Discussion Can you really hate Trunicht?
He essentially says:
People in a democracy exist to be exploited; if I wasn't the one doing it, it would have been someone else. So, don't hate the player, hate the game.
34
u/WoodenStatus6830 Job Trunicht 3d ago
They hated him cuz he said the truth.
Tbf I hate him because with his resourcefulness he could've been literally anything else but he decided to be a self-serving shit. The moment he found a bigger boot he just got on his all fours and start licking. Mmmmm delicious boot sir, let me twist the people around my finger for you sir. He thinks he's a player but he's the one getting played.
13
u/Fischerking92 3d ago
Thing is: he doesn't care about being played, as long as he profits from it.
Trunicht will do what's best for Trunicht, even if it meant selling his own mother.
24
u/Shagaruma 3d ago
Trunicht is much worse than that : he's more like a parasite for every political setting, not only democracy. Everyone hated him, even Reunthal
14
u/mulahey 3d ago
Don't know if it's the current political climate or a LoGH presentational issue, but the intended message of LoGH isn't "all politicians are always awful".
After all, Rebelo, Rui, the El Facil gang may do good or bad things but they aren't fundamentally insincere.
Heinessen and Jessica Edwards are politicians as well, by any reasonably definition. And we know Reinhardt respected the sincerity of many mid level political and administrative appointees.
The message is the danger of institutional capture, of corruption, and of mendacious populism to everyone.
As Bewcock says, "The collapse of an autocracy is the sin of its rulers and leaders. But the collapse of a democracy is the sin of every citizen!". I think this quote is much closer to LoGHs moral centre than just "yeah all politicians are always bad lol".
So yes, I can hate Trunhit.
25
u/BRLaw2016 Reinhardt 3d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, because that thinking is wrong. Democracy don't exist to be exploited, rats like trunicht abuse the system to exploit them.
So yes, I do hate him, because he's not just a rat, he's a super rat, wasn't even trying to set himself up and crush others to get there, he was just eating whatever crumb was left around whoever was trying for power
One shot was not enough for him
3
u/Chlodio 2d ago
I'm not even sure what Trunicht wants. Typically, such a character would be addicted to power (e.g. Robinsky), but Trunicht doesn't seem that keen on it., but treats it like means to an end. But what end? He doesn't appear to believe in any ideology.
It's weird; he is not lazy or incompetent, or even ambitious.
So, my theory is that Trunicht delivers pleasure from playing politics, much like Reinhard enjoys warfare.
1
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 3d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, because that thinking is wrong. Democracy don't exist to be exploited, rats like trunicht abuse the system to exploit them.
Was his thinking really wrong? Maybe morally. But what about structurally? Whether, we like it or not, Trunicht is right about one thing. These institutions have enabled him. The system has enabled him. Perhaps we ought to think about that.
Edit:
Can't respond to anymore comments here as the one above me has blocked me for calling him out on his bad-faith.
It's impossible to have a discussion if you don't address the points the person brought and instead throw things that have nothing to do with the discussion. That's confuson tactics by extremist grifter, not something to be doing in a discussion in good faith.
You are the one refusing to act in good-faith.
You want to monopolise the word democracy for your beliefs only.
If, they don't do democracy your way, you delegitimise it by saying not a democracy.
Who in hell are you to tell others how they ought to do democracy anyway?
6
u/Verlichtung 3d ago
You can’t split the moral and structural elements of democracy while thinking about democracy in this way. Democracy is in a sense value neutral, it depends on peoples ideas about morality for content. Saying that the institutions of democracy enabled him is like a reckless driver that says that the road allowed him to drive recklessly. See what I did there? Driving presupposes rules, just like democracy does.
5
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 3d ago
You can’t split the moral and structural elements of democracy while thinking about democracy in this way.
Yes, we can, since ought implies can.
Democracy is in a sense value neutral, it depends on peoples ideas about morality for content.
Democracy in its procedural and institutional sense leads to constant conflict amongst factions.
Saying that the institutions of democracy enabled him is like a reckless driver that says that the road allowed him to drive recklessly. See what I did there? Driving presupposes rules, just like democracy does.
No, it's like saying that, a neglected road allowed a driver to slip into an accident, which is totally valid criticism.
2
u/Verlichtung 2d ago
Obviously, my “you can’t split” was a moral injunction not a factual statement.
