Ok I like this style lets take a look see.

*Is initially introduced as a generically named, suspicious drifter. Not someone you're immediately endeared to.
Debatable some people are drawn to mysterious men. If anything he has the makeup of a gangster and the same game portrays some gangsters in a good luck with the Kitaki case.

*Is shown as being strong and brash, not someone who needs our protection
I don't really understand what you mean by no protection but I liked this character type, found it admirable.

*Zak is NOT mentioned as schizophrenic in canon
And Edgeworth is not mentioned as gay in canon or Phoenix mentioned as being in any way romantically attached to Maya.

*Zak did NOT show remorse for assaulting Olga in canon
Debatable he doesn't really live long enough to show much but I consider him slumping in the chair an act of shock. He didn't stop Phoenix leaving and calling the cops, if he was so furious surely he would have.

*It is NOT mentioned that Zak paid Olga money for her services
Lol this is a given. Are you really saying this professional con artist did this out of the goodness of your heart? Surely the writers expect us to jump to SOME conclusions.

*The fact that Zak hired a con artist to help him con someone AT ALL is jerkish, multiplied by the fact that he was doing it to con his daughter's guardian.
True but I don't judge a man by one action. Phoenix also used his borderline psychic daughter to help him cheat big players I don't consider him a jerk.

*Zak does NOT show remorse for hitting Brushel
The one time we see him hit Brushel, Brushel was out of line about to spill secrets Zak didn't want said. The hit wasn't filled with any real malice it was just a warning to hold his tongue no remorse necessary.

*Zak did NOT pay Trucy's lunches, despite not being mentioned as being broke, and in fact having the money to hire Kristoph initially
Not mentioned as rich either and we don't know Kristoph's rates. Furthermore CR's info says Kristoph WANTED this case seeing as it would be quite famous, hence why he had prepared forged evidence in advance. Fame foregoes payment in this case.

*Zak disappears when he is about to be sentenced, thus he did not disappear to protect Valant but to protect himself, with no regard as to what was about to happen to Phoenix or that the police may shift their investigation to Valant in his absence
The opposite happened, people thought Zak looked suspicious for disappearing from a guilty verdict drawing attention away from Valant. It was only natural paranoia that made people think he was innocent and his disappearance was to draw attention away from Valant. Besides so what if he protected himself? He was going to be convicted of a crime he didn't commit. It's not exactly selfish it's the way things should be.

*Trucy is eager to accept a stranger as a new father immediately
Uhuh means nothing.

*There is no mention of Zak having found a home for Trucy in canon
No mention he DIDN'T find a home in canon either and she is in good health when she visits Phoenix.

*Zak does NOT ask Phoenix's permission to dump his daughter on him
This contradicts your previous point, if this is true then it Zak intended on Trucy having a home with Phoenix.

*Zak returns 7 years later and gives Phoenix the rights to the Gramarye magic for Trucy, despite having been able to sign them over her in the first place. (He did not have to "die" to legally sign them over)
Yes but he did have to die for them to be passed on to her.

*Trucy is shown to have suffered emotionally over being abandoned by Zak, yet Zak never seems to have considered that his actions may have affected Trucy, or at least he does not mention so in CANON
AAAAAAAHEEEEEEEEEEM to paraphrase "The thought of her was the only thing that gave me pause...." so shaddapayouface on this one plus he shown remorse when he reappeared to Phoenix.

*Zak does nothing to financially help Phoenix with his daughter in 7 whole years
Understandable he had to appear dead.

*Zak refuses to see Trucy, despite having promised to see her again
Where....was this promise? Shows he's ashamed not just blatantly uncaring about seeing her.

*Zak does not thank Phoenix for helping with his daughter, showing NO gratitude whatsoever
Zak:
I hardly need express my
gratitude. But, you have it.
What's that about....no gratitude?

*Zak's debatable "apology" is immediately followed with a scam, thus making it seem as if the writers appeared for it to be insincere.
I'm going to play the 'game face' card again. Plus those two events in gameplay terms come within hours of each other so the writers intended for them to be unconnected.

*Zak tries to frame Phoenix for a crime Phoenix was not committing, despite having no real motive to do so, and that it would cut off his daughter's livelihood
Wounded pride was his motive, though not much of one. Zak had no idea Phoenix was only there for his poker skills, to Zak he was a pianist there plus Phoenix informed him Trucy was working too. Zak had no reason to believe he would ruin Phoenix's job at the Borscht Bowl club.

I like that game.

---

--Even gangsters have family and/or fellow gang members. Shadi is shown as having NO affiliation with ANYONE. He's a drifter. Even his NAME is Shadi. He is made to seem like an untrustworthy individual from the beginning. And we're not arguing if you have to dislike the character, just that he's a jerk. Guess what? Gangsters such as the Kitakis are usually JERKS. They can be charismatic and likable jerks, but still JERKS. People like Kristoph too, he's sophisticated and handsome, but he's still a JERK.



--I simply mean he is not a character we see as needing our protection, thus he is not a "victim" character. We are not meant to pity him.



--You're right, and I'm not arguing if Edgeworth is gay or Phoenix/Maya are romantically involved, now am I? They are not confirmed as such in canon, and no one will argue this, even if they choose to view them this way. We are debating whether Zak is a jerk in CANON. And he is. If you want to say you choose to view Zak this way but concede he is a jerk in canon, that's FINE.



--Exactly! In canon he is never shown regretting hitting Olga. The lack of time is irrelevant. The writers did not show him as remorseful. That's it. We're only arguing canon events. Not what could have happened.



--No, it's not a given, otherwise it could have even been a motive for Olga to possibly be the murderer. Yet it was never brought up in court. For all we know, Olga did it only for the chance to defeat Phoenix and his famed 7 year no-lose streak that was giving cons like her a bad name. The game never canonically states that Zak paid her squat, thus this is not real evidence, even if it is a possibility.



--Phoenix does not cheat. Reading peoples tells is ALLOWED in poker. It may be an unfair advantage to use Trucy, but it is also an unfair advantage for Apollo to use Perceive in court. What's more, Phoenix did what he had to in order to keep Trucy and himself FED. He did it to LIVE. Zak had no life-dependent need to frame Phoenix.



--It is mentioned in the game that Zak has hit Brushel repeatedly. Brushel reacts to Zak's threat of violence with fear. And Zak doesn't only shove Brushel or give him a meaningful glare. He PUNCHES Brushel. Remember, Brushel is supposed to be his FRIEND, and yet Zak has him afraid enough of him that he can shut him up with mere threats, let alone his actual violence.



--Kristoph still would have had to be paid, especially since he put money into getting a forgery made. If Zak can afford an attorney (and afford to be picky about it!) he could have paid Trucy's lunches at least ONCE in an entire year.



--It's selfish. It shows he lied about trusting Phoenix (if he had stayed, the forgery wouldn't have looked as bad, and things might have been cleared up), not to mention he actually HAD the proof necessary to clear up the forgery deal and clear his own name. And no, Zak had no way of knowing that the police wouldn't have turned their attention to Valant. Valant got lucky that they didn't.



--Except it does. Children that young can get anxious when they don't see a parent for a few hours. Imagine a parent disappearing for WEEKS? And yet Trucy isn't at all distraught. Children also have a tendency to be blindly loyal to their parents. Why do most kids react badly to step parents when their parents remarry? They want their real parents, not a substitute. And yet Trucy is ALL TOO WILLING to go with Phoenix. This indicates a POOR relationship between them. Basic psychology, yo.



--Again, if he had found her a home, why didn't she STAY there? Why go to live with the unemployed forging attorney? That makes no sense! Why would her new guardian even let her go? There WAS no planned home!



--This is not a contradiction. Zak did not plan for Trucy to stay with Phoenix, or anyone, but he still dumped Trucy on him and disappeared, letting Phoenix or the police or anyone around deal with her. He didn't CARE.



--No, he didn't. You can legally sign over your rights to something to another person without dying. It happens all the time in business.



--And yet this only further proves that Zak is an insincere jerk. He says "yeah, I was worried, totally" but didn't do a THING to prevent her from getting hurt.



--He was contacting Brushel. He could have sent things through Brushel. He didn't bother.



--What better way to show remorse than apologizing to her in person? Ashamed or not, he owed it to her. But he cares more about himself than letting his daughter see her father. JERK.



--Insincere jerk. Again, words are empty if your actions contradict you. He says he's grateful, then what does he do? Tries to frame Phoenix for a crime he did not commit. That's not gratitude. That's LYING.



--Or perhaps Capcom meant for you to piece them together slowly, since this *IS* a crime solving game? Shadi and Zak are separated by hours. Are we not meant to link them together?



--So wounded pride is more important than keeping the person whose raising his daughter employed? JERK.
And EVEN if Zak didn't know that he'd be ruining Phoenix (which is hard to believe, seeing the state Phoenix is in), he's still making Phoenix lose his job! WHY make Phoenix lose his job? He owes Phoenix SO MUCH and has never done ANYTHING for him in return. Why screw him over like that? Pride? JERK.

