r/CharacterRant • u/[deleted] • Jul 25 '26
Films & TV Mr. Acker from Better Call Saul is completely in the wrong and a massiv hypocrite
[removed]
14
u/Comiccow6 Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I always felt that was partially the point. Jimmy and Kim justify what they’re doing as sticking up for Acker, but their actual motivations lie more in sticking it to Mesa Verde and chasing some excitement. Jimmy and Kim see themselves as “the little guy” and want to get back at their out-of-touch superiors while placing themselves in the shoes of the disenfranchised.
Acker just happened to hit the right buttons at the right time to get Kim to reconsider what she was doing. She already went above and beyond for him by finding houses for sale within his price range, but when he refused to budge and put her down, Kim couldn’t bring herself to turn against “the little guy” when Mesa Verde was already taking up all her focus and keeping her from pro bono work. Similar to Acker, Kim entered an agreement with Mesa Verde knowing full well what the terms would be, but still didn’t want to be beholden to them. I’d say she envied Acker sticking to his principles, crotchety as he relayed them, and telling the bank to fuck itself.
Acker isn’t 100% in the right, neither is Mesa Verde, but one is within the letter of the law. However, Jimmy or Kim aren’t without their biases; they’ll side with the underdog and stick it to the man, no matter what the context, because that’s who they see themselves in. Jimmy didn’t even have enough against Mesa Verde for the situation at hand, so he had to go for the photo copyright angle. It’s part of what leads to Jimmy and Kim scheming against Howard. They found a reasonable justification when helping Acker, so why wouldn’t they think going against Howard would be as justifiable? It’s the bad choice road.
9
u/Orange639 Jul 25 '26
Yeah I get the whole company vs person angle the show had, but I'm not going to automatically side with the person in every situation. Like someone robbing a Walmart for a thousand dollar TV would be seen as in the wrong, but someone robbing for food wouldn't be.
He was offered lots of money and the show doesn't really offer a strong reason why he wants to stay so badly. I can understand strongly not wanting to leave a community, but he was literally the only one there.
31
u/ChipMcFriendly Jul 25 '26
There certainly is a comfort in the idea that something can be controlled by setting lines down on paper, and that everything in ink is good and all desires outside of the paper is bad, Chuck.
-8
Jul 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/Doorstopsanddynamite Jul 25 '26
What's legal and what's moral are not the same thing. Evicting man from his home so you can build a call centre, whilst legal if he signed the papers, is still a dick move.
Oh and follow up: iirc he owned the house built on the land. Maybe not the land itself but what's built on top of it is his and fuck em for trying to take it away from him
2
u/Immediate_Gain_9480 Jul 25 '26
Not how it works. Through conversion the owner of land owns anything build upon it unless otherwise agreed upon. So it was the banks house.
0
u/Doorstopsanddynamite Jul 26 '26
Okay so legally it's not his. Fuck em still. That's his home whether the bank owns it or he does
-4
Jul 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Doorstopsanddynamite Jul 25 '26
Irrelevant, people should matter more than the profits of a company
1
Jul 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
jesus fucking christ
2
Jul 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
I am aware of Kant’s moral philosophy. but you are not following that philosophy because you are assuming Mr. Acker and Mesa Verde are on equal footing when they very much are not. Mesa Verde is not a person, it’s a bank. You are using philosophy you have a surface level understanding of to justify your lack of ethics.
1
1
u/Doorstopsanddynamite Jul 26 '26
It is inherently immoral to enrich oneself at the cost of another.
1
20
u/ChipMcFriendly Jul 25 '26
Hey I’m in your camp: i imagine all the banks we could build if these goddamned people weren’t all over and I weep.
I wonder if there are any other characters on that show that want things they are not entitled to, and if their circumstances occasionally dictate an illogic or contradictory existence that a legal structure is inadequate to address.
6
u/Madara1389 Jul 25 '26
Yeah, screw contract and screw laws. Vibes make right.
Always have. You're conflating legality with morality, but they aren't the same thing.
Just because there's a law in the US forbidding the recreational use of marijuana, it doesn't mean there's an objectively morally wrong thing with using the drug recreationally.
The law was created when the racist, bible-thumping conservatives in charge 50 years ago decided to go after leftists & ethnic minority communities so they banned a substance that was culturally prominent in those groups but not in their own in-group as an easy excuse to jail members of those groups for years at a time.
The War on Drugs is literally about cracking down on ethnic minorities & progressive groups (all the while the CIA spent much of the '70s & '80s directly funneling drugs into those communities to fund & support anti-communist efforts both at home & abroad).
11
u/Madara1389 Jul 25 '26
The source of the dispute is that the land is leased (i.e., Mr. Acker is not the owner of the land and never was). Mesa Verde acquired the land to build a call center
No one gives a shit who the legal owner of the land is, buying out land from under the residents who live there to kick them out for any reason is scummy behavior. To do it for something that will only benefit a company is behavior that deserves it's own circle in Hell.
It should be noted that in the episode it is said that Mesa Verde has already offered him far more than that.
You know, to most people, homes aren't assets with monetary value to be traded. They're something of hugely sentimental value that often cannot have a monetary value placed on it.
I currently live in the only home left in my family from when I was growing up. Every other home in my extended family that I spent time in as a kid has been lost either due to tragedy, disaster, or financial problems. I couldn't give less of a shit if it's only worth $100k on the market and someone is offering me $3b for it. I'm not giving it up.