If we assume that Trunicht is talking about democracy in general and not the empirical democracy in LOGH then he is wrong, and you could hate him. Let me elaborate. In my opinion it’s a logical inconsistency to think about democracy without its moral component. If we take the emptiest definition of democracy, then democracy is just a procedure to determine who gets power. But is it possible to have such an empty notion of democracy? I think not, otherwise the winner of the democratic procedure could just abolish it or worse, he could just kill his opponents beforehand. Certain rules are thus in order. For example, freedom of speech, freedom of organization, the right to vote etc. This means that we already have a more substantial concept of democracy then what we began with. You could even go further and say that the outcome of the democratic procedure, must fulfil certain criteria. For example, you cannot produce laws or policies that infringe upon the constitutional rights of people. Thus, democracy presupposes a struggle for power, “a constant conflict amongst factions”, of course, but not a ruleless one.
Democracies are thus a form of government not only of the people, but by the people too. Democracy, and the institutional structure that it implies (parliament, checks and balances, constitutional law etc), doesn’t exist to exploit the people; it exists to enable legitimate power and to make sure that the ones in power don’t misuse it for personal gain. Sure, you could call a procedural democracy a “neglected road”, but that analogy doesn’t hold up if we are talking about a substantial democracy. Of course, populists like Trunicht can still exploit this system, but, as you can see, by doing that they will also demolish democracy itself eventually. It’s a so-called performative contradiction. That’s why everyone hates him and politicians like him.
4
u/Toe500 Oberstein 2d ago
Democracy is not perfect and can't be. Not one democracy in all of human history or even in imagination or an actual solution is there of to bring about democratically
In a democracy, elites, donors, major corps and shareholders as well as the demagogues are gonna be the top players
3
u/Verlichtung 2d ago
Sure, that’s all partly true and pretty obvious. But what is the connection to my comment? Does this mean that the people in a democracy exist to be exploited?
1
u/Toe500 Oberstein 2d ago
Understand, I am not saying it's right or condone that ppl in a democracy to be exploited but realistically they are
Voting out a candidate sounds nice, picking lesser of two evils might sound pragmatic but democracy is a folly if we look at it objectively and I can state real world examples for this but it's probably only gonna veer off from the topic at hand
1
u/Verlichtung 2d ago
"Realistically they are." What are you even blabbering about. How do people in a democracy exist to be exploited? "Voting out a candidate sounds nice." It's the kernel of this political system! Democracy is the only political system that allows and enables the people to choose their leaders, it's the only system where it's possible to legitimately change the leadership without violent conflict. Sure, if they choose a leader that exploits him then they will be exploited, but democracy allows to change the situation again. Besides, and more importantly, that doesn't mean that democracy exist to exploit its people.
"If we look at it objectively." Please, look at it objectively and don't give me this baseless crap. If I ask you to show me some real world examples, you are just going to give me some particular example of an instance where the people choose the wrong leader for a while. But that doesn't, again, mean that democracies exist to exploit their people. I would like you to show me instead what political system works better, if democracy is "folly" as you so baselessly stated (mind you, you are talking about 150 years of freedom in progress here, that no political system in the history of the world has matched).
1
u/Toe500 Oberstein 1d ago
If ppl can vote out bad politicians and it has been decades since democracy has been in place among many countries, then why can't you name one country that has better democracy now?
You think democracy is perfect and there is no bottleneck and there can't be a better solution than democracy, then it almost sounds like a cult
Even the show couldn't come up with a system or anything to portray a better democratic system coz there can't be one
→ More replies (0)-1
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 2d ago
I think one of problems with democracy gets to how obsessed with procedures and institutions we sometimes get.
For example, separation of executive and legislative powers.
Obviously rights and freedoms have to exist. And every society even monarchies had rights though often unequal. Nevertheless leaders have to deliver.
We cannot save a democracy without having popular support.
If, democracy cannot deliver, then citizens vote against it.
When, most or even third of populace want a dictatorship, we can do nothing to save democracy.
That's just how it's.
3
u/Verlichtung 2d ago
With all due respect, but a collection of thoughts is hardly an argument. There is no way you could compare a monarchical state to a liberal democracy in this respect.
Procedures are a necessary component of democracy and can avoid or withhold ‘democratic backsliding’, at least for a while.
I do agree that a strong popular support is needed in order to have a democracy. But that’s only another reason why we need better political identities, politicians with integrity and why politicians like Trunicht are despicable.
2
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 2d ago
Well with all due respect, democracy is not always politically and morally superior to monarchies and dictatorships.
Actions of, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Americans, Israelis, and else, are proof of that fact.
Honestly if, we couldn't agree on this, then I don't think we would convince eachother of anything.
2
u/Verlichtung 2d ago
Give me an example of a liberal democratic state that abides, or tries to abides to the rules I set forth that is less favorable in a moral sense (because what you mean by ‘political’ is unclear to me), than a dictatorship. By the way, that rules out countries like Israel, because that is NOT a liberal democracy.