---

Alright you want to take out uncertainties lets do that.

Shadi doesn't mean jerk and it's not especially nice to say that since it's his real name but the Kitaki's (bar wocky) are genuinely nice for the sake of argument. The name Shadi Smith was purely to make him a mysterious not necessarily bad. Take other names like Mr Darke or DeKiller. If it's dark it's obvious.


Ok.....I don't understand your point?



Oh-ho but many do argue this, they argue it bitterly like it is canon. Icer herself I believe is a strong promoter of Maya/Phoenix. And I don't agree he's a jerk in canon, I admit the framing was wrong but that alone does not make him terrible in my eyes.



This line of reasoning is irrelevant, it's impossible for the writers to show this, considering the position of the characters, Zak's viewpoint is the only one that could show this, showing Zak's viewpoint after the murder would have spoiled and revealed the mystery of the first very important case.



I refuse to accept this belief. We know Olga was a professional canon. Professional's get paid fact. This "Oh but the chance to beat a legend" is conjecture and ruled out.



Think I seen a picture somewhere of a poker game in the old west. A hired help was giving signals to character A in the poker game by flirting with another player and sending signals to character A about character B's hand and whether he was bluffing or not. How is this different from having a psychic daughter tell you when you should fold or play?



Yes sharp jabs in the ribs kicks under the table punches in the arm, all valid warnings when someone says too much and Brushels' character is certainly a blabbermouth. We don't know the context of the other hits. Adding to that Zak's punches are probably very strong (he does appear quite muscly in his old magician's outfit) it's no wonder Brushel would flinch in fear.



No no Kristoph went STRAIGHT to him with the intention of taking his case he would charge him as low as he wanted....besides he might not have to be paid. It's heavily implied that Phoenix has taken cases for free as favours to friends, maybe even blatantly stated I don't know but Kristoph could've easily done the same or for pennies.



Nope conjecture: (Forgery wouldn't have looked so bad, things might have been cleared up) ruled out.
The courts of AA would refuse to look at Zak's evidence seeing as it's illegal AND presented by the accused, it's more suspect than the forgery itself. Plus if he had stayed he'd have been declared guilty, Valant would have got away with the framing and Trucy would still have been left alone.




Hahaha pleadingeyes, nothing in canon. She's happy to go with Phoenix....but nothing in canon indicates a poor relationship between them. It's just as valid for me to say Zak tipped her off that Phoenix was a good man and would care for her beforehand except we're not accepting that.



Except canon argues that there was somewhere she stayed as she was perfectly healthy after a week alone.



How's this
Canon: Nothing indicates Zak contacted Trucy.
Canon: Zak KNEW Trucy was going to be with Phoenix, it's partially why he went to meet Phoenix.
How would he know this? Trucy couldn't contact him to tell him about her new daddy or her life? He planned it and it worked perfectly. Plus you can't say he didn't plan for Trucy to go to Phoenix and he dumped her on him in the same sentence....that just doesn't make sense in a literary sense.



Canon: Magnifi had to pass on the rights when he died
Canon: Valant HAD to wait 7 years for Zak to die before he could practice the Gramayre secret tricks bound by law.
AA law indicates that the rights are only passed on in death.



Canon: Zak knew where she'd be with Phoenix
Zak secured her a home, preventing her from being homeless or ending up in some orphanage and securing her life. He did everything he could before having to disappear.



They would've traced Brushel to him. Say what you like about the AA police force but Interpol is portrayed as competent.




Remember he's not even legally dead yet, he took a risk going to see Phoenix that night. Contacting Trucy may have been dangerous. Though he shows remorse for his daughter, maybe not as much as if he had apologised in person...but still remorseful and hurting as a result.



Interpretation ruled out.
Canon: He apologises sincerely but fears it's not enough
Canon: He attempts to cheat a victory
Separate events you are the one who adds in the interpretation that he is lying and insincere.
My interpretation is that he keeps his game persona and normal persona separate only getting mega-serious when he plays.



You're making assumptions about the writers opinions. In my sense if they had intended for it to be your way then they would've shown it quickly so you'd be like "Ahh that conniving sunnovashroob" and would see a direct connection. This is all conjecture about the writers opinions....it's void and worthless.



I already said Zak assumed he worked at the Borscht Bowl club, ruining Phoenix as a poker player wouldn't ruin his job in his eyes.
And I already said wounded pride wasn't a noble motive but I don't judge him exclusively on the night he was killed.

---

I don't agree Thalassa is 'good', we should compare to less ambiguous chars also to cement this example. But the canon is that Thalassa is AMBIGUOUS and Zak is undeniably a JERK. Thalassa is debatable and our subjective opinions come into play, maybe they are supposed to. Her framing doesn't reveal enough explicit facts about her past. This is NOT how it is with Zak! He has no mysterious unknown past and is only ever portrayed and framed as a selfish, undesirable individual. Thalassa at least shows genuine thanks to Phoenix and Apollo and much of her motives and past are unexplained. And she doesn't deliberately try to ruin people and frame them for crimes they didn't really commit, assault people et al. My opinion is she is a bitch, but I know I've filled in what's actually ambiguous in canon with my own subjectivity. There is not such ambiguity around Zak.

Zak suddenly got schizophrenia at the Olga incident? That's even less likely.
Look, if you're going to suggest people have or get a mental illness, you have to show something alluding to it in the canon. Zak never says 'the voices told me to do x' or anything else. Therefore there is no support whatsoever of this theory. We may as well say Zak's a ghost or alien, it's just as supportable.

I haven't got up to the more recent posts, maybe later.

Oh yeah, this:





I'm not dumb enough to think Phoenix/Maya is 'canon'. No pairing is, except Ron/Dessie and the people who are married. I think P/M potential is a valid reading of some of the ambiguities in the game. It's certainly not the only one. I'd say it's canon they love each other, since they care for each other so deeply, but it doesn't have to be interpreted as or ever becoming romantic love.

Zak IS a jerk? Unambigious, explicit canon.


Zak could easily have found out through 3rd parties Trucy was living with Phoenix in the 7 years. It in no way implies he 'knew Phoenix would adopt her' or he contacted either one.

With the police, obviously. Phoenix 'invites Trucy in' two weeks later, Trucy didn't go to him. If Zak had told Trucy that Phoenix would adopt her, wouldn't Trucy have gone herself by now? If Zak had made arrangements for her, wouldn't Trucy mention them? And if Zak had been a good father, would she instantly be calling Phoenix 'Daddy'? This is abnormal as Phoenix observes, people do not instantly 'move on' from an even borderline decent father.

People in these series are stereotyped to their 'role'. Zak is a magician. Magicians are fake and superficial. A hallmark of the series is proven actions and decisive evidence matter more than lying words and testimonies. Even the 'good' Trucy is canonically shown to put on an act for the outside world when she's feeling different inside. Zak's 'apology', not only too little too late, in the context of the series is meaningless because it's instantly CONTRADICTED by his subsequent action in framing Phoenix. Decisive evidence and proven actions > Lying Testimonies and superficial fakery. Phoenix and Trucy are heroes in the game. Doing bad things to them, like ruining their lives or abandoning them, are framed as BAD. Subjectivity comes into play, and it's supposed to. Even more in this game with the subjective jury. Phoenix, hero of the series, is Trucy's new father. This alone implies her old father was not up to scratch. This is how the game frames it!
As for the 'game face'; who but a JERK ruins someone's life over a petty GAME?

---

He acted in accordance with the stress/vulnerability model of schizophrenia, it's enough for me. However I'm not seriously promoting this idea just saying it's possible.



Opinion conjecture etc, though it does please me to hear you are a rational Phoenix/Maya fan.



Canon: It's never mentioned these third parties exist or spy on him.
No 'coulds' please. Basic facts without outside influence shown Zak knew she was with Phoenix.



Canon: Trucy is healthy but it doesn't specify a home during the time. You cannot assume it was just the police looking after her.
We're not told why she didn't go herself.
Canon: Zak still knew where Trucy was and Trucy didn't say anything about arrangements. Maybe she was worried Phoenix would throw her out but it still looks like Zak had planned it.
Canon: Trucy had a part in Zak's grand escape plan and went to somewhere Zak knew he would find her.
I'd say this 'sudden move on' is planned not a result of bad fathering.



The second you said subjectivity comes into play I almost stopped listening. Yes it's subjective to each of us. It's been said Zak's like a completely different person when he gets into 'game mode'. I don't view the con as concrete proof that his apologies and gratitude were lies. Also Zak didn't know it would completely ruin his life after all the the common public the poker at the club is a side job only known to certain circles.

---

CANON: Other people in the world interact with Phoenix and Trucy during their daily life and so would know Phoenix adopted her! These aren't 'hypothetical spies'. It's a formal adoption, her name is legally 'Trucy Wright'. Even if Zak didn't just ask one of the myriad people who had ever observed or interacted with Phoenix and Trucy, he could just look up official records by himself, or have someone do so.

