Jump to content

Lets talk specifically about the "Money Lending and Other Sins" questline *spoilers*


RyuNova

Recommended Posts

Lonely-Martin
8 hours ago, Rykjeklut said:

I know it's sh*t, but you mentioned it in relation to Strauss.

Well, yeah.

 

Strauss here is a money grabbing c*nt.

 

The Strauss that forces the sh*t that is online gaming here is equally a money grabbing c*nt. (Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of R* or T2). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Well, yeah.

 

Strauss here is a money grabbing c*nt.

 

The Strauss that forces the sh*t that is online gaming here is equally a money grabbing c*nt. (Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of R* or T2). 

Hah, an intentional name usage?  I totally missed that.  I wonder how they got away with it?  😃

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lonely-Martin
13 hours ago, saintsrow said:

Hah, an intentional name usage?  I totally missed that.  I wonder how they got away with it?  😃

 

Would be easy to say fanboys. Much like it'd be easy to say some in here haven't been in dire straights or even hoodwinked/coerced. That's that business, predators at work, they want people to default on payment so the can stick a rod further up their ass. :)

 

But many just don't know because most, rightfully mind, just enjoy a videogame and not look too hard into who makes what.

 

Much like a movie. Many just don't care who produced or directed it. Again, totally fair though. Some just like a bit of Tom Hanks because it's Tom Hanks.

Edited by Lonely-Martin
Oops, spelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I’m no fan of Strauss Zelnick’s approach to monetisation if video games, but I’m pretty sure that no one ever got beaten to beaten to death or eaten by a cougar as a result of his business practices.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wangsparkinglot
Spoiler

Yeah well he lent Winston Holmes money and he was a rare animal hunter with no foreseeable income.

 

We can be assured that Strauss was a 1899 Loan Shark whom did none of his own collecting

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, saintsrow said:

Both RDRs seem to be Rockstar trying to make amends for the past mindless excesses of the GTA series, to reprogram their young, impressionable adolescent fans, with the message that violence and  bad intentions and lack of empathy are actually bad things; i.e., do what we say, not what we do, kind of thing. 

Yet I have never killed as much people in a video game as in Red Ded Redemption 1 and 2.

 

No matter what the story is, the player is exposed to mindless killing sprees in almost any single mission. The whole series is about practically endless shootouts with waves after waves of ennemies. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Well, yeah.

 

Strauss here is a money grabbing c*nt.

 

The Strauss that forces the sh*t that is online gaming here is equally a money grabbing c*nt. (Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of R* or T2). 

 

Hahah, damn.. I totally missed that that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also worth pointing out that loan sharking usually has a negative effect on more people than just the debtor and their family.  The other creditors of the debtor are affected too.

 

Say a debtor comes to Strauss - they will usually already have debts they are struggling to pay.  By lending them money and presumably charging a high interest rate, Strauss adds to their overall debt.  Then, by sending Arthur “I already killed five men on the ride over here today” Morgan to collect the debt, Strauss ensures that the loaned amount plus the extra interest is paid to him, thereby reducing (probably significantly) the amount available to repay other creditors. So other people are out of money too as a result of Strauss using Arthur to push himself to the front of the line.

 

I say this as someone who bankrupts people and winds up companies for a living.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that Strauss was not a bad man. My issue with this questline is that the people treat Arthur like hes the one who got them into the situation and the game/R* tries to make me feel bad or guilty when I have no sympathy.

What Arthur said to the Downes boy was right. Keep looking at me like I am the monster who forced you to make the deal and I will knock you silly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The FoolYT said:

Well i didn't see Arthur calling Strauss out for this early on at any point so he must have supported it considering he's part of the gang. He's even one of the top dudes so could have easily shut down that business but didn't choose to.

Read the journal, Arthur 100% hates going to collect the money. Plus in the beginning Arthur ask Strauss to send someone else because its not his thing. 

19 hours ago, Scaeva said:

Arthur however does behave as if Strauss is worse, and in that he is being a tad hypocritical. That doesn't mean Strauss didn't deserve to go...just that Arthur is still a bit deluded in thinking that what he got up to (violent robberies) was somehow less morally bankrupt than shaking down debtors. After all Arthur goes on to commit more robberies after ejecting Strauss from the camp.

I think Arthur looks at it that Strauss for the most part, is leading money to people he knows who wont pay it back or who will have an extremely hard time paying it back. The first 2 or 3 debtors don't seem to bother Arthur, but when you get to the german guy and downs, Arthur starts too see that Strauss is really only lending too poor people. 

