One of the saddest dynamics in society I've ever come across... The more free a society is, the less real poverty there is, and the less anybody really looks at the "top dogs" and says "It's unfair that they have that much while I have so much less!" The less free a society is, the more poverty, and the more there are people who support measures which don't really impact the "top dogs", but instead increases the amount of poverty they are in. In other words, the more dominated a society is, the more it supports that domination overall. The less dominated, the less people really demand the domination. Because they always believe that the domination is impacting everybody but them, when they demand it. And have less reason to be in favor of domination if they're not dominated because their lives are good. Hong Kong, almost nobody there really wants more economic controls. New Zealand, there were borderline if not actual riots when government subsidies for many things disappeared. Yet now that they're gone and farmers are making more money and more crops, the farmers are actually usually horrified (or mystified, "you're suggesting what?") at the mere idea of their return. In the US, when regulations turn the entire mess to rancid shit the first demand is more regulations. Russia, when the Czar held absolute sway and was maintaining what amounted to feudalism long after any of the mechanics that let feudalism continue? Their answer was to institute communism, a system whereby there was theoretically no private ownership of anything.
Anyway, I suspect some of my earlier comments in these threads really were giving the (uncomfortably less than) fictional government in EfT too much credit. They are highly unlikely to give up just because Guy says Ceres is a plum not worth the picking. But, you know, ultimately the reason they'd send Guy? They were covering their ass. He was too officious an employee to take advantage of free fare to Ceres to just start a new life there. Relatively low-ranking. If he had succeeded, his boss (and her boss, and that boss's boss) would be ready to take credit for getting the job done. That he has failed, he's become all too ready a target for blame. Ironically, he could use Fiorella as a blame target to pass the buck further down the line. Say that she abandoned her position and that's why he failed, or worse turned traitor and helped them craft the little deal they're intent on. But he seems too honest to actually do so. So if he basically quits and joins up with the Cerereans, they'll send others to go over the Ceres books. Probably equally lowly functionaries and accountants. And maybe by then Guy'll realize just what "ajudication" services are, and how little a jukebox church resembles the catholic church most think of when they're pondering religious authority
Admittedly I wouldn't be too keen on becoming a member of the congregation. Kareoke usually sets my teeth, spine, and most other body parts on edge
But if the guns come out... Let's just say, troops trained in Terran gravity would be almost useless upon landing on Ceres. Even if they're using lasers or something, the apparent difference in weight of weapon would throw aim off.
As for self-sufficiency, with nanotech, carbon, and water, they are quite probably capable of making do just trading among the belts and with Mars. But Terra is a piece of their income, and I'm sure holds some level of special place in their hearts on top of it. There's a great line from this movie I saw about the US internment camps for Japanese. When the americans asked the guy whether he was hoping Japan won or the US won, his response was "If your mother and father are having a fight, do you hope your mother kills your father, or father your mother? Or do you wish they would just stop fighting?" Terra's the little mudball with cosmic-scale fungus all over it everybody came from. Just because it's gone fu
cknut insane with totalitarian government doesn't mean you'd like to turn it into a dust-enveloped slag pile. Even if you might be tempted to lob a few rocks straight at the odious bastards who think they own you.
Oh, that kinda reminds me. The Burner ship? What G acceleration/deceleration where they travelling at? At 1G constant thrust, ten days sounds like UWRS sent them out there when the place was on or near the other side of the sun. If my numbers are correct, 1g constant acceleration and deceleration, they should've travelled 1,791,590,400 kilometers, give or take. The closest thing to a diameter of Ceres' orbit is 829,257,746km... Yeah. They got a sudden yearning for Belter proceeds at the absolute worst time of year to take a ride out there. Even assuming the owner of the ship they flew on is a bit more efficiency conscious and only did, say, 0.5-0.8G, and accounting for the fact that you can't exactly fly in a straight line anywhere nearby things like the sun, they almost couldn't have been in any other alignment. Either this is a straight-up jab at the idiotic inefficiency of government that's really subtly embedded (congrats if so, I love stories that there's subtle nuances that hit you over time), or somebody with gov connections and incentive decided to pull a string in order to get a noose around the Belt's neck. Consolidate
them by the next time shipping to Terra was easy to manage.
One, uhh, last question for now? Are Bert and Ernie
really Babbette Guzman the elder's sons? Or are they, hmm, either her co-husbands or co-husbands of her daughter? As hard as it might be to tell in black and white inking, the family resemblance between BG the elder and the "son" who it's implied wasn't adopted doesn't seem all that close
Resemblance at the third apparent generation would appear to be the "adopted son's". Babbette the elder doesn't seem to have a husband helping to run the place, entirely possible for him to have moved on in terms of relationships or corporeality. But no mother between the two Babbettes has been introduced to be the parent of the precocious little urchin
Now, if it's a daughter (living or deceased) who married two men at once, they'd both be "sons in law" and "brothers in law". And now that my brain's thinking in terms of Heinleinian references, is "water brothers" a "stranger in a strange land" reference?
