I clarified the intent behind my words numerous times, admitted there was a flaw in my communications by the act of this clarification, even fell back on someone else's very generous (proper) interpretation of my intent which I attempted to recover focus for the thread by, and so on.
I don't know what you want from me, but from where I stand you seem to be obsessed with being right. I sometimes forget that, although I'm the sort of person who can easily reevaluate his priorities and strategies as old ones prove ineffective or flawed, not everyone gives a used fig and would prefer to argue about cupcakes instead of a more massive and delicious dessert. Your familiarity with the foundations of logic notwithstanding, I prefer to deal in facts, not theory. I'm a creative writer and intuitive gamer before I'm a well-read logician - but because of my tendencies, I do recognize logical inconsistencies when I have the opportunity to see them, and I work around them in my own way when I have perceived them.
The logical inconsistency I'm now trying to work around is the reasoning behind your attempt to hammer home a tangential (but valid) point. As I am focused on the primary objective of "discussing the comic", I really don't care to spend the time making every factual puzzle piece fit in its proper theoretical hole just to satisfy a theorem that is ancillary to making the jigsaw puzzle look like a picture. Such an attempt is ultimately lost on many of the discussion's participants regardless.
My method of dealing with this logical inconsistency is to move on and get back to the point of the thread - discussion of the comic.
Housellama wrote:Tachyon wrote:Because Ansom was GK's Chief Warlord; he provides a part of an insane leadership bonus to GK's units when he's in the hex alongside Wanda and the 'pliers. It was a decapitation plan, similar to when Parson first tried to kill Ansom in Book 1. Ultimately, Jillian cooperated in her own way, granted it was not acceptable to Charlie, but as far as we can see, they haven't broken their "alliance" over it. Vanna, as far as we know, is still in Jillian's employ, and on Charlie's paycheck.
*facepalm* No. Charlie wanted Ansom dead because he was a distraction to Jillian. Jillian loved Ansom. Charlie invested a lot of money in Jillian, and had a lot riding on her in his current plan. Ansom was a major distraction to Jillian. His existence was preventing Charlie from being able to manipulate her. She was acting out of love, which is completely irrational. Therefore, Charlie was acting to remove the object of her love. He was banking on being able to get him before Jillian found out. If he did that, then Jillian would only have one person left to love. She'd have a new target to hate, but that's a different story. Charlie can use hate. Hate is predictable. Love isn't.
So all of those story plots where the hero is moved to action because his one true love is captured don't contain the villain banking on hostile retaliation as a result of love? Sounds like you need to rewatch The Princess Bride. Love and the most basic actions it inspires are predictable, but it's the hidden motives which the "hero" gains and acts on because of the circumstances of that love which are not.
The fact remains that Charlie's the one who told her about Ansom still being "alive" in the first place.
I hate having to re-link this again, but note the last few lines: http://www.erfworld.com/summer-update-2 ... aurelB.jpg
If it were only in Charlie's best interest to have Ansom croaked, he could have given Jillian tactical advice to position herself out of view of the act, without informing her of his intent directly. Charlie is more than capable of handing out dossiers on wild geese to chase after, and he hasn't done so here, in panel 7: http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -08-19.jpg
Charlie intentionally allowed the person it would upset most to be in a position to observe the croaking of Ansom (intentionally, because he could have done otherwise and did not), on the assumption that she would still carry out the battle plan. Charlie's powers of anticipation here are remarkably low, if this scenario is the case - but the fact remains he had no contingency plans for dealing with her dissent despite her proximity to a cause for dissent. He didn't know whether he could count on Jillian to allow the croaking to take place, but he left her in a position to hinder it knowingly. Recall that Charlie's ultimate plan in dealing with Jillian is to croak Stanley, and probably Wanda too. With Jillian's air support gone, Jetstone has nothing to combat Wanda but the troops they have in the garrison for reserves (primarily archers and casters); Charlie needed Jillian to stay and, knowing that she's emotionally unstable, he would have had every expectation that having Ansom croaked would've not been conducive to that.
Therefore, all Ansom's existence was preventing, as far as Charlie knew at the time, was the success of a cooperative effort to protect Jetstone on the ground (we seem to keep forgetting Ansom was still the Chief Warlord for GK and granted a very high leadership bonus even before being decrypted - we also don't know if he retained his Royalty unit bonuses, as we don't know what decryption allows for in retention of stats, but I'd personally bet that he did), and Charlie apparently didn't know (or, equally possible, he didn't highly value the fact) that there was more to Ansom than just being an enemy Chief Warlord at the time he ordered the croaking done.
No, he was aiming to take out GK's leadership at first (and as many ground forces as Haggar could defeat), then take on Wanda's air forces; destroying Jillian's motivation for helping him would've been contradictory to this plan. Moreover, if Charlie knew she was there for Ansom, it would've been equally unrealistic for him to know she was there for Wanda and still expect the two to fight each other (he does know that she was there for Wanda, after the fact - the second page I linked makes that more than evident).
It is worth noting that Charlie's strategies turned out to be contradictory, and that he did not make every effort to reconcile this flaw before acting. He's more dangerous than Ansom was at the end of Book 1, in a way.