 

What Robbies does Arthur commit after kicking Strausss out? Army train? i cant think of any.

Edited by feckyerlife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

kannibaljones

I think folks tend to think Arthur's tb was his punishment but I think it was his blessing... it gave him the chance to see the world differently.

it gave him the chance to find out who he really was...he lived by the gun but did not die by the gun.

It gave him his chance at redemption

I think Charles mentioned something very similar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, kannibaljones said:

I think folks tend to think Arthur's tb was his punishment but I think it was his blessing... it gave him the chance to see the world differently. 

it gave him the chance to find out who he really was...he lived by the gun but did not die by the gun.

It gave him his chance at redemption

I think Charles mentioned something very similar

We're led to believe this through dialogue from Charles, yes. IIRC he says something along the lines of "you're lucky to know when you're going to die because you can do something good" and personally I agree with this viewpoint. Had Arthur not have been diagnosed with TB he would have just continued blindly listening to Dutch and committing attrocities. Arthur becoming aware of his own mortality pushed him toward doing good hence we have all the honor stranger missions (Sister Caledron, the Widow, Strauss's final debts etc),

 

 

  • Like 5
cDxpYmb.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, mde2 said:

We're led to believe this through dialogue from Charles, yes. IIRC he says something along the lines of "you're lucky to know when you're going to die because you can do something good" and personally I agree with this viewpoint. Had Arthur not have been diagnosed with TB he would have just continued blindly listening to Dutch and committing attrocities. Arthur becoming aware of his own mortality pushed him toward doing good hence we have all the honor stranger missions (Sister Caledron, the Widow, Strauss's final debts etc),

 

I disagree. Arthur was becoming disillusioned with Dutch well before he got his diagnosis. Hell, he started having doubts after the Blackwater job we never see and hearing that Dutch murdered a woman for no reason. When Shaun dies he blames Dutch and Hosea for getting blinded by the idea of Schrodinger's Gold. He questions Dutch over his decision to keep the feud with Colm going and asks him to either drop it or kill Colm out of necessity and not for revenge which leads to Kieran's death.

There are many many more moments where you see Arthur's realisation happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RyuNova said:

I never said that Strauss was not a bad man. My issue with this questline is that the people treat Arthur like hes the one who got them into the situation and the game/R* tries to make me feel bad or guilty when I have no sympathy.

What Arthur said to the Downes boy was right. Keep looking at me like I am the monster who forced you to make the deal and I will knock you silly.

Arthur is knowingly and directly involved in Strauss’s enterprise and profits from it.  He is fully aware that Strauss targets the people who are poor, desperate and incapable of defending themselves from his assault.  

 

He is not simply paid a wage, the money he collects from the debts go to the camp funds from which he benefits.  He acts for Strauss voluntarily, knowing Strauss’s practices.  

 

Strauss is not a legitimate money lender providing a service, he is a loan shark profiteering from the vulnerable. The money that Arthur is collecting is not merely the money that was loaned, but also interest charged at an unreasonable rate.

 

What Arthur pdoes is reprehensible and he knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, feckyerlife said:

Read the journal, Arthur 100% hates going to collect the money. Plus in the beginning Arthur ask Strauss to send someone else because its not his thing. 

I think Arthur looks at it that Strauss for the most part, is leading money to people he knows who wont pay it back or who will have an extremely hard time paying it back. The first 2 or 3 debtors don't seem to bother Arthur, but when you get to the german guy and downs, Arthur starts too see that Strauss is really only lending too poor people. 

 

What Robbies does Arthur commit after kicking Strausss out? Army train? i cant think of any.

 

Arthur takes part in at least two robberies after Strauss is ejected from the gang if I remember correctly. Besides the train, I believe the robbery of the bonds from the Cornwall oil plant also occurred after Strauss was gone. Dutch in part tries to play off the latter as aiding the natives, but Arthur knew better by that point. It was always about the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darealbandicoot

Depending on your honour, Arthur is either feeling bad about his actions OR think his time was wasted on losers. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scaeva said:

 

Arthur takes part in at least two robberies after Strauss is ejected from the gang if I remember correctly. Besides the train, I believe the robbery of the bonds from the Cornwall oil plant also occurred after Strauss was gone. Dutch in part tries to play off the latter as aiding the natives, but Arthur knew better by that point. It was always about the money.

