I think those are all valid reasons. The two main points for me being that it all happened very quickly and that there was no need for him to act.Griffith said:I just wonder why he didn't leap into action like Zodd, especially being an assassin himself. Either he was but Femto gave the all clear before he could act (and we just didn't see whatever reaction he was having), he intuited that Femto wasn't actually in danger, some combination thereof, OR he was clued into the situation for some specific purpose while Zodd got the "no need to know" treatment. The least impactful interpretation is that we simply didn't see him going "!!" or whatever.
Yeah, I've been quite interested to see how the Falconian society has all been set up so far, even simple things like the relationship between Owen and Locus. I'm looking forward to see how it all develops. Anyway, Locus could have indeed just asked Rakshas, although like I said earlier I don't think Rakshas would have needed much impetus to act anyway. I honestly believe that most apostles would have reacted similarly.Griffith said:Well, he could have just asked. It could even be a matter of professional courtesy that he notify and let Rakshas handle such action! I wonder about that, not that I disagree with the assessment that they're all essentially co-equals, but how they're roles invest them with different authority, responsibilities, or jurisdictions (Locus is a knight and a decent public "face" for Griffith's Apostle army, Rakshas works in the shadows as a bodyguard or doing wetwork). Like a real bureaucracy!
Yeah it'll be interesting to see how it turns out. I've already voiced my speculation on this earlier (like 4 pages ago lol) so I won't repeat it, but it does open interesting dynamics. Although like Rupert said, Griffith could have anticipated Rakshas' actions and willingly let it slide. Also worth mentioning is that I'm not too sure Locus would really view Griffith as weak because of this, or if he did, well, that probably wouldn't be very wise of him (since Femto could presumably kill him by snapping his fingers). However I find his "overly worrying" and "easily angered on behalf of" attitude quite reminiscent of another person who once attended to Griffith: his former first officer, Casca.Griffith said:Anyway, if Locus and Rakshas are indeed going on their own here, it exposes a few cracks in the armor of the whole seemingly loose organization, or lack thereof. Under this scenario, not only are they doing this without Griffith's permission obviously, but Locus is arguably going against a standing order! Which brings up the contradiction that they're committing sacrilege against God in the name of defending that god, plus whatever they feel needs defending is almost an indictment of his legitimacy (which, in part, is why Rickert's action is so threatening to them). Part of the problem is a seeming disconnect on Locus' part understanding Rickert's importance (and maybe rightfully so). Why should God let his peon, whoever he was or is, literally slap him in the face? They sure couldn't get away with that, right? Who the fuck is HE? Some comrade from back in the day? Who cares? Does God care? Why? Why does any of that matter!? It doesn't, right? It essentially undermines everything, and whatever the case, it makes Griffith look weak, in the mind's of his subordinates and therefore in reality. I'm obviously taking it to extremes, but it's worth questioning considering their unity, at least the Apostles total loyalty to Griffith himself, has previously seemed immutable, whereas this action carries a whiff of insubordination and maybe a hint that Guts is more correct than he knows; these guys are really just monsters pretending to be knights, so maybe when the chips are down that house of cards will fall into chaos... or maybe Griffith ordered the hit, or they otherwise have an understanding and he doesn't care, or it's simply easier to ask forgiveness than permission. We'll see, but it's interesting to think about.
It's true that there was no magic at work there, but he still remains largely unreadable in my opinion. What was most telling to me, far more than his expression, was the fact he moved out to a balcony to watch Rickert leave the palace. That shows a certain attachment or melancholy and I think that's what made Locus so angry. Because beyond the slap, Rickert could reach Griffith in a way (emotionally?) no one else has been able to so far (outside maybe of Guts & Casca, and even then the boy's intervention muddles things up).Griffith said:Griffith's reaction the last two episodes have actually been by far the most reminiscent of his human self to me. Rather than just being able to completely control the situation, along with the fuckin' universe, like a God, he had to show a little finesse and good humor and just make the best of it to save a little face in front of his important friends (like the rest of us slobs =). He's done plenty of political maneuvering since he's been back of course, but the deck was always stacked in his favor with the perfect retort always at the ready to completely shut down his would-be adversaries, whereas there was no perfect response here.
I would have thought the Ganishka / Baboon fiasco had been a lesson learned.jackson_hurley said:Even though it doesn't really fit at all with what we know already of Rakshas, I'd like his apostle form to be a sloth. With these long and sharp claws. Of course they are slow so I really don't think that'll be the case. I just recently saw a picture of one and thought It'd be nice to have a sloth apostle with surprisingly fast skills and agility. Wishfull thinking on my part.
Well it certainly relates to the old city, however I don't think much can be gleaned from it at the moment.Walter said:There's no reason it can't be both a cool setting and a peek into life 1,000 years ago.
I think we can still assume with good certainty that it represented a man. As for why it was there... who knows? We don't even know what the place was (and there are many possibilities).Walter said:Good point. But of course without any identifying markings (or even arms), we can't say who or what it represented. And it still begs the question why such a seated/throned figure was in that location to begin with.