Then stop being so closed minded. Or are you instead going to argue the case 'The canon portrays and frames Zak as a jerk but I refuse to believe it'?

But it's a highly reasonable assumption. She's abandoned at a courthouse and her father is a criminal. Authorities such as police or community services would obviously deal with her. They would have children of convicted criminals to deal with all the time so it's not like it's even an unusual situation, there would be people on site just for that kind of issue. A far more reasonable assumption than she went away to some temporary carer arranged by Zak who she never mentioned to Phoenix when wanting to be adopted. And 'healthy' well is Trucy really going to drop dead in two weeks?

So what. The fact is she didn't go to Phoenix, for TWO WEEKS, and only went then because he CALLED HER. That hardly sounds like what would happen if Zak had told Trucy to 'go and be adopted by Phoenix'. To imply that, at the very least Trucy would have contacted Phoenix again herself! It would have been simple to write that way, but they DIDN'T.

No kid could just immediately 'move on' like this, even if directed to, if they were truly attached to their father. Kids are so attached to their parents they make ridiculous compensations for their flaws. The Zak-Trucy bond can't have been very good. It's one thing to accept being adopted by Phoenix, but quite another to immediately call him 'Daddy' and erase Zak's place in her life.

Trucy talks about it in either 4-2 or 4-3 (probably 4-3). He promised her just before the 'disappearing act' that he'd come back one day AND SEE HER. Trucy is still believing this 7 years later. Then even when Phoenix offers, he refuses to see her. JERKS break that kind of promise.

As for the magic rights, no Zak does NOT have to die or be legally dead to pass them on. It's a business, not a monarchy! Magnifi only waited till he died to pass them on because he wanted to hold onto them whilst he was alive, of course. (If he'd really cared about Trucy, he could have given her the rights before he disappeared. Trucy knew he was disappearing so it would not have risked uncovering his plot. And she'd already done her first magic show, so he knew she aspired to be a magician.)

---

Didn't you hear? Now we're not doing assumptions. Canon suggests Zak does no such thing.



Again massive assumptions that canon can not confirm.



Uhuh this falls back on my age old argument that Zak had predicted Phoenix would do this after gauging his personality in poker.



Assumption, you can't assume these things of fictional characters who go well above and beyond the limitation of children in the real world. No Spirit medium can physically change their bust to match the size of the person they channel either.



Really I was only curious as I missed it but Zak does not say "I will never see her again" the promise is still on, he just didn't take that opportunity to see her.



Wrong, or at least you have no proof of it being that way. Magnifi passed on the rights to magic IN HIS WILL. So he had to die. This implies that it is something that is inherited as do Zak's actions.


Also for the record I wasn't sure before but I'm certain now.
Zak selflessly wrote a confession for a murder he didn't commit to take suspicion off Valant. Added to the odd disappearance it's a wonder they suspected Valant at all to me.

---

CANON: Trucy takes Phoenix's last name and is formally adopted thus making it public records accessible to anyone.

CANON: Phoenix is surprised to see Zak again after 7 years, implying they have heard nothing from him since his disappearance.

CONCLUSION: Zak didn't contact Phoenix or Trucy and got his information (quite easily) elsewhere.



CANON: No other caretaker is ever shown, mentioned, or referenced in anyway. This imaginary caretaker does not try to adopt Trucy. As this caretaker is not written in, this caretaker does not exist.

CANON: Trucy was abandoned in a courthouse, a place that handles criminal and civil cases.

CONCLUSION: As Phoenix was unemployed and had just had his reputation ruined due to scandal, anyone could have won custody over him, and yet he is the one who gets it. No proper caretaker would allow Trucy to go running to this perfect stranger who just got fired for committing fraud. Trucy being abandoned in a courthouse is both a criminal and civil case seeing as her father was a murder suspect. She's surrounded by law enforcement officials. They took it from there.



CANON: Phoenix was in no position to adopt a child. Even had he not been stripped of his badge, the games have gone out of their way in the past to imply that Phoenix isn't that good with kids. If Zak had really read Phoenix through poker, he would know this and probably settle on a better caretaker. What's more, Phoenix's actions were unpredictable. Even Phoenix could not have forseen adopting Trucy and with even the slightest difference in events, he might not have done so.

CONCLUSION: Zak had no possible way of knowing Phoenix would adopt Trucy. Even if he HAD read Phoenix through poker, anything he had read would have told him Phoenix was not ready for children. Zak did not plan for Phoenix to adopt Trucy, it just happened.



CANON: Characters in AA are often given strange quirks or bizarre abilities, and yet conform to pretty standard human behavior so as to make their actions understandable enough to be examined logically, otherwise you could never properly cross examine anyone. Maya may be able to channel Mia (impossible in real life) but she reacts as any normal person would to a traumatic event (grief, sadness, trying to cope). AA characters may have weird powers, but psychologically they are made to resemble real life people, as this is often plot relevant. Just look at Edgeworth and how his traumas affect him. Trucy is a kid and would logically react the way any child would to the loss of a parent, especially if he/she is their only living parent: with extreme grief and difficulty moving on. Trucy displays neither of these symptoms.

CONCLUSION: Trucy must not have had a very good relationship with Zak and was desperate for a parental figure. She clung to the first authority figure she had even the slightest familiarity with at all, Phoenix.



CANON: Zak planned to disappear again since he would now be declared "dead".

CONCLUSION: Knowing his secret new life might make his opportunities in the country limited, this may have been Zak's only chance to see Trucy again. He did not take advantage of it.



CANON: AA's laws are based on those in real life unless explicitly stated that they are different (as in the trial system). In fact, Zak DOES sign the rights over to Trucy *right* before he's declared dead.

CONCLUSION: As with any contract, you have the option to give your rights over to whomever you wish whenever you please. Magnifi chose to wait until he died because he wanted the rights to himself while he lived. Zak also chose to keep the rights, and only gave them up when the law would have taken them away anyway because he was legally "dead".



CANON: Zak refuses to surrender the rights to Magnifi's act until the law is about to take them from him because he will be declared dead. Only then does he give them to Trucy. Why not give them to her before if he intended her to have them?

CONCLUSION: Zak gave the rights to Trucy, not because he cared if she got them, but because he did not want Valant to get them once he "died". It was a jerkish "in your face" move, not because he was looking out for his daughter's future.

---

That last part is interpretation

Canon: Zak is avoiding the country as much as possible.

Canon: Zak expected Trucy to be with Phoenix

Canon: Trucy was in on Zak's plans

Conclusion: Zak expected Trucy to end up with Phoenix



Canon: Trucy did end up going with Phoenix.
If things were as you say Social services would have plucked her right off him.

Canon: It's never mentioned that anyone at all looked after her before Phoenix went to her.

Conclusion: SOMEONE looked after her. Be it a caretaker arranged by Zak or the Police we'll never know for sure in canon.



Canon: Phoenix HAS been shown to be good with kids, case in point, Pearl Fey who Phoenix took great care of comforting her during the traumatising events of Case 2-4 when her cousin was in grave danger as well as looking after her on countless other occasions.

Canon: Phoenix adapted to looking after Trucy well

Canon: Phoenix adopted Trucy.
Conclusion: Zak estimated correctly. Phoenix was ready to handle kids otherwise he'd have just turned Trucy away at the door.



Canon: Sal Manella is not standard human behaviour
Canon: Regina Berry is not standard human behaviour
Canon: Wesley Stickler is not standard human behaviour.
Canon: Joe Darke is not standard human behaviour (though granted he was psychopathic)
Canon: Psychologically AA characters can be whatever they want.



Reality: Being declared dead generally makes things EASIER to go about doing.

Conclusion: Zak was waiting until after he had been declared dead before making a visit where the law can't touch him.



Canon: It was passed on via a will in both cases he doesn't give the rights straight away he HAS to die for them to pass on.




That last part is massive interpretation.

Canon: Zak wrote a fake confession to take the blame off Valant
Conclusion: No bad blood on Zak's behalf towards Valant.
Canon: Trucy is actually related to Magnifi by blood, Valant isn't.
Canon: Trucy is the rightful heir by blood of Magnifi's magic.

Conclusion: Zak passed on the rights to Trucy because he felt it was her inheritance from her grandfather.

Or...though some of you will doubt this in addition:

Zak cares for Trucy as his daughter
Conclusion: Zak also cared for Trucy and wanted her to continue practicing magic and passed them on as a fatherly gift, moreso since he couldn't use them.

---

Canon: Phoenix offered to ARRANGE for Zak to see Trucy, not necessarily see her right now. Zak refused, even though he's about to be legally dead. He could have arranged it for after his death if that was his aim. But he just refused.

Your assumption is 'Zak had NO POSSIBLE WAY of knowing or finding out that Phoenix adopted Trucy in the 7 years, either by asking other people (friend Brushel?) or looking up official records. And therefore, the ONLY remaining explanation is 'Zak told Trucy to be adopted by Phoenix so he knew it happened, there was no other way.'

