Today's Thought Experiment: While usually listed as a sensor suite, it turns out the gizmo on top of some MegaShuttles can be swapped for different loadouts. Give me some ideas for the least practical add-on.
A suped up impulse engine designed for making the runabout go in reverse. "See, we like to be able to get out of trouble faster than we got into it!" - Some Oddball
Love Quark’s part in this. “They have weapons, you have weapons. But no one has a clear advantage, so the price for peace is at an all time low!” Fucking destroying war with economics lol
All war is economics. Economics is just the study of mutually exclusive decision making. That all the perception and publication revolves around money is just that it's the most easily understood and representable resource that's a limiting factor, can be quantized into a number, and is the thing that everything else's value can be most readily converted into.
@@Meton2526 That isn't remotely true because different parties will assign different values to the resource in question. There isn't an absolute value for anything. Let's say you have a resource that, to you, is worth 1 credit per unit. I see that resource are more valuable (I may have an increased need for it or a more efficient way to make use of it than you do) and consider it worth 1.1 credits per unit. If we make an agreement to trade the resource for some value between the two we both end up with more personally perceived value. If the agreed price is 1.04 per credit then I got a better deal. If it's 1.06 then you got a better deal. One of us was better at bargaining, but we are both wealthier on our own terms that we were before the trade. War is really expensive and what you get when fair bargaining breaks down, usually due to a matter of principles or ideology. For whatever reason one of us hates the other and won't bargain fairly. Or if I need/want the resource badly enough and you won't sell it to me (say your society considers selling it to be immoral) then war becomes inevitable. Take the U.S. Civil War as an example. The Confederates considered slavery as important to their way of life for both economic and ideological reasons. The Union had no real economic reason for the war. But for them keeping the country whole was important and slavery couldn't be allowed to continue because it was morally unacceptable. There were other reasons (plenty of people will happily tell you about those being reasons for war,) but those could have been resolved peacefully. Slavery was an issue that couldn't be negotiated away. War was the only way to settle it.
Quark's role in this episode is fantastic! Using logic on a Vulcan and *succeeding*, a sign of his ability to understand other cultures that will rear its head with a certain Klingon lady in the future in my favourite Ferengi-focussed episode...
Coming from a theatre background, I really appreciate your ongoing shout-outs to the props and makeup departments. They're really talented and really cool people!!
Talking of failed colonies, there's Tasha Yar's backstory, did help highlight that the Federation isnt the smiles and rainbows that it tries to picture, let alone the ludite camp from a few episodes back.
This is what I love about DS9: it's messy. There's no unity on either side: the Admiralty are in conflict with Sisko, the Maquis are causing trouble but defending their homes, the Cardassians are prepared to sacrifice Dukat for political advantage (possibly). It makes the whole thing feel much more realistic rather than just good guys and bad guys.
I don't dispute that Admiral Nechayev was initially reluctant to see the severity of the Maquis situation, but it's a bit hard to asses exactly how bad things are when your officers conceal vital information from you. She actually asked Sisko what Cal Hudson had to say, and instead of telling her that he'd left Starfleet to join a terrorist group and that they may be more dangerous than she realises, Sisko instead lies and mutters about not having gotten round to speaking to him yet, which just makes him look like an incompetent idiot from her perspective. I understand why Sisko did that, but it means of the two experienced Starfleet officers in the area that could advise her, one had switched sides and the other was covering for him for primarily personal reasons. I'd give Nechayev a pass in this case since she never had the correct information to make any right decisions.
The war versus profit meme episode at last. Later on, Quark confronts Sisko about war and how that stuff never happened with the Firangi, and how they were better than humans because of that. I'M wondering if this little talk is the WHY that is.
It is funny that the first appearance of the Ferengi was intended to make them the TNG version of ToS Klingons...that of course failed miserably. I give them credit for going back to the drawing board and establishing a new cultural identity for them, largely due to DS9.
Morn is many things Space Dog! That is Admiral "We will nuke the borg into dust bunnies, then glass the remains while I eat the heart of the latest officer to p*ss me off" Nechevev (sp?). If she is the one telling you to calm down, then you blooming well better listen, it means she has something much *much* more final in mind. I liked Quark's scene with Vulcan lady (I can't remember her name). Using Ferengi thinking and Vulcan logic to make a case for her spilling the beans.
But .... Joker's face is makeup within the story. It's clown makeup. Cardigan and Ferengi skin color is not supposed to be makeup within the story itself.
@@Mecharnie_Dobbs Oh, I guess I don't remember that movie all that well. Haven't seen it in a couple decades, and my head is full of so many other Batman incarnations.
The thing that undermine's the Marquis' cause to me is that multiple times it's mentioned that the Federation offered to relocate the colonists from the DMZ - now, we've given no reason to really doubt the Federation means it, and those who remain agreed to do so under the Cardigan's authority. Now, if they had been just dumped with no options and for no reason, I'd be on the Marquis' side easily, but as it stands, it seems the colonists are rejecting the offer to be moved away from the Cardigans in order to keep a hold of land, which in the Star Trek universe should be borderline worthless when you have many planets to spread out on. I'm not unsympathic to the settlers, but they seem to think dying and killing for land is worthwhile in a world with FTL and many colonization targets.
