1. They wouldn't state it outright, but it would be heavily implied that Gaby tends to represent the softer side of Morningstar.
2. They wouldn't entirely understand why he's asking about why people would or wouldn't join Morningstar. They'd answer, but it would be treated as something that should otherwise be a touch more obvious given the world itself.
Basically: it's a risk to join Morningstar. Before recent times, the UN had a staunch anti-Morningstar strategy. Speaking out for them could get someone arrested. Even being suspected as a member of Morningstar could lead to someone being disappeared, especially when sentiments would start to turn. Morningstar is the longest running rebel organization in recent history, but they aren't the first. Many others have been stamped out and stopped throughout the centuries since the UN took hold of the world.
Sentiments are changing. It's not that the world doesn't know that the UN is screwed up. It's that the oligarchical nature of the world means that the power structures couldn't be changed. Most people chose to duck their heads down and take care of themselves. Morningstar wasn't affecting change, even if they were helping people. They couldn't disrupt the structures of the world as a whole.
3&4. Morningstar is an anti-capitalist organization, so by and large, they want a world that actively supports its people and takes care of them without padding their own pockets. They just also believe that something like that will take time to deconstruct, even if things seem to be moving rapidly at the moment. They believe that will change over time.
Their goal is to eventually help create a world that governs itself, rather than is governed by money. They know that this is difficult to obtain, but they want to undo the UN's efforts that solidified during World War III and the human/AI war. Right now, this system is so entrenched, so impenetrable, that they know that the UN is already ramping up and developing ways to undo any of the current progress. What doesn't help is that the UN is very dangerous. Surveillance and money means that they can assert control where necessary, even if they can't keep eyes everywhere at all times. But if someone messes up? It means that the UN knows where to look.
Needless to say, public sentiment is that the UN "takes care of them"—for better or worse. The UN is powerful, and corporations help feed into them and train leaders to maintain this corrupt system. And monster attacks only show that the UN is powerless. It's where the UN is slipping up because they can't control that element (at least: "not yet").
5. In turn, some of the more ruthless of them would ask what Lance would do in their situation, given the hopelessness of it all. What would he expect them to do?
They'd also ask what Lance thinks Morningstar is out to do and what they hope to accomplish, basically to get a reading on what he thinks and feels. Does he trust them? Does he think they're dangerous?
no subject
1. They wouldn't state it outright, but it would be heavily implied that Gaby tends to represent the softer side of Morningstar.
2. They wouldn't entirely understand why he's asking about why people would or wouldn't join Morningstar. They'd answer, but it would be treated as something that should otherwise be a touch more obvious given the world itself.
Basically: it's a risk to join Morningstar. Before recent times, the UN had a staunch anti-Morningstar strategy. Speaking out for them could get someone arrested. Even being suspected as a member of Morningstar could lead to someone being disappeared, especially when sentiments would start to turn. Morningstar is the longest running rebel organization in recent history, but they aren't the first. Many others have been stamped out and stopped throughout the centuries since the UN took hold of the world.
Sentiments are changing. It's not that the world doesn't know that the UN is screwed up. It's that the oligarchical nature of the world means that the power structures couldn't be changed. Most people chose to duck their heads down and take care of themselves. Morningstar wasn't affecting change, even if they were helping people. They couldn't disrupt the structures of the world as a whole.
3&4. Morningstar is an anti-capitalist organization, so by and large, they want a world that actively supports its people and takes care of them without padding their own pockets. They just also believe that something like that will take time to deconstruct, even if things seem to be moving rapidly at the moment. They believe that will change over time.
Their goal is to eventually help create a world that governs itself, rather than is governed by money. They know that this is difficult to obtain, but they want to undo the UN's efforts that solidified during World War III and the human/AI war. Right now, this system is so entrenched, so impenetrable, that they know that the UN is already ramping up and developing ways to undo any of the current progress. What doesn't help is that the UN is very dangerous. Surveillance and money means that they can assert control where necessary, even if they can't keep eyes everywhere at all times. But if someone messes up? It means that the UN knows where to look.
Needless to say, public sentiment is that the UN "takes care of them"—for better or worse. The UN is powerful, and corporations help feed into them and train leaders to maintain this corrupt system. And monster attacks only show that the UN is powerless. It's where the UN is slipping up because they can't control that element (at least: "not yet").
5. In turn, some of the more ruthless of them would ask what Lance would do in their situation, given the hopelessness of it all. What would he expect them to do?
They'd also ask what Lance thinks Morningstar is out to do and what they hope to accomplish, basically to get a reading on what he thinks and feels. Does he trust them? Does he think they're dangerous?
Let us know how he'd follow up!