This is by far a more unlikely and unreasonable ASSUMPTION.


PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO DIE TO PASS ON A BUSINESS OR 'RIGHTS'! It's only 'in their will' because Magnifi and Zak are too jerkish to pass it on while they're alive. Magnifi and Zak don't have some superhuman property which makes their business any different from every other. Businesses/rights change hands and get sold all the time. If someone wants to hand over or sell the business/rights, they can any time they want.

The 'confession was 'only' SEVEN years later when Zak would be 'dead' and have nothing to lose anyway! It was hardly magnanimous. In the meantime, Valant endured 7 years of HELL, when he was totally innocent so didn't deserve the accusations anyway, and the writers rub it in our faces. If it wasn't obvious, there's an interview where the writers explain they gave Valant grey hair in the modern day to emphasise the torture he'd been through in the meantime. While Valant is also not the best person, the writers themselves at least frame him in a manner which elicits victimised sympathy- and the sense he suffers partly due to ZAK.

I would interpret this as: Zak only 'cares' about Trucy to the extent she is a manifestation of HIS genes. It's not about Trucy herself at all and he can't be bothered ACTUALLY caring for her or about her feelings, she's just a measure of his reproductive success. He couldn't use the rights 7 years ago either! There was no reason to wait to give them to her. Oh, and when he died, the exclusive rights would probably lapse if he didn't give them to Trucy, and Valant could practice the tricks again!


Don't be silly. Pearl is as much looking after Phoenix as he her, and it's very different to raise a kid rather than accompany them for a day or 2. In 4-4 itself, Phoenix muses, when you examine Charley, about how maybe he has to do more than water Trucy. The poor guy clearly has no idea.
And let's look at the people who adopt children. They are: people who physically can't have children, people who are close relatives, or foster carers screened and probably trained who get a regular payment from the government for what would otherwise be state wards. The people who adopt usually adopt when they are BABIES so they are as much 'theirs' as possible. As you can see Phoenix is none of these.

Oh, so you're trying to allude Trucy has completely abnormal psychology and DOESN'T HAVE BASIC HUMAN FEELINGS? 'Non standard human behaviour' is explained. For example, the game itself explains Regina being weird by her father's fantasy upbringing, her life being a circus, and being left immature enough to believe star stories. Is she immature and have adjustment problems? Yes. Does she still have the usual human feelings and reactions? YES. Sal talking in l33t is an in-joke and explained by the fact he's a loser nerd. People type like that, after all. It's a geekish quirk, not totally abnormal basal psychology. Sal would have similar basal thought processes, feelings and emotions to your standard person.

Spirit mediums aren't real. Magicians are. Besides, Maya and Pearl have perfectly standard human feelings, emotions, reactions et al and that's what we're talking about here.

---

I know Icer already said this, but it bears repeating. YOUR assumption that Zak planned for Phoenix to adopt Trucy or that there was some unnamed caretaker that disappeared into thin air is a MUCH bigger one, and a much less logical one!

Phoenix was in NO position for kids, was not planning for kids, and isn't even good with kids! If Zak had the ability to "read" Phoenix as clearly as you claim, he would have known Phoenix was NOT the best option to adopt Trucy.

And even if he HAD intended for Phoenix to adopt Trucy (which is unlikely), he didn't even ASK Phoenix! Dumping his young child on a man he barely knows without even asking is a JERKISH MOVE. Kids take up time, energy, money, and are extremely emotionally draining. Having kids when you're not ready for them can ruin your life! So even *if* things are as you claim, guess what? It makes Zak a JERK.



This is a stupid assumption, not only because no business ever works like this, because CANON contradicts it! Zak passes on the rights to Trucy when he is *ABOUT* to be declared dead, not after! It wasn't in a will, like Magnifi, where it was "in the event of my death I pass the rights onto..." He passed the rights on and had Brushel notarize them. He was jerkishly holding onto the rights for all those years without even using them, when he could have given them to Trucy from the beginning.



I think Icer covered this. Zak is so much of a jerk, the writers even make a point to make us feel bad for how he's ruined Valant's life. Valant himself is pretty selfish, and yet we still feel bad for how horribly Zak's actions have affected him. That's how much of a jerk Zak is! He makes us feel sorry for another jerkish character because Zak is THAT MUCH WORSE.



If he wanted her to have them for her sake, he could have passed them onto her 7 years ago. Zak didn't care whether or not Trucy got the rights. What he cared about was that, once declared dead, the rights would be up for grabs and Valant could get them. He didn't want Valant to get them because Zak is a jerk. So he gives them to Trucy because he'd rather have his seed have it, and this way he screws over Valant.



Phoenix is SO bad with kids, that 2-4 has Phoenix admiring how Gumshoe is so good with Pearl that he takes her hand and walks her home, comforting her so she'll stop crying. But let us remember that Gumshoe is the one who was ridiculous enough to try showing his GUN to Pearl. Phoenix is SO bad with kids, he even looks up to Gumshoe's skills with kids. What does that tell you?

And Phoenix was also dragging little Pearl all over crime scenes and investigations. How is this the proper way to care for a kid? Sure, Phoenix is kind to Pearl and doesn't mistreat her or anything, but this is common sense and any half decent person can pull this off for the short time Phoenix interacted with Pearl. Don't forget, Phoenix never even spent a full day with Pearl. She always went back to Kurain after. Spending a few hours with a kid is NOT the same as raising them. This is why we allow teenagers to babysit, but don't recommend they become parents.



Sal Manella is a stereotypical geek. He speaks in l33t, but some people really do this! He reacts with fear to his boss Vasquez. He hits on Maya whom he finds attractive. He gets cocky about how talented he is as a director. What's not standard about this?

Regina Berry is a PERFECT example of how AA characters ARE made to be psychologically realistic. Regina was extremely sheltered and raised in a fantasy-like environment. The result is that she is still very much psychologically a child. This happens to people in REAL LIFE too! We are all products of our environment. If you come from a sheltered home, you're probably going to have a skewed world view. That's the POINT.

Wesley Stickler is a pervert who thinks he's a philosopher. These exist in real life. They're all over the internet. Come on.

Joe Dark is a SERIAL KILLER. He's supposed to be psychologically defective, just like some people are in real life.

Canon: AA characters are made to be psychologically realistic. This is intentional because otherwise their actions would not be logical and cross examinations WOULD. NOT. WORK. You can't draw logical conclusions from someone who falls into a psychological profile that makes no sense. The game would not FUNCTION if the characters were utterly crazy and acted in a way we could not fathom. This is ESPECIALLY true of main characters who are even more fleshed out and explained, such as Trucy.



^This.

By the way, all this evidence of Zak being a jerk aside, we're still waiting for ANY example whatsoever where Zak behaves like a caring or selfless individual. Your inability to point one out that isn't immediately disproven by canon or lack of logic is leading me to believe he NEVER acts in a way that isn't selfish or jerkish. What a shock!

---

He kinda deserved some of that. Though at least he showed contrition, so we can feel sorry for him. I just felt like pointing that out.

Still means Zak's a Jerk, and more of a Jerk than Vall-y.

---

Agreed. Zak is SO MUCH of a jerk, he even makes you feel bad for Valant, whose no saint himself, because of how badly Zak screwed him over with his selfish actions. Just goes to show just how huge of a jerk Zak is.

That said, I actually like Zak's character better than Valant. I just like Zak for the huge jerk he was written as, instead of white washing him and ruining everything that made the character great.

---

There's a lot to reply to, please forgive me if I miss anything,



Canon: He still wasn't legally dead yet, still had a legitimate reason not to see her. Plus Phoenix offers no such arrangement.



Not an assumption, Canon says nothing of it therefore it didn't happen.



You interpret it as jerkish behaviour. To me it seems like it's just the traditional thing to do nothing wrong with it.



Seven years of hell because of the controversy he created. Innocent? Valant framed Zak for a murder he didn't commit ultimately causing the trial that made Phoenix lose his badge and Zak to flee the country. Valant's one of the biggest villains around. Valant only suffered because his magic was far inferior anyway. Zak had more than enough problems without considering that they might blame Valant. He ran away when he was about to be declared guilty, you'd think he'd done enough. The confession would have still cleared Valant's name at least.



Unfortunately you'll never be able to prove that interpretation.
All we know is Zak showed up at the Borscht Bowl Club to definitely pass on the rights he says he was "securing his daughter's inheritance" you look too much into it in my opinion.



Well despite the fact that canon still supports me. I think we can both agree Trucy enriched his life a bit in a similar way pearl did. And that water remark seems highly likely to be just humour. Besides Phoenix coped admirably with looking after Trucy and she isn't a complete wreck 7 years after losing her father clearly in canon Phoenix was capable.



No I'm saying it's not uncommon for her psychology to be whatever the writers want it to be as clearly despite what you claimed the writers can make a characters psychology whatever they want. They have a broad spectrum of psychological types from more realistic ones like Celeste (well I think so) to quirky ones like Regina and then the right out extreme nuts such as Joe Darke.