It's not even as if the Federation has said "You made your choice now you get to die for it" If the colonists said they had changed their mind, the Federation would have no problem picking them and their stuff up.
I remember the TNG episode that was basically the Trail of Tears remix but Picard definitely warns them that by leaving the Federation to stay on that planet, the Federation will no longer respond to their requests for help if attacked.
I tend to agree. It is never explicitly stated how long the colonies have been established but it seems to be a short time. Fifty years at most. It's not like it is someone's ancestral land.
In the TNG episode, forget the name maybe Journy's end?, Picard makes it very clear they are no longer federation citezens and any concerns need to be brought to the Cardassians. I think that got missed when these writers took this story over, though it's handled better here. And I don't know if the people Picard talked to would speak for every planet in the zone. I feel like more info on that treaty would have been nice or an episode dedicated to it.
I always kind of assumed that a ship was sent to every one of the affected planets with the same message. We only see the one the Enterprise went to for obvious reasons.
This show vs. the future Eddington one is a MAJOR plot issue on Sisko's character. Here we see him letting Cal go, and misleading his bosses about Cal's activity, but when it is Eddington, it suddenly becomes about the betrayal of the uniform and Eddington becomes Sisko's white whale in that he will do anything, including poisoning a planet's atmosphere to capture him. Worse, with Cal being his friend, it seems even more biased. I realize the Maquis is just becoming a "thing" in this episode, but Sisko had a duty to perform and bosses to answer to, and he chose not to. So he betrayed his uniform, the same thing he accuses Eddington of years later. How many times in Star Trek do we see Picard (insurrection), Kirk (Spock retrieval from Genesis), Worf (joining Gow'ron in the Klingon Civil War) and others laying down their com badge (or worse not) to engage in a little insubordination when they disagree with SF's orders, and worse, often taking crew along with them. Then they come back (those that left), or get excused (those that didn't). That is not how the military works.
I wonder how Sisko feels about having to deal with a mess Picard helped create? The Enterprise-D had been ordered to evacute one of colonies that had been transferred to Cardassian control but felt bad about ordering people descended from Native Americans off their land. The result from that seems to be the resson why there are so many former federation people in now Cardassian space and Cardassians in Federation space. Also, Federation treaty negotiators are bad at their jobs. How are so many colonized worlds from both sides assigned to wrong side of the border?
@mjbull5156 the border was a big zigzag they drew the dmz as a straight line some got stuck on the other the side of the line and the federation and spoonheads swapped a few planets but people didn't want to leave and fought the bloody cardies
It was established in TNG that those planets were already contested before they were settled and that Starfleet warned people not to colonize them. But those colonists were stubborn and refused to listen to those warnings.
I actually side with the federation on this one. In every instance we’ve seen where there was a cardassian border issue the Federation has been more than willing to relocate everyone and give them new homes of equal or greater value. The fact the people say no does not make the federation responsible for what the cardassians do. The federation is trying to prevent a war and the needs of trillions far outweigh the needs of a few million. Especially when it doesn’t REQUIRE those million to die or suffer, only move house.
True, but the problem is not the people in dangers way. "People are a dime a dozen, but you will always need land." Moving people works when you have the area to work with. The Cards GAIN worlds (land) while we redirect resources (lose land) and put a strain on ourselves. So many planets in our system now, we still live on just the one.
@@LucasKeesee-vm8yp In the first episode it's explained that both the Cardasians and Federation lost some settled worlds to the other in the treaty. It wasn't about a net loss in land, it was that some Federation citizens colonized worlds in contested territory, some of which went to Cardasia, and likewise some Cardassian citizens settled contested worlds that went to the Federation. The first problem is .... don't put your whole livelihood into contested worlds. The second is that the "Post Scarcity" propaganda myth that pervades Star Trek is demonstrated to be false here.
Yes, Nechayev is so annoying here. She is the worst kind of manager who isn't interested in listening to her subordinates, only in ensuring the borderline illegal orders from her superiors are carried out. She refuses to even entertain the possibility that the civilians may be in the right under the Federation charter (except for Section 31 of course). That attitude is probably why Hudson went over to the Maquis. Also fully agree with your viewpoint on Federation tendency to be disconnected and sanctimonious to citizens on the border. Kinda like some Westerners attitude towards the people in Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics. I mean Britain has learned twice that just because you are on a island far from the frontlines doesn't matter a tinker's damn when you get down to it. I wonder if the same lesson is in store for Earth in DS9's future...
Why are you pronouncing Maquis that way? It's not marquis or mah-quis. It ma-quis. Please engage pedantry to fix this pronunciation, or to tell me why I'm wrong. Thank you!
