Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
He had no idea how the trial would turn out and to present the evidence would only make Valant look guilty (something he didn't want). Furthermore he was probably too far through his plan to stop now since it was essentially moments before he executed it.
Plus evidence that clears his name and is presented at the last minute by him....is bound to be suspicious. They normally don't listen to the defendants own opinions so why would they accept evidence the defendant pulls out of their pocket.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
pleadingeyes wrote:
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
as for how he could have killed olga,i'll say it as many times as you like,what matter's more than the method is the damage dealt,i am sure superman is fully knowing of how a full powered punch from him could lead a human being to death,yet he knock's out burglers by weaker punches,same for zak,the bottle could inflict death,but with less force,would inflict only loss of consciousness.
Thaaaat's a pretty lousy justification for assault, wouldn't you say?
"Yeah, he COULD have killed you, but he didn't. Nevermind he still KNOCKED YOU OUT WITH A BOTTLE, and could have caused you brain injury regardless, the point is he didn't KILL you!"
Yeah, sorry, but what Zak did could still be considered attempted murder. If you hold a knife to someone's throat, even if you don't actually slit their throat open, you can STILL get charged! If you assault someone in a way that could kill them, it is STILL considered intent to murder in a court of law.
Sorry, but the "he could of but he held back" excuse just doesn't fly. The point remains, he used a weapon which had the ability to be deadly--especially in the hands of someone as well-built as Zak--and assaulted a woman over a card game.
actually i proved my point strongly.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
I feel violated... and crispy...
Gender: Female
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:14 pm
Posts: 325
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
actually i proved my point strongly.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
But you're not addressing what I said.
It could STILL be considered attempted murder. He STILL assaulted her with a WEAPON that had the capability of KILLING her. Even if he "held back", THIS point still remains.
It's the same as if someone held a knife to your throat, and only put enough pressure to draw a little blood. Sure, they held back so they didn't slit your throat open and kill you. But the point remains that they used a deadly weapon to ASSAULT you. This still could and most likely WOULD be considered attempted murder in a court of law!
And whose to say Zak even held back? If he was THAT angry to suddenly swing a bottle at her, I'm sure he wasn't thinking about her well-being. If anything, maybe Olga lucked out that he just so happened not to hit her on a spot that was fatal. That is sheer LUCK, not some great show of restraint on Zak's part.
I know who Apollo's real father is, and I have evidence...
Spriters needed for fanmade GS5! It's gonna be BIG!
Spriters needed for fanmade GS5! It's gonna be BIG!
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
pleadingeyes wrote:
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
actually i proved my point strongly.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
But you're not addressing what I said.
It could STILL be considered attempted murder. He STILL assaulted her with a WEAPON that had the capability of KILLING her. Even if he "held back", THIS point still remains.
It's the same as if someone held a knife to your throat, and only put enough pressure to draw a little blood. Sure, they held back so they didn't slit your throat open and kill you. But the point remains that they used a deadly weapon to ASSAULT you. This still could and most likely WOULD be considered attempted murder in a court of law!
And whose to say Zak even held back? If he was THAT angry to suddenly swing a bottle at her, I'm sure he wasn't thinking about her well-being. If anything, maybe Olga lucked out that he just so happened not to hit her on a spot that was fatal. That is sheer LUCK, not some great show of restraint on Zak's part.
Good thing she lost memory of it then couldn't press charges....
Wait....Zak was dead anyway.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
pleadingeyes wrote:
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
actually i proved my point strongly.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
But you're not addressing what I said.
It could STILL be considered attempted murder. He STILL assaulted her with a WEAPON that had the capability of KILLING her. Even if he "held back", THIS point still remains.
It's the same as if someone held a knife to your throat, and only put enough pressure to draw a little blood. Sure, they held back so they didn't slit your throat open and kill you. But the point remains that they used a deadly weapon to ASSAULT you. This still could and most likely WOULD be considered attempted murder in a court of law!
And whose to say Zak even held back? If he was THAT angry to suddenly swing a bottle at her, I'm sure he wasn't thinking about her well-being. If anything, maybe Olga lucked out that he just so happened not to hit her on a spot that was fatal. That is sheer LUCK, not some great show of restraint on Zak's part.
unlike the knife,the bottle isn't sharp and doesn't couse easy blood loss,and olga got hit in the neck,if hit hard enough,she would have at least had extreme neck problems of sorts,some type of injury,but she was 100% fine after she recovered(which probably took a day or less....i dunno),the amount of force zak did was no where close to which would couse injury,let alone murder,the bottle