AA does not need to and doesn't always make it's characters realistic psychologically 'realistic' your point is void.



Alot of people will want to talk to you regarding that statement



And your inability to read shocks me considering how tough you talk.
Zak wrote a confession to take the blame off Valant a man who had framed him for murder.
Zak risked 7 years of exile to pass on the rights to his daughter.


Apologies here, a lot of Pleading eyes points were said by Icer so I may skip some, if there's anything notably different you're berating me on I'm sure you'll call me on it.



What happened to Valant is not Zak's fault at all, Valant brought it all on himself. Zak is sorry for Valant and so writes a confession....how can this be a bad thing to do? He's essentially condemning himself in one country for a man who would rather see him dead why can't you see? Valant brought it all on by framing Zak....Valant suffering is the way it should be Zak did nothing to him.



Alright but certain AA sources consider it a will. However if it wasn't a will...then why didn't Phoenix give Trucy the rights immediately? I still consider it a tradition thing Zak inherited his rights from his mentor upon his death, it would be traditional to do the same as his disciple.



Assumption, Trucy is healthy enough for a girl her age and is happy with Phoenix. Zak judged Phoenix correctly.



Asking Phoenix would have ruined his plans entirely (it would have revealed he was planning on escaping) plus Phoenix could have said no if he had a choice thus reducing both their quality of life. If Zak had planned on it he did what was best for his daughter. It's not like she's a little baby the worst parts of parenting were done for Phoenix.



I'd say he's worse than Zak, essentially he ruins everything for most people.

In the end a lot of your points I see seem to revolve around the assumption he is a jerk. Yet that is what we are here to prove or disprove (though none of us will succeed I'm sure) therefore you cannot fuel something like 'Zak didn't want Valant to get the rights because he is a jerk' when 'he is a jerk' is not a proven fact and is in fact the entire basis of this argument.

---

I can do that too. Canon says nothing of 'Zak assuming Phoenix would adopt Trucy' or 'Zak told Trucy to be adopted by Phoenix'. Therefore, it didn't happen.

As I said, Valant isn't the greatest person either, but the game itself deliberately frames him in a manner which elicits some sympathy (Grey hair! 'Uncle Valant'! Fluffy bunnies! Genuinely seems to be sorry!) and as a victim undeserving of what he got, even though he's a grey character. And who cares. 'Valant is a jerk' or 'Valant isn't a jerk' has no bearing on Zak.

A precedent 'tradition' of ONE generation? lol

Takumi himself said in an interview he doesn't believe in ghosts. Therefore he writes them as fantasy.

1. Plot purposes
2. 'Trucy darling, guess what. Your FATHER IS DEAD AND REFUSED TO SEE YOU. Just after all the stress of me being on trial for murder. Oh, here's some rights..'
Clearly it was not a good time.

WTF? Such a 'choice' would have greatly enhanced Phoenix's quality of life and general fairness..

This is a stupid argument. 8 year olds are pretty young and need lots of care and upbringing. Though granted newborns need more attention, why do people adopt babies? Because it's easier to mutually bond and bring them up with your own values! People who adopt/foster older kids are usually trained carers BECAUSE IT'S HARD for both the kid and the new parent to adjust, even for well behaved kids, because of the totally different value systems and parenting styles. Also whatever traumatic issue caused them to not be with their parent/s any more would affect the kid and the new parent has to deal with all that too.

Zak IS a selfish jerk to just abandon Trucy and expect someone else to raise her, even in the ridiculous fantasy scenario he 'thought Phoenix would' Why do you think the other parent is REQUIRED BY LAW to pay regular maintenance after a divorce? See, even the law thinks it's illegal and against societal reasonableness to expect someone to just raise your kid without contributing in a practical sense, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON LEFT TO RAISE THEM IS THEIR OTHER BIOLOGICAL PARENT.

I know we're backtracking, but i repeat myself. When Zak is introduced as being murdered, is it framed in a way by the writers
which will elicit our sympathy at all? No! He's just a faceless and selfish character. We're not supposed to care! And we soon find out he tried to ruin PHOENIX, who's the hero of the series. And we see Trucy, but she's introduced as PHOENIX'S daughter. Implying she's the daughter of the victim might elicit human connection, feeling and sympathy to him by association, but THEY DON'T DO THIS until far later cases, ages after he's been established as a JERK.

All your points revolve around finding a justification for the assumption 'he's not a jerk'. But no,I'd say most of ours are based on the most reasonable, logical, straightforward and likely interpretations, which happen to not bear favourably on Zak, not the reverse.

The canon never says or implies 'Zak thought Phoenix would adopt Trucy' or 'Zak told Trucy to be adopted by Phoenix' so why make these outlandish and unlikely assumptions? The logical assumption is neither occurred, since they're never implied in canon.

'Zak has magic powers and predicted Phoenix would adopt Trucy during the poker game'?
The canon never says this. It's nothing but a RIDICULOUS and illogical assumption. Look at the only 'power' in the game. Trucy has Gramarye Eyes, but sure can't do anything like this, and she has talent far more than Zak! We know Perceive just picks up when people are nervous because they are lying. How does that correspond with 'I know what this person will do in this future situation, even though it's crazy and unlikely'?

So what kinds of things would Zak be seeing about his opponent in a poker game? Are they good at bluffing? Will they fold under pressure? And the canon very explicitly states this poker game was to choose a LAWYER, not a father, which is never even mentioned! You really think Kristoph was the previous father candidate? And see the situation Zak was hiring his lawyer for! To BLUFF through a day of trial with not enough evidence to prove his innocence, without making a 'guilty' be possible before his ALREADY PLANNED disappearance. Which is exactly the poker game situation, bluff with your hand of cards to get through, no matter how poor they really are, and not fold to pressure prematurely. As a skilled poker player, this is what Zak was 'reading' because that's what good poker players are good at, reading their opponent so they can tell when they're lying et al. Oh and Phoenix WON. So to nail the coffin shut on your 'theory', Zak COULDN'T READ PHOENIX PROPERLY. LOL. If the great Zak can't even tell when Phoenix is bluffing at poker, how's he going to predict his future actions? The canon 'Zak couldn't read Phoenix, the only opponent who beat him other than Magnifi' is the reverse of your totally un-canon 'theory' that Zak could know all about Phoenix and predict his unlikely future actions with his magic powers.

---

I do. I HATE people making Valant to be an innocent guy, because he isn't. It's the reason I dislike the comics that started the topic.

But yeah, absolutely nothing to do with whether Zak's a jerk or not. I just think the entire Grammarye family's messed up (Except for Trucy, and possibly Thalassa if she had a good reason to not tell her kids she's alive, though I doubt that.)

---

I would gladly accept that if you are willing to admit mine, that canon does not provide enough information (like I said in the first place) to fully resolve these points.



Valant was brought into it for some reason....in hindsight I can't remember why he's important beyond the confession. Just for the record I think Valant is worse than Zak.



Lol all you like but all traditions have to start somewhere.



Sure he writes them as fantasy but doesn't change the fact Spirit Mediums (dubious or not) exist. All the same writing them as fantasy only helps my point in showing that his characters don't need to follow the restrictions of regular human beings.



For the record I think "Your father wanted you to have this...." would serve as a sweet memento but I was really only curious why you didn't need to explode angrily.



Are you sure? He'd still be jobless and lonely now. I think Trucy served as a beam of sunlight in his life. All the same Phoenix could have still said no and ruined any chance of looking after Trucy.



Well if you are correct here then Trucy's character serves as a testament to Zak's positive upbringing to create such a happy optimistic child. All the same even if Phoenix can't shape her like him, she is still a wonderful young little girl who has had the crying and whining and nappy changing cut out. Hell considering she makes a living off of magic she even came equipped with valuable career skills to help pay for herself.



I'm gonna play the 'he had no choice' card one more time but he expected Phoenix to adopt her. This isn't like a divorce either, there's completely different rules for those parents who have children taken off them.



Note: Phoenix isn't the hero of this game and is already ruined when Zak conjures the thing.

Plus you are making assumptions of the writers will, the second they SAY that's how they intended to portray Zak you'll be justified with that opinion. Besides the next case Zak shows up they attribute a series of good things to him, sparing Magnifi's life despite Magnifi blackmailing him and requesting he kill him plenty of reason too. Writers have him nameless at first but provide much more characterisation.



Well...yeah that's exactly what's up for debate here ya? Whether he is or isn't a jerk. I'm not using "He's not a jerk" as a reason for his innocence though because we've not fully established that...it's the whole point of it. I'd appreciate you not using the assumption "He is a jerk" as justification for arguments attempting to prove that in return please.




Again what I was saying about information being lacking.

Canon: Zak knew Phoenix would be with Trucy.
This is a given but it's about all we know for sure as canon says nothing about how he knew. We lack the information to make a proper confirmation of either opinion you see?



Well....true but it is said that Zak understands a man or learns what he is like through poker.

