programmable matter. Something that the other settings simply do not have.
Glimmer is a programmable matter that was once used as a source of power during the Golden Age and is now the main currency of The City.[1][2] Glimmer is used to purchase many items and services from vendors in the Tower.[2]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Engrams are a unique, "pure" state of matter,[4] the form solid matter takes when physically encrypted. First successfully generated by Willa Bray, Clovis Bray proceeded to head the field of engram research and application.

Engrams were often used to store information, such as manuscripts or research. They were known to degrade over time. Engrams dating from the Golden Age were normally mostly illegible.[5][6]

One of the most significant applications of engrams is for computing. By the end of the 21st century, computer engineers had reached the physical limits of transistor-based computing, unable to overcome quantum incoherence at the nanoscopic level. This halted research for some time. However, engram encryption allowed quantum incoherence to be bypassed: transistors encoded into engrams could store exponentially more information in a smaller space. The discovery of engrammic computation, one of Clovis Bray's last developments before the Collapse, led to a vast leap in human processing power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Speaking of Clovis Bray, glad that fucker is dead. We don't need that narcissistic megalomaniac around. The Emperor is enough on his own.
 
[X] Social Liberal Economy - A mixed market economy with a much greater commitment to universal welfare services and public utilities, as well as expansive rights and protections for workers, though still allowing a largely privatized economy. May fall into the same pitfalls as a Capitalist economy over time.
 
Wait.
Astolfo and Quetzalcoatl are both on the list of Servants that we're getting ?
Well, I known what first faction we're meeting first: a horde of Slaaneshi daemonettes.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top