OP skillfully ignored the fact that even in the Masquerade comic, we were more than specifically shown that before Doomfist returned from prison (and Doomfist, based on the current timeline was one of the Talon leaders only for a year maximum at that point), Talon was a gang of mercenaries, greedy for money and torn apart by the covert conflicts of its leaders.
Viali and Antonio were interested only in money, Maximilien also does not look like a principle type. Reyes is sick and mentally unstable, Moira is only interested in her work and itâs funding. Not even one of their field agents working for the idea: Widow was brainwashed and she obeyed the orders of the Talon, Sombra plays by her own rules, Baptiste went to Talon for profit and eventually ran away.
Do not bleach those who consciously destroys the world, which is already weakened by the Crisis and has not fully recovered.
I made no attempt to hide this and pretty directly stated Antonio and Viali both received justice for their poor handling of greed. Greed is not inherently unethical, but Viali ruined Talon by making greed the ONLY thing Talon stood for. Antonio proceeded to use greed as the basis for profiting off of needless murder and arms smuggling. He had no interest in creating productive conflicts that would in the long-term benefit mankind, only aiming to profit by any means necessary. Baptiste was greedy and itâs good he left Talon because Talon is about more than simple-minded profit off of suffering -it is about the ambitious empowerment of all people through conflict.
Maximilien seems to have had nothing against Antonioâs death since Reaperâs still around and Maximlien wanted Viali gone based on how he communicated with Doomfist shortly before Doomfist killed Viali. This to me indicates Maximilien has a greater ambition than mere profit, even if profit is a big part of that ambition. Even if profit was his only ambition, he at least understands his ambition should not be the primary objective of Talon based on him favoring Doomfist and Reaper over Viali and Antonio.
Talon has proven itself a just cause by eliminating those who would abuse Talonâs power in the name of needless murder-for-profit. To so brutally and effectively eliminate the worst members of Talon truly shows that Talonâs members know exactly what they are doing and exactly where the lines of justice should be drawn. Viali and Antonio are villains who got what they deserved.
The problem with the whole OPâs speculation is you have to only go by the lore shown, and actively ignore things stated in that same lore but not shown. Itâs flawed in that regard, because you canât expect the snippets to override the generally established story. Thatâs not a twist, thatâs actively ignoring established details.
If you want to say Talon is something other than terrorists, which is what has been both said in the lore and at the very least, thematically displayed in the game modes and lore, then you have to put down a base for such a thing. Itâs not very good storytelling to go flip the role Talon plays after hammering it through for so long. In other words, there would need to be clues and in a much greater quantity.
So, itâs fun speculation and I admire the thought put into this, but Iâm going to have to say nah.
How many just causes throughout history, from civil wars to revolutions and rebellions against oppression, were labelled terrorism? How many times has a person who dressed and acted edgy and controversial throughout history been labelled a villain despite doing just things their whole life?
Sure you can technically label Talon terrorists, like you can name any other rebellion or revolution or organization that exists contrary to the desires of world governments âterrorismâ.
If your best argument is the semantics of them being labelled something, and the symbolism of them dressing or looking a certain way, you have to concede that is a shallow basis for considering them in the wrong. People are not suddenly evil just because they are labelled a certain way or look a certain way.
I believe the Overwatch Developers/Writers have left plenty of clues that Talon is not just a bunch of evil villains trying to destroy the world in the name of their insanity and their desires for wrong-doing. I believe thereâs a reason they say âSELECT A HEROâ when picking a character in the practice range, instead of saying âSELECT A CHARACTERâ.
2 Likes
Thatâs not the point, really. This is a fictional story, and to me, not enough work has been done to pull off surprises like, âTalonâs not really terrorists.â They need to do more work if thatâs the direction they want to head because right now that would seem like a big old cop out to me rather than an interesting twist.
I know this is the most obvious one but
âHitler was also considered a heroâ doesnât mean he actually was
1 Like
Not everyone who does good necessary things, necessarily understands why they are good and necessary. She killed multiple huge threats to Talon, which were in turn huge threats to the worldâs survival. The thing about brainwashing is usually there is some level of choice involved. I would bet Widowmaker at least in part agrees with Talon on a genuine level after everything sheâs learned, even if she was initially forced into it.
Yeah, that would be Dr Frankenstein.
Very few actually. You see, terrorism has a very specific definition, and is a very recent term.
Back in the day, those people were labelled radicals, zealots, heretics, partisans, infidels, traitors, and a whole slew of other terms, not terrorists though, that is constrained to essentially the post 19th century world, where for the first time non state actors were first recognized as being capable of acts of violence to advance political causes.
So they were labelled terrorists by that timeâs equivalent standard for calling people terrorists. The label doesnât suddenly make them less justified.
No, you are missing the point. Your premise is entirely wrong. There isnt a universal âbad guy termâ that is used for misunderstood do gooders.
This is a common myth in todayâs society that there can be no moral distinction of actions which oppose those in power because the terms of debate are forced by those in power.
This is false. Terror defines terrorism, and violence against those not fighting, for the sake of advancing an agenda is always wrong.
I know of very few non-peacefully founded countries that could meet that standard, or for that matter very few wars in the past and present that could meet that standard.