Trucy was in on his plans.
Zak clearly didn't want a lawyer for their skill or whether they would win or not. Judging his lawyer suitable for another task?
Zak knew where Trucy would be without any canonical info of how (implied he knew before since nothing indicates him being told otherwise)

Really that's just my interpretation based on those pieces of info. But we don't count anything interpretation however nothing really provides any closure since not enough is canonically confirmed.



Sure Phoenix won, but that doesn't mean Zak isn't good at reading people....there's only two people who've beaten him after all Magnifi with his superhuman powers, and Phoenix who must just be uncannily good at poker. I'm not pretending I understand how Zak reads a man but I'm pretty certain Zak wasn't judging just Phoenix's hand that night they played poker he was looking at the man behind the cards too.



Cause the comics portray Valant as a kind pitiable individual?

---

uh?

Not after Trucy's just watched the whole court case and seen how Zak sweetly tried to ruin her new Daddy's life by framing him, and by extension make things hell for her. You think she couldn't tell who 'Shadi' is with all the evidence photos being waved around the court? It's a lot to deal with at once.

You have no idea, it's impossible to predict alternate futures and being asked before the trial would have tipped Phoenix off and he could have taken more care/not taken the case in the first place, sparing much anguish for all.

But Magnifi was on his deathbed anyway, and pretty much demanded 'euthanasia'. It's not like Zak had to overcome some terrible temptation for revenge, Magnifi would expire soon anyway, with probably far more suffering than if he was shot now. Now, Zak is clearly not to blame for the idiotic situation Magnifi put him in but not shooting him was hardly some great feat of restraint, compassion or morality. Not committing murder when specifically told to in some idiotic situation where you're likely to get caught anyway does mean you're 'not a murderer' but doesn't imply you're 'not a jerk' or 'a good, forgiving person'.

Who cares. Phoenix is the hero of the SERIES and we're known and expected by the writers to have our pre-existing positive biases in Phoenix's favour. Who cares if Phoenix is framed controversially, it's quickly made explicit the mystery Zak framed Phoenix for something he did not do. It's Phoenix in the right and Zak in the wrong straight off, not Phoenix is maybe a 'fallen' cheater in terms of the Zak-Phoenix conflict.

Only because the State knows these individuals will be too difficult to extract support payments from. And in these cases the State has deemed they're such bad parents in the first place they're NOT ALLOWED to legally be considered the kid's parent any more. See? In the eyes of the law, to be considered a reasonable 'parent' you must either help pay to support your children or help care for the directly. Otherwise, the state considers you a Bad Parent and your legal 'parent' status taken away. This isn't my opinion, this is society's stance on this via the law. Pretend that instead of dying, Zak had his name totally cleared and tried to take custody of Trucy back. I bet the legal outcome would be that due to his abandonment of Trucy without even supporting her financially for 7 years, he would no longer be considered fit to be her legal parent/guardian.

...Who's canonically crying inside behind her public magic show.
Fine, Pierre, let's find some 8 year old orphan and dump them on you and expect you to raise them, and maybe you'll adopt a more realistic approach to this issue.

Stop trying to back out of your unwinnable position with this kind of redundancy. See your 'logic'? : The game never says Zak isn't an alien, therefore the statement 'Zak is an alien' is no less reasonable or uncanon than 'Zak isn't an alien'. The game never explicitly says Trucy isn't an axe murderer, so the assumption 'Trucy is an axe murderer' is just as reasonable and implied by the game as 'Trucy isn't an axe murderer'.

CANON: Zak is framed as and depicted in a manner that even making allowances, any reasonable and logical interpretations sees him as an unsavoury individual who frequently doesn't care about how he hurts others. Aka a JERK. This is not based on one or even 2 incidents, but continued and repeated depiction and situations throughout the entire games and seven years. There's nothign to stop individual people forming crazy beliefs and interpretations of ANYTHING, but this doesn't mean their beliefs are as equally as reasonable, supportable and valid as others. Someone could genuinely interpret the Mona Lisa as actually being an ironic depiction of a monkey and argue this interpretation, but it doesn't somehow make it as or more valid than the more supportable assumption it's supposed to depict a human.

Don't be stupid. The writers use writing techniques ON PURPOSE to effect our emotions and assumptions in portrayal of a character and events. When there's a movie scene with dark, threatening lighting and scary music, did they just put it in there randomly and a better interpretation is that the writers think we're supposed to feel happy sunshine and rainbows?
This is a story. It's not 'history' where attempting reconstructing a REAL, reality past event relies on a range of biased accounts which may deviate from objective reality. The game depiction is the only reality, therefore its biases are valid and SUPPOSED to be used to interpret the character.

---

The comics are basically apologist comics for why the author believed Valant did what he did. All fair play to them, I just don't think that interpretations canonical at all.

Valant, along with Zak and Magnifi, were jerks. Valant wanted the rights, and so tried to take them. In some ways, he got what he deserved. But you see, that's the difference between him and Zak. 7 years changed him for the better, to the point where he even turns himself in for what he tried to do. He does the honorable thing, something Zak never did. (Nor Magnifi, whose suicide was actually very selfish in some regards.)

That's why the comics annoyed me. It takes away the entire point of Valant becoming a good person, by making him look justified in what he did.

---

To my understanding she didn't see that case much. There's nothing to say she watched the initial trial beyond dropping off the forged card.



Sparing much anguish? Trucy would be dumped in some soulless orphanage and Phoenix would be living alone without any real purpose in live. Trucy gave him someone to care for and protect since he couldn't protect clients anymore.



Sure it was, Magnifi had been blackmailing Zak and Valant after the 'death' of Thalassa that provides plenty motive. Even if he is dying anyway and he wants it shooting Magnifi in the head would appear to be a desirable action for Zak.



I suppose except AA is largely a game to stand alone hence the lack of other characters. Compare it with AAI which is overflowing with in jokes and continuity. All the same, the writers portray Phoenix rather unheroically as he gets PUNCHED in the first case and he doesn't even protest, like he accepts he deserved it.



You're probably right though I'd like to think with time he could regain parental ownership of Trucy.
Unfortunately with all this legal talk I'm a little confused what the original point of this bit was



Well her mother is dead to her canonically. Also apart from the unexplained unpaid lunch fees there's no canonical proof of Zak abusing or mistreating her. Furthermore Magnifi was blackmailing them possibly explaining the lunch fees but undoubtedly causing the family to fall on hard times. She's got plenty of canon reason to be sad that's not Zak's fault.



Don't really see a point in this argument, a realistic approach isn't necessary in a game.



Believe me I'd LOVE to back out of this but on peaceful terms with us both happy with our own beliefs but I don't see any counterargument here. We're attempting to go by what canon alone tells us cutting out interpretations. So neither of us could say "Zak is/isn't an alien" and be correct as canon don't say anything about it.




No no....to me this just translates as "My opinion is canon, everything else is just silly interpretation." and no I don't think your 'canon' is true it seems widely down to interpretation of the events that cause you to see him as a jerk. I'm not really making up much out of canon, it's just a different way of looking at the events than yours.



Well if the writers had intended to effect our emotions as perfectly as you say then why weren't me or Phoenix_Justice convinced? I'm not arguing just to annoy you, this was my first opinion of Zak upon playing the game. Also continuing your 'story' analogy characters in stories can have many different depictions and interpretations it's the subject of debate in many book clubs and English classes I'm sure. There's no reason Zak should be any different.

---

'Zak is not a jerk' is a meaningless argument position. It's a crisis of definition. If Zak is 'not a jerk', then what is he?



You're not a robot. It's not like every emotive manipulative and storytelling technique will effect everybody as strongly or the same way due to their own life experiences, value systems, personality traits, et al. But the general consensus and deliberate canon portrayal is Zak is an unsavoury individual who frequently doesn't care he hurts others selfishly aka a jerk. You're taking too much of the critical attitude we'd use in a real historical event here.
Most of the horrible people in history who could be regarded as 'evil' could and often do also have story interpretations they were a great hero (depends whether they win or lose key wars, power struggles et al.) And no doubt these people have their moments which might be interpreted better, few people are 100 percent 'evil'.

But Zak is not a historical figure or real person. Therefore, we don't take the way the story framed him with a grain or salt. If he's a canon jerk, he's a canon jerk.

Not judging people when you don't know every possible minuscule detail (the canon damn well gives us the main ones) may be a laudable approach in reality but not in a story, where the portrayal forms the 'reality'.

And come on. We're not saying Zak is Satan Incarnate. We're just saying he's a jerk.

So the onus is on YOU to prove he's a nice, reasonable person who shows continual care for others and how he negatively affects or harms them (and that this outweighs the opposite depiction) Particularly how the canon implies it with portrayal/storytelling techniques.

Unless you concede the CANON implies he's a jerk but you yourself won't accept this 'superficial' judgment.

I think Trucy would watch, what kind of suspense is worse, deliberately hanging around the foyer not knowing what's going on when your adoptive Daddy is ON TRIAL FOR MURDER. Besides, this is an irrelevant tangent.