Robbing cornwall isn't a robbery imo, its more of helping an alias in a time of war. The army is eh, stealing from the rich isn't the same as taking from the poor or non wealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, feckyerlife said:

Robbing cornwall isn't a robbery imo, its more of helping an alias in a time of war. The army is eh, stealing from the rich isn't the same as taking from the poor or non wealthy.

The natives were never really allies however. Arthur and Charles may care about them, but Dutch didn't. It is made fairly clear that Dutch is just manipulating them through Eagle Flies for his own ends. Given that, the stolen bonds were likely always Dutch's goal. At that point Arthur wasn't ignorant that Dutch was using the natives either, as he tells them that.

 

In order to get the bonds Arthur and company have to kill a lot of the people. Some of the soldiers are probably just normal people, not unlike most of the lawmen, or bank or train guards the gang kills in their robberies. Even if the gang is stealing from the rich (like Cornwall), if they leave a trail of bodies in their wake, Arthur really can't claim to be a more moral man than Strauss.

Edited by Scaeva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2018 at 2:58 PM, ThroatSlasher2 said:

You miss the entire point of the game.

 

At that point, it's not hypocrisy on Arthur's behalf. It's Arthur finally, after decades of being misguided and used, realizing that what he believed in is morally wrong and an excuse to perpetrate vile, villainous acts. So many of you call Arthur a hypocrite for thinking he's better than the rest of the gang but he's the only one who does the right f*cking thing. He's the only one who manages to see the light of day and try to make up for his sins.

 

Is he better than them? Yes. Wholeheartedly. 

 

and John....

he saves John (morally) 

When you're dead, you don't know that you're dead. It only affects the people around you.

It's the same when you're stupid.

 

-Samcro

A GTAO forum member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2018 at 1:38 PM, RyuNova said:

 

I disagree. Arthur was becoming disillusioned with Dutch well before he got his diagnosis. Hell, he started having doubts after the Blackwater job we never see and hearing that Dutch murdered a woman for no reason. When Shaun dies he blames Dutch and Hosea for getting blinded by the idea of Schrodinger's Gold. He questions Dutch over his decision to keep the feud with Colm going and asks him to either drop it or kill Colm out of necessity and not for revenge which leads to Kieran's death.

There are many many more moments where you see Arthur's realisation happening. 

Finding Dutch's prepared speech notes in chapter 2 is when Arthur (and the players) start to realize that he's a fake.

Those notes are not there at the beginning of chapter 2, but do show up after some time.

Edited by Smokewood

When you're dead, you don't know that you're dead. It only affects the people around you.

It's the same when you're stupid.

 

-Samcro

A GTAO forum member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scaeva said:

In order to get the bonds Arthur and company have to kill a lot of the people. Some of the soldiers are probably just normal people, not unlike most of the lawmen, or bank or train guards the gang kills in their robberies. Even if the gang is stealing from the rich (like Cornwall), if they leave a trail of bodies in their wake, Arthur really can't claim to be a more moral man than Strauss.

Indeed, you have stated the central logical disconnect in all these games, where the writers try to give the protag or supporting NPCs a conscience.  They continually whine and profess guilt about some of their actions within the story arc, while the deaths of hundreds of fine young patriotic soldiers and principled lawmen are completely ignored.  In Rockstar's defense, this is no different than the hypocritical stance of the worldwide action movie entertainment industry.  All the consequences, the deaths and ruined lives, are dismissed in fractions of a second of screen time.  

 

Furthermore, in RDR2, Arthur can go around killing innocent NPCs, and his honor bar (which is really apparently an omniscient conscience or Judgment Day scorecard) drops a little.  Elsewhere in the story arc, Arthur can say "I'm sorry" and drop a couple hundred bucks to people whose lives he ruined, and his honor bar jumps up like 30 points, the equivalent of killing probably a hundred innocent NPCs on the street.  Maybe more.  

 

Bottom line is that movies and video games are not a good place for impressionable young adolescent players to try to calibrate their moral compass. 

 

PS:  As a personal opinion, I think movies create a much more emotional connection with the viewer, than do video games, and I think that some movies do contribute negatively to young peoples' formation of their cultural and moral compass. 