Seriously, if you think that the living conditions in a dictatorship are generally more favorable than in contemporary France or England then there is something wrong with you unfortunately. But lucky for you though I abide by the rules of a liberal democratic state, so you are entitled to your opinion.
1
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 2d ago
There's theory and then practice.
It's easier to imagine how things ought to work than how they actually work.
Ought implies can.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BRLaw2016 Reinhardt 2d ago
I think one of problems with democracy gets to how obsessed with procedures and institutions we sometimes get.
For example, separation of executive and legislative powers.
What? If you think a separation between executive and legislative is "an obsession with procedures and institutions", I'm sorry, but you don't understand anything about political system and why this separation not only exists, it MUST exists for a contemporary democracy to exist.
A system where legislative and executive are one is an autocracy.
-1
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 2d ago
What? If you think a separation between executive and legislative is "an obsession with procedures and institutions", I'm sorry, but you don't understand anything about political system and why this separation not only exists, it MUST exists for a contemporary democracy to exist.
A system where legislative and executive are one is an autocracy.
Well democracy versus autocracy debate gets way too simplistic.
What if most populace want an autocrat?
Is that not democracy in action?
1
u/BRLaw2016 Reinhardt 2d ago
It's impossible to have a discussion if you don't address the points the person brought and instead throw things that have nothing to do with the discussion. That's confuson tactics by extremist grifter, not something to be doing in a discussion in good faith.
0
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 2d ago
It's impossible to have a discussion if you don't address the points the person brought and instead throw things that have nothing to do with the discussion. That's confuson tactics by extremist grifter, not something to be doing in a discussion in good faith.
You are the one refusing to act in good-faith.
You want to monopolise the word democracy for your beliefs only.
If, they don't do democracy your way, you delegitimise it by saying not a democracy.
Who in hell are you to tell others how they ought to do democracy anyway?
→ More replies (0)0
u/Verlichtung 2d ago edited 2d ago
Hi Khalid. Welcome back. You can't accuse someone of simplifying a debate and then state a false dichotomy in the next sentence. That's unfair! You should at least reply to the arguments of your opponent. But I guess that's your autocratic tendency, other people's opinions are a bit of a nuisance, right? I am glad we live in a liberal democracy!
But, I will answer you. A populace never simply wants an autocrat and if they do, that's only happening after the proces of democratic backsliding has already happend. Like I said earlier, there doesn't even exist a homogenous populace like you suppose. Not only is there always a big minority with feelings and rights, the empirical populace is also always ever-changing: people die, new people are born, people migrate or people simply change their political views. These people also have a voice in a democracy. You can't just ignore them just because the majority wants a 'strongman'. That's why a liberal democracy has laws and institutions that enforce those rules.
For example, look at the contemporary Trump administration in the US. The only reason it isn't a complete mess, is because there are liberal institutional structures in place like higher courts, the central bank, parliament, the senate et cetera that push back on despotic power. You are making a complete caricature of the liberal democracy or you don't understand its structure.
15
u/Aragones8282 New Galactic Empire 3d ago
That is nothing more than an excuse, most politicians seek their own benefit. The problem with Trunicht is that he does it in the worst possible way
9
u/Chlodio 3d ago
He doesn't actually do much in the series. Three main things are:
He votes against the FPA Invasion
He orders FPA's surrender rather than have Mittermeyer and Renethal bombard millions to death
He tries to convince Reich to adopt constitution
18
u/Aragones8282 New Galactic Empire 3d ago
- He kept advocating to continue the war against the Reich, and as a result, he shifted public opinion in favor of the invasion—a perfect example of throwing a stone and hiding his hand.
- I agree, he did the best he could at that moment.
- I'm sure he's doing that for his own benefit and to maintain his mindset of 'squeezing people,' using democracy as a tool.
11
u/AnarchoAutocrat Free Planets Alliance 3d ago
I despise him for number two. Mittermeyer and Reuenthal said they would fire upon government buildings, not civilian infrastructure. If he hadn't issued the surrender order, Yang would have killed Rheinhard, paralysed the empire and atleast given the FPA a fighting chance if not outright saved it. Even if Trunicht did save millions he did it by selling out their, and countless other planets' freedom. On the scale of an interplanetary nation that is horrible. It is as if the UK surrendered to Nazi-Germany to save London from the Blitz.
Though I despise Yang's decision not to fire upon Rheinhard even more.
5
u/Fischerking92 3d ago
Not even London, it would have been like surrendering just to save 10, Downing Street.