---

But I'm not getting critical on perspectives....my canon portrayal of Zak is a man with a weakness, his competitiveness, who deeply cares for his daughter and is tormented by having to leave her. I don't see what you say as canon and no offence but you aren't the creator of canon.

Zak attempted to cheat Phoenix, this is canon!
But Zak also conveyed gratitude towards Phoenix. You were the one who looked too much into it that he was lying. At face value Zak is a man with two sides, the cutthroat competitive poker addict, and the loving father who is hurt at losing his daughter. He's human prone to weakness but it doesn't make him a jerk.

You can't SAY an interpretation of a character is canon I'm not saying I'm right either but unless the writers come out and SAY exactly what a character is then I think they leave various areas ambiguous on purpose so fans can create their own ideas of a character rather than being led by the hand to the writer's original perspective on a character.

The way I see it, I don't need to prove anything about his character since it's not canonically decided what he is. Jerk or not. This whole thing is pointless in my eyes as it's a subjective thing, the writers won't state it in canon so we must make our own opinions on a character.

---

Then how come almost everyone else interprets this as insincere, empty and too little too late? If he was really grateful, he'd have helped out in some way in the seven years, or maybe let his petty grudge go. If Zak puts on the 'game face' DURING a game, then he can make a decision out of gratitude when he's not in this supposed 'competitive mode' to not seek 'vengeance'. Even for the sake of Trucy rather than Phoenix! We're not 'looking too much into it'. We only see his supposed 'gratitude' ages and ages after we're seen repeatedly his (blatantly proven as) unjustifiable attempts to frame and ruin Phoenix. So in terms of story when we see this part it drips with IRONY, we know he's about to ruin Phoenix (again) with his petty grudge! And they show Olga turning up at the end of the exchange just to rub it in our faces!


If he 'deeply cared' he would have at minimum left or sent Trucy money or even just the rights SEVEN years ago. The game face? No. There are a lot of occasions outside poker games where Zak behaving uncaring and selfishly. Like abandoning Trucy. I don't care 'he had no choice' (that's a fallacy, we always have choices.) Even on the outrageous 'assumption' Phoenix would 'adopt' her, he made no arrangements and paid no upkeep in cash or kind. Look, even expecting someone to babysit for free (especially without them agreeing to it) is a jerkish move. And 'disappearing' on Phoenix, especially while planning it even before he picked Phoenix as lawyer, is a severe betrayal of Phoenix's trust and the client-lawyer contract. He used and exploited Phoenix, and he doesn't even care. How's any of that explained by 'competitiveness'?


No doubt the writers never explicitly say in an interview either that Kristoph or Redd White or Engarde are supposed to be portrayed as a 'bad guy', therefore that a negative interpretation of them is implied by the writers from the games/story elements is somehow unreasonable?

---

Well just because everyone else perceives it that way (which so far really consists of you and pleading eyes) Gerkuman thinks Zak is a jerk but hasn't explained anything in detail about this. So really your majority advantage isn't so great. Besides he knew Phoenix worked at the Borscht Bowl club everything about the hydeout is a secret side service offered by the Borscht Bowl Club. Zak didn't know it was the sole reason for his employment and there is no guarantee if they would even fire him just because he lost one. He has brought the club lots of money and business no guarantee he would be ruined.



I've already said he couldn't have sent money because it could easily be traced to him. Also he's not psychic there's no way he could predict he would have so little time with the rights. Ignore the fact he had no choice if you like, it was either death and homeless Trucy or life and homeless Trucy and he hadn't even done anything wrong, it's not so wrong for him to want to escape a death sentence. Plus he apologises and thanks Phoenix at the end. You might view it as insincere but I don't that shows that he cares.



Zak is dead originally that kinda makes it hard to despise him in the first case especially when a much greater evil is at work. Later on Zak is only given more redeeming features while his killer is made more devious.

In the end beyond assaulting a criminal (which some may consider vigilante justice) Zak never accomplished one 'evil' act and was provided with redeeming features. Maybe if we'd seen the effects of Zak conning Phoenix things would have been as bad as you say, I think by seeing how Zak reacted there...then maybe the events might change my perspective or reinforce it. However all Zak did was pull off a small con on an small unknown poker player in a small bar while he had redeeming features (in my eyes not yours) whereas people like Red White and Kristoph conned and killed. Zak is neutral grounds.

---

I am so tempted to hijack the CR official poll to ask the people whether Zak Gramarye is a jerk or not... but Croik would eviscerate me.

Edit: Anyway, the popularity argument is BS anyway. Look at all the people who have posted in this topic, nearly all of them believe him to be a jerk. Doesn't mean they're any more right than you are, because it's all about the facts. And the facts show that he has done some very bad things!

You're allowed to believe he had a reason to do that, but he can still be a jerk! House is a jerk, but we're supposed to like him! Sherlock Holmes is a jerk, but we're supposed to like him! So there's no reason someone can't be both liked by you, and a jerk. You just don't want to believe a character you like to be one.

---

Maybe we just have differing definitions of 'jerk' then. I wouldn't lump Zak in with those kinds of people but then again I never really considered Sherlock Holmes a Jerk.

Also the poll idea sounds hilarious.

Edit: Anyway I think the kinda 'jerk' Icer imagines him as doesn't go in with those good-hearted jerk's you suggested.

---

I think you shouldn't assume, Pierre.

A jerk is a jerk. Some are worse than others. Some are, as you put it "good-hearted". Some are pretty awful people on the inside. But we've been trying to say this to you ALL ALONG. Even if all your conjecture about Zak was true and he was just misunderstood, he's STILL A JERK because he STILL DID JERKISH THINGS.

Even IF we view him as a darker jerk than you do, Zak is STILL a jerk. No one is arguing whether he's Satan or not. We're arguing if he's a jerk. And he's a jerk. He has done inconsiderate things. No way you look at it, hitting Olga was AT LEAST inconsiderate (if not worse). Leaving Trucy behind with no other father figure/OR dumping her on Phoenix without so much as asking, either way, was inconsiderate. He is a jerk.

So whether we agree or disagree as to the details we can extrapolate from his actions, the game itself, IN CANON, has him doing jerkish things.

Zak Gramarye is a JERK.

(That said, so is Valant, but I don't think the comic is meant to be taken seriously Gerkuman. XD I'm sure Peachi knows Valant is a jerk too, she just needed a straight man to play up the jerk-Zak comedy.

And Icer, you're a masterful debater <3. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Thalassa. Hahaha.)

---

I disagree, I think you've just scented a quick way out by trying to see him as a 'good-hearted' jerk.

You've always attempted to crush any nice factor I've presented about Zak you clearly cannot consider him in anyway good hearted. House, (or Dr Cox for a better example I'm more familiar with) would always have good attributes to balance them out.

You have always blindly tried to counterargue good attributes about Zak, in your case Pleading eyes going so far as to overlook my positive points completely and yet keep demanding I present more positive points.

You portray Zak as an utterly callous man without a single redeeming feature so I refuse to believe you can all of a sudden see positive points on him.

---

I didn't say I *DID* see positive points. Do you even read what I write? =/

I said REGARDLESS of whether you see his actions as being justified or not, he still is a JERK. *I* still think he's a total abusive bastard. You may not agree. But regardless of which stance you take, he's still a JERK. "Kind-hearted" or otherwise.

---

No I'll just need to not agree then though I never really expected you'd see the positive points in him

---

You haven't presented ANY canon positive points, Pierre! All you've shown is your own conjecture. But looking at JUST WHAT IS EXPLICITLY SHOWN IN CANON, there are NO positive points.

*Abandoned Trucy.

You can argue this or that to make it better or worse. It doesnt matter whether he "had planned for Phoenix to take her" or if he "didn't care and just left". Either way, he LEFT. This is CANON. It's a JERK MOVE.

*Hit Olga

The canon does not state he was blinded with rage. The canon does not state he paid her money. The canon says nothing except he hit her. JERK MOVE.

That's all we're saying! You can try to reason and dream up all the motives and justifications you want. Fine. Write a fanfic. In BARE BONES CANON, Zak is a JERK.

---

Apologised to Phoenix expressed gratitude: Canon
Say it's all a lie and a trick all you like canon does nothing to suggest you are right and he's not sincere

Also he HAD to leave Trucy. It was that or die and Trucy is left worse off. Zak just can't win with you guys you'd rather he died by getting convicted than escaping with his life when he'd done nothing wrong?

Your interpretation that this is a jerkish thing is what's wrong as such it's not a canon jerk thing.

Olga being hit is a jerk thing sure but one thing isn't enough to label someone a jerk.

Zak confessed to a murder he didn't commit to clear Valant who ruined everyone's lives of suspicion: Canon
Say it's too late all ya want but he couldn't know they'd turn on him and at least he tried.

---

NOT canon! He didn't say "I'm sorry". He said "I've caused you trouble, I fear". Or whatever. And even SO, he then turns around and tries to RUIN PHOENIX'S LIFE. CANON CANON CANON. This is CANON. Zak acts contrite and then tries to FRAME Phoenix for a cheat Phoenix WAS NOT COMMITTING. JERK MOVE. CANON.