 

Conversely, "It's just a game" is a valid defense for video games, in my opinion.  This is true, even in spite of all of Rockstar's attempts to become machinima moguls - the scenes are nowhere near as engaging and visceral as movies.  All that face capture and body language capture all those interactive real-time stage set pieces to get the actors into the dynamics of the scene, create results that are really pale compared to real movies, or even animated movies.  Neither the emotion in the voices  nor the facial expressions, are as emotionally connective as in well-made movies, IMO.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2018 at 4:21 PM, Scaeva said:

I'm just pointing out that Strauss was no worse than Dutch, or Micah, or Hosea, or Charles, or any other member of the gang including Arthur. They were as responsible for sowing misery as anything Strauss got up to, if not more so.

 

 

There are two things that make Strauss's lending operation a little worse (or at least that is the argument the game is making):

1 - Strauss is the only one who hides his actions behind a veil of respectability and legitimacy. And notably, Strauss's business is the only one Dutch's gang conducts that is legal in so-called polite society.  Big credit card and cash advance companies are the Strausses of modern society.  What makes it insidious is that some of them provide a needed service with ethical rates, but others are just predators in suits, taking advantage of people too desperate or dumb to know better.

 

The speech that Dutch gives to Cornwall about them being basically the same - that could just as well be directed at Strauss, were he not already a part of the gang.  Dutch and co. are a lot of bad things, but among them, Strauss is the biggest hypocrite. 

 

2 - Strauss is the only one actively preying on the weak as a matter of course.  Most of the gang's robbery targets are successful individuals and businesses who can afford to take a hit.  Most of Strauss's targets are... well, Thomas Downes and his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nutduster said:

 

There are two things that make Strauss's lending operation a little worse (or at least that is the argument the game is making):

1 - Strauss is the only one who hides his actions behind a veil of respectability and legitimacy. And notably, Strauss's business is the only one Dutch's gang conducts that is legal in so-called polite society.  Big credit card and cash advance companies are the Strausses of modern society.  What makes it insidious is that some of them provide a needed service with ethical rates, but others are just predators in suits, taking advantage of people too desperate or dumb to know better.

 

The speech that Dutch gives to Cornwall about them being basically the same - that could just as well be directed at Strauss, were he not already a part of the gang.  Dutch and co. are a lot of bad things, but among them, Strauss is the biggest hypocrite. 

 

2 - Strauss is the only one actively preying on the weak as a matter of course.  Most of the gang's robbery targets are successful individuals and businesses who can afford to take a hit.  Most of Strauss's targets are... well, Thomas Downes and his family.

 

While that may not be the case with the last two robberies the gang carries out, the bank jobs the gang pulls do hurt regular families in much the same way as Strauss' predatory lending. In the 19th Century there was no insurance on the money you put into banks which meant that a robbery could wipe out your savings.

 

It is why the historical Northfield, Minnesota bank robbery turned into such a debacle for the James-Younger gang. When the local townspeople, some of whom were Civil War veterans, got wind that the bank was being robbed - they promptly armed themselves and went out into the streets to battle the robbers, filling some of them full of lead. Their savings were at stake.

 

Rockstar did their homework and that historical reality is reflected in the game. If you read the newspapers, following the Saint Denis robbery there is an article on the raid that mentions that hardworking people had their life savings wiped out by the Van Der Linde gang. The gang might tell themselves they're stealing from robber barons when they hit banks, but the truth is that they end up doing more damage to poor people who put what little money they've saved in the bank and reduce them further into poverty.

 

In Arthur's "defense" he wasn't witnessing the damage the robberies did to poor families since he never crosses paths with the people whose lives those robberies destroyed. The bank acts as a barrier for the consequences. Strauss sending Arthur to shake down debtors however requires that he witness firsthand the damage the gang was doing to regular people since there was no middle man in the form of a bank. Strauss' lending activities are no worse - but I could perhaps see how Arthur or other gang members may have fooled themselves into thinking otherwise.

 

 

5 hours ago, saintsrow said:

Indeed, you have stated the central logical disconnect in all these games, where the writers try to give the protag or supporting NPCs a conscience.  They continually whine and profess guilt about some of their actions within the story arc, while the deaths of hundreds of fine young patriotic soldiers and principled lawmen are completely ignored.  In Rockstar's defense, this is no different than the hypocritical stance of the worldwide action movie entertainment industry.  All the consequences, the deaths and ruined lives, are dismissed in fractions of a second of screen time.  

 

Furthermore, in RDR2, Arthur can go around killing innocent NPCs, and his honor bar (which is really apparently an omniscient conscience or Judgment Day scorecard) drops a little.  Elsewhere in the story arc, Arthur can say "I'm sorry" and drop a couple hundred bucks to people whose lives he ruined, and his honor bar jumps up like 30 points, the equivalent of killing probably a hundred innocent NPCs on the street.  Maybe more.  