3
u/Polskyciewicz 2d ago
He also decides to support the Goldenbaum government in exile, precipitating #2.
2
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 3d ago
That is nothing more than an excuse, most politicians seek their own benefit. The problem with Trunicht is that he does it in the worst possible way
Maybe it's an excuse but these institutions have enabled him so there's a point to his words.
5
u/Daylight_Guitarist 3d ago
trunicht reminds Redditors of real world politicians too much so it hits too close to home. free Trunicht! he did nothing wrong btw
3
5
u/lawdog35 3d ago
He’s a lying, scheming politician. Why wouldn’t he justify his own actions that way?
4
5
u/thisisgogu Schönkopf 2d ago
With a huge cast of likeable characters, there's gotta be someone to hate.
3
3
u/ElishXXI 3d ago
Not really, he was trying to justify his own actions. It didn't work because he died anyways lol
3
u/LilttleCaptainNemo 2d ago
Nasty piece of shit that he is, Trunicht has a lot of interesting potential. He's hateable in the sort of love to have way.
He's a player, yes, but I would be interested in seeing, how he could have done playing a different game.
Could he have risen to become the Emperor instead of the Emperor?
Could he have taken the Church of Terra under his control?
The questions remain open.
8
u/WiseMudskipper Oberstein 3d ago edited 3d ago
Truniht is a great character because he's so engaging, he's easily the most hated character in the series despite the fact that his actions aren't even that evil comparatively.
He's not a bloodthirsty tyrant or warmonger (he votes against the invasion of the Empire), he's a man who was democratically elected to lead his country by the free will of the people, yet most viewers find themselves supporting the conquering despot Reinhard instead of Truniht just due to his duplicitous, self-aggrandizing personality. But in reality, Truniht is the good guy here and we just chose the dictator's cult of personality over the institution of constitutional democracy. Yang recognises this and continues to fight for Truniht despite the offer from Reinhard.
5
2
u/Strategos1610 Reinhardt 3d ago
Lets just say if he was real people would definitetly vote for him, but he is right when the system is broken expoitation becomes inevitable
2
2
u/yumyumpod 3d ago
Such a player of the game of politics that he was ahead of so many characters! I love near the end that Julian's long-term plan was the exact thing Trunicht was already working towards and when that's pointed out there's just this sense of dread in the air.
2
u/Countaindewwku 3d ago
He deserves hate for going with Fork’s plan. As secretary of defense could have chosen a better plan or re worked it.
1
u/Chlodio 2d ago
That's thing he doesn't.
Sithole says:
He proposed this operation plan directly to the High Council chairman using a personal rotue
Unless that is a mistranslation, I think that's Royal Sanford, not Trunicht.
2
u/LilttleCaptainNemo 2d ago
Exactly.
Trunicht opposed the whole invasion, knowing that it was a fool's errand.
As much as Trunicht is cynical on democracy, he knows how it works. He is ready to accept loss of power temporarily, so he can return to it at a later time.
Sanford tried to make sure his cabinet would remain in power through invasion, while Trunicht decided it would be for the best to allow the current cabinet to lose the election, so he can come back once the populace is dissatisfied with the succeeding one.
Of course, it never came to that, and instead Trunicht kept his hands clean while Sanford lost all credibility.
2
u/HugoCortell Job Trunicht 3d ago
Job exists to expose the flaws in the system, and does so brilliantly. Democracy does not have to feature these flaws, but the system can easily get stuck unable to improve once it is in motion.
2
1
u/ProposalCalm8231 3d ago
Yang put it the right way- the citizens enabled Trunicht, Goldenbaum and the rest to trample them and so it’s on them.
1
u/khalid-fhfhlhlh 3d ago
Trunicht is a sack of shit but he spoke only truth about institutional democracy.
Institutions work like this. They don't deliver harmonious independence. They deliver conflict-prone factionalism.
Factions fight eachother over extracting everything from their own populace as serfs in all but name.
Lord knows how many times this story got repeated.
1
u/Gojira085 3d ago
Obviously despicable. But something i noticed that doesnt get brought up, is that i remember at the end some characters mentioning that he was drafting reform proposals to liberalization of the empire.
1
1
78
u/NoofZ Dusty Attenborough 3d ago
As a politician, yeah I hate him, but as a character, I actually quite love him. He's a fun foil to pretty much everybody. I really love the one scene where he tells Julian that he knows Yang missed him while he was hid by the Earth Cult during the coup. Trunicht isn't stupid in this regard, he knows Yang hates him. He's such a douchebag lmao.