Not canon! He could have taken Trucy with him! He could have had her sent to a meeting place in advance and met her there! He could have NOT LEFT AT ALL AND TRUSTED IN HIS ATTORNEY TO DO HIS JOB. He didn't do any of these. He showed no regard for Phoenix or Trucy. CANON.



What is CANON is that he LEFT. Regardless of your reasoning or mine, he LEFT PHOENIX AND TRUCY THERE. CANON. And it is a JERK THING TO DO.



Hitting someone is a JERK THING TO DO. Injuring someone so they BLACK OUT, which means she was BRAIN DAMAGED even if minorly is a JERK MOVE. And this is CANON.



CANON: Zak confessed to a murder AFTER IT WAS TOO LATE TO CONVICT HIM, despite the fact that NO ONE WAS LOOKING TO CONVICT VALANT ANYMORE. The damage to Valant had ALREADY BEEN DONE. Zak's "confession" helped no one! Why? Because he STILL denied Valant the rights to the magic, the ONE thing that Valant was banking on to turn his ruined life around.

Zak is a jerk. All your "proof" are arguable (or flat out wrong) justifications.

---

The fact he fears he caused Phoenix trouble shows remorse and sorrow

Then the poker incident but Zak didn't know it would ruin his life.



Nope Trucy had to stay behind to cover his escape and lure them away with Mr Hat. The police would obviously watch her in case of something like that where she went after her father. If he had not left at all he would have died much earlier than normal in an unwinnable case.



The act of leaving is not jerkish in itself, it's just a verb to leave it's the context that gives it meaning. Where he faces certain death over a crime he didn't commit....no it's not a jerk thing to do.

That's interpretation...but then again so is your 'all leaving is jerkish' opinion.



Does this make Apollo a jerk for hitting Phoenix when he had done wrong? No it doesn't. Zak had been wronged and acted according to his feelings.



He wasn't 'dead' by the time the confession went out so he could still have been convicted. Besides Valant still managed to land big gigs like the gavinners and it was his own inferior magic that put his career in a spin without Gramayre tricks.

Giving rights to your daughter who carries Gramayre blood over an outsider....does not make him a jerk it's a logical progression she's the true heir not Valant why does the obvious logical thing make Zak a jerk?



Arguable....but not guaranteed wrong exactly like loads of your points.

Some...exclusive people say the Holocaust never happened....that makes the holocaust arguable...it doesn't make it not true.

Anyway I'm going on holiday so might not reply for a while, ease up on the caps lock a bit and relax Pleading eyes.

---

Then why else do it. Vengeance is meaningless unless it hurts Phoenix. Of course he knew it would have a severe negative impact on Phoenix's life and reputation, that's why he did it. At the very least he knows it'll end Phoenix's poker career. And now that is Phoenix's only career!


Even worse. What kind of sick jerk expects his own daughter to help in her own ABANDONMENT? Trucy also is just a pawn in his escape scheme, exploited as much as Phoenix. (And it's just an ASSUMPTION Zak would be sentenced to death. It's likely he'd get a retrial since there was a fiasco with his ex-lawyer.)

There was no excuse whatsoever for NOT LEAVING TRUCY MONEY OR CASH IN KIND (like you know, the rights). Or not making proper ACTUAL verified arrangements for somewhere for her to stay, and yes, there were many other places as options than 'Phoenix' which he could and should have made. Heck, even just enrolling her in a boarding school and prepaying the fee would be better, at least they'd actually be GUARANTEED to look after her till the fee ran out!

Not a valid excuse, and just another stupid 'assumption'. Zak's not going to be traced sending goods or cash. Or he could get a 3rd party like his 'friend' Brushel to pass things on.

Who cares if he's not 'evil', that's hardly the debate here. Doing something (many things!) unethical which isn't murder is hardly 'neutral'.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. People who die in this series are generic or grey characters so we don't care much! Either they're someone we feel little emotive sympathy for because they're so generic (Deid Mann, Dustin Price) or they do something more ethically questionable or go against the justice system.

Look at Doug Swallow! Not a 'bad guy' but colluded with Dahlia and didn't report her to police, and fought with Phoenix! Doug wasn't of poor character, but he did something stupid and questionable and didn't report it to police/justice. Misty abandoned her children and did idiotic undercover activities instead of telling police, very similar counterpart to Doug. Subverting the justice system is BAD, and that includes 'disappearing' from it, Zak!

Maya even quips in 3-3 about how all the victims are people they know almost nothing about (so we don't form significant positive empathetic attachments.) And 3-3's victim was going to unleash a VIRUS! Sure he was in a bad position, but this was partly due to his gambling habit. A tragic character, but a grey one. (Now you trot out the 'Mia' retort - we know that's a special case, she 'comes back to life' and was planned to be a 'ghost mentor' from the start...)


Canon frames it to imply he's not sincere, as I explained previously. And how's an empty 'apology' (debatable in the first place: 'I fear'?) going to undo all the terrible things that happened to Phoenix, or repay whatever astronomical amount it cost to look after Trucy for SEVEN YEARS? (And don't say 'the rights will pay for it', even on the assumption Trucy can make some extra cash now, it will never, ever come even close to breaking even, it may just offset a little more of Trucy constant expense in FUTURE.)

Look, raising someone else's kid, when you're not even related to them, (especially when you don't have something making it impossible to have your own biological children) is one of the most unselfish things you can do, and it almost never occurs. Occasionally people might raise, say, their dead best friend's kid, psuedo-family. Raise kid of the jerk who just suckered you, exploited you and broke your trust? Almost unheard of.
Phoenix and Zak are the utterly contrasting 'father' figures in the game. Phoenix lets the resentment over Zak go and gives Trucy's care priority with Zak having no bearing on his treatment of her. Zak hangs onto his petty resentment against Phoenix at all costs, even if it means risking Trucy.

Most people have some qualities which can be framed as positive in subjective interpretation, no matter how unpleasant or evil they are. (Charisma. Drive. Ambition. Etc.)
But how can 'abandoning Trucy' or 'framing Phoenix' or 'assaulting Olga' be framed as indicative of positive personal qualities?

---

Lmfao at the zak is a jerk comics XD

---

By the way, does anyone still has these comics (Zak/Magnify is a Jerk)? If someone has, please resubmit them, cause original site died out.

I know it's pretty late, but I'd like to reply. The comics are now hosted here.

One problem about Zak's plan people don't think about is the amount of consequences of what would happen if Zak succeeded in making Phoenix into a cheater.

1 - Phoenix's ability to hold this bizarre job depends on his perfect-winning streak. It brings in people from all over to play cards with him. If he were exposed as a cheater, no one would want to play against him, and he'd be out of a job. He certainly couldn't be a proper pianist after all.

2 - Losing his job would mean losing Trucy. While the piano job was a farce, it was enough to keep child protective services from taking her away. Without that, Trucy ends up in an orphanage, possibly putting her through deeper amounts of depression, considering she would be taken away from a man who's raised her for seven years.

3 - Phoenix's real job is pretty shady, and seems to attract some unfriendly people, like Orly who wanted him out of the poker racket just as much as Zak. Now imagine what would happen if he was exposed as a cheater, and how many shady creeps would come out of the woodwork, demanding to be paid back for their assumingly rigged matches, or they'll just take their anger out on him in more brutal ways...

---

Some Points to make.

(About Zak's "remorse" about hitting Olga with the bottle)

I don't think it was ever explained how long between Phoenix going up to call 911 and Kristoph hitting "Shadi Smith" with the bottle. Or what Zak did, besides "slumping in the chair", which doesn't say anything about if he had remorse or not.

(About Zak's personality)

It sounds like there's several different interpetations of his personality. Heck, I wouldn't know how to describe Zak's personality, as there's very little info about him. I personally would use the word's Brash, Stubborn, and, yes even Jerk. It also sounds like he had anger management issues. Keep in mind, this is my interpetation, I'm no psychologist.

(About Zak hitting Brushel)

Let's See. A nosy, snooping reporter who is looking for his "big scoop" is about to reveal something you don't want anyone, especially to an ex-attorney who is known for investigating stuff and who is taking care of your child now. How would you handle this. Well probably not by punching said reporter. Zak, with his Brashness, Stubborness, and Anger Problems definently didn't sound like he knows how to deal with this kind of situation, and resorted to the "Punch first and ask questions later" way.

Also, just an observation, but let's not forget Zak saw Kristoph come out seconds before talking to Phoenix. Maybe he thought Phoenix would talk to Kristoph and tell him what they talked about, and Zak didn't want Kristoph knowing that information.

(About the way Valant was interpetated in the comics)

Yeah, this bothered me as well. I felt they did Magnifi and Zak well, but they didn't do Valant very good. I get the whole "symphaty for Valant approach," when you compare the comic Valant to the game Valant, they seem like two different characters.