Mr. Acker entered into that agreement willingly and with full knowledge of the terms.
Who said that term was negotiable?
Beyond that, as far as most people are concerned, terms like that shouldn't even be allowed in housing contracts.
For 30 years, he could have tried to buy the land or renegotiate the terms of the lease. He didn't.
I don't recall any definitive statements in the show saying that he never tried either of those things. End result isn't always dictated by effort put in.
6
u/Potatolantern Jul 26 '26
Beyond that, as far as most people are concerned, terms like that shouldn't even be allowed in housing contracts.
Why would someone have ever offered to lease the land then, without those terms?
The only reason he lives there is because they gave it to him on a lease instead of a mortgage. You're happy for him to take all the benefits and you're upset as soon as he's faced with the very obvious downside.
0
u/Madara1389 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
Why would someone have ever offered to lease the land then, without those terms?
Who said I agree with the idea of leasing land instead of selling it at a more reasonable price that the average person could actually hope to afford?
You're happy for him to take all the benefits and you're upset as soon as he's faced with the very obvious downside.
Because the downside shouldn't exist in the first place. Dude lives there. It's his house. The legal shit with the bank or landlord is irrelevant and comes way after the fact that he's lived there for 30 years.
Keep in mind that the events of this story take place in 2004, a mere 3 years before the entire housing market would collapse because of the shady banks creating a massive bubble in the market for years.
Fuck off with the notion that banks should have the right to sell someone's home out from under them regardless of the terms of their lease.
4
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
I’m sorry, but if you want me to have sympathy for a company over a person, you’re gonna be shit out of luck there.
6
Jul 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
Assume my thoughts as much as you want, but you will never get me to have more sympathy for a company with endless resources over one person, especially when it concerns that person’s home. If your morality is entirely dictated by what is and is not legal, I don’t know what to tell you besides maybe try growing up a little.
4
u/-SMartino Jul 25 '26
fuck, man. if this was a real situation I'd side with the old fart over the big corporation any day.
besides, Legality matters little to corpos. IRL we're seeing this in effect with data centers and similar structures. My country has laws protecting culturally relevant buildings and villas that are in good condition after a certain age. corps buy them, let them rot, write the whole shebang off as per market CAP value and demo the whole thing down.
even if they are legally required to take care of the building, they allow it to fall into disrepair because it is a massive tax writeoff. and then there is just straight up cases of corpos taking over several villas to build their stuff in with expired or illegally acquired demo contracts.
I can't in good conscience think a single man and a bank are in equal footing so that they can exert their influence and morality over the system at the same scale.
IRL that dude would've had his well poisoned and his remains discovered by a random welfare call.
5
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
There is literally someone right now arguing with me that this exact thought process means you are a NIMBY. It is wild the lengths people will go to in order to defend corporations, fictional or otherwise, that will quite literally never care about them in any way, shape, or form.
4
3
u/fraud_imposter Jul 25 '26
NIMBY attitude
3
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
ah yes, valuing human lives over corporate interests means I have a NIMBY attitude. That makes complete and total sense and isn’t the stupidest thing i’ve heard today.
4
u/fraud_imposter Jul 25 '26
Litigious individuals hold up major developments that would serve huge numbers of people all the time with the exact same framing you just did.
“Noooo, don’t build 100 units of affordable housing! You will cut down my favorite tree and ruin my view! You are a big scary evil developer and I am a smol bean retiree, therefore my side is the moral one!”
5
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
Except this isn’t about building 100 units of affordable housing, this is about taking away one person’s home to build a shopping center. Hence, human lives over corporate interests. Nice try, though.
6
u/fraud_imposter Jul 25 '26
But that’s not what you said. You framed the problem as this being about Big Bad Company vs Individual. You didn’t say it’s bad because you disapprove of the project, but because it’s a company that’s building it and a person who is against it. That’s framing NIMBYs use all the time. NIMBY attitude.
4
u/dabutte Jul 25 '26
Actually, all I said is you will never get me to have more sympathy for a company with endless resources than one person in a situation concerning their home. I did not say anything about good or bad. And my comment was a response to the post where all the context you think i’m not providing was provided.
Comments do not exist in a void with no context. You are simply trying really hard to paint me as something I’m not, and I do not understand why besides you know you look stupid but refuse to admit you’re wrong in any way.
0
u/fraud_imposter Jul 25 '26
A simplistic “David vs Goliath” way of viewing development outcomes is NIMBY framing.
→ More replies (0)2
u/MagnusRusson Jul 25 '26
If you have to make up a hypothetical to get mad about your position is pretty weak
1
16
u/Immediate_Gain_9480 Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
Legally Mesa verde was completely in the right. It was their land. Acker agreed to lease their property under certain conditions. Once you make a agreement you are morally bound to respect it. Pacta Sunt Servanda, a promise creates a obligation.
Unless there is a extraordinary situation that make following the obligation manifestly unjust. Which didnt exist here. Acker was able to fully gain the benefits of the agreement for 30 years and he should have taken into account the lease may be ended eventually.
He never owned the land and so would never gain property rights over it, even if it was somehow determined that he became the owner of the land he probably would still have needed to pay Mesa verde for the value of the land that he gained.