 

I enjoyed the game and would probably rank it somewhere in my top 3 video games of all time, but in some sense the gameplay does get in the way of the story they're attempting to tell. After Arthur finds a conscience he's still killing more people than Cholera, because if the killing stopped players would complain that the end game was slow and lacking action.

 

Films definitely have an advantage in that respect. If the story of RDR2 were ever adapted to film, I wonder if the filmmakers would dial back the bloodletting once Arthur starts seeking atonement.

Edited by Scaeva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2018 at 8:48 AM, unfairlane said:

 

I`ve ignored Strauss all the way, what a bloodsucker

Can you progress through the story by ignoring his missions? Or can you just not collect the debts I thought you only had a choice at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 3Prcntr said:

Can you progress through the story by ignoring his missions? Or can you just not collect the debts I thought you only had a choice at the end.

No. You have to do his chapter 2 missions and a chapter 3 mission involving Edith Downes, but everything after that is optional.  

 

I'm replaying chapter 6 at the moment and skipped all the moneylending and Edith Downes missions. The chapter works better without them IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Harmonica said:

No. You have to do his chapter 2 missions and a chapter 3 mission involving Edith Downes, but everything after that is optional.  

 

I'm replaying chapter 6 at the moment and skipped all the moneylending and Edith Downes missions. The chapter works better without them IMO.

So he will never get kicked out then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2018 at 12:51 PM, Scaeva said:

 

There is a fair degree of hypocrisy in Arthur throwing Strauss out of camp in that what Arthur and the rest of the gang gets up to is no better. You can read a newspaper article about one of the bank robberies the gang does that mentions that many hardworking people who had their life savings in the bank had it wiped out. Not to mention all the widows and orphans they create every time the gang kills bank or train guards or lawmen...all of whom are just regular people doing what they have to do to keep food on the table. 

Well, in modern day banks, you are only robbing the bank. Not the individual. Maybe that was different back then, but highly doubtful considering the profits banks make off interest and how common they are.

Personally, If I could have told Strauss to f*ck off, I would have. He is scum. Most of them are. But it does play into the whole redemption thing that an honorable (true story line) Arthur. Either way, Arthur does not seem like the kind of man to do someone like Strauss' dirty work. Ever. Michah.. yea, no doubt. But it's pretty clear that Arthur disagrees with debt collecting from every dialogue between Strauss and himself during those missions.

Still, I wouldn't skip it. Just seems like a wasted story when you do. And on my second play through, Im dishonorable AF... still want to kill Strauss, but no remorse for the people who take shady loans. No different than todays people who take bad credit loans they can never pay off. I have been hard up. Really f*cken hard up and dug really f*cken deep... but NEVER stupid enough to do that sh*t. It's why those places exist. The interest alone is unpayable unless you make decent money, and if you do, you shouldn't need it in the first place. So no... No remorse for these fools.

Still... f*ck Strauss.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BretMaverick777
2 hours ago, 3Prcntr said:

Well, in modern day banks, you are only robbing the bank. Not the individual. Maybe that was different back then, but highly doubtful considering the profits banks make off interest and how common they are.

 

FDIC.

Didn't come into existence until after the Depression.  Those who rob banks today (GTA V) are hitting federally insured vaults, so Granny's life savings are still safe, no matter how much money was stolen.   But Dutch and Arthur are robbing rich and poor alike when they hit banks in 1899. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, sort of. Not really.

Banks may not have been backed up by the FDIC back in the day, but their reputation relied very, very much on being a safe place for people to keep their money.  So if a bank got robbed, they made sure to pay it back, otherwise their reputation would go to sh*t and no one would ever bank with them ever again.

It was also common practice for banks to take out insurance against theft.

 

So the main victims from a Van Der Linde Gang bank robbery would usually just be the bank and its insurance company*.

Really small banks that couldn’t take out insurance or afford to fight a claim against their insurance company might be an exception.

 

*plus of course, the dozens of employees, police and innocent bystanders who would inevitably get killed in a standard Van Der Linde Gang robbery.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 4:54 AM, Darealbandicoot said:

Depending on your honour, Arthur is either feeling bad about his actions OR think his time was wasted on losers. 


So, either way, he realizes Strauss is exactly what he is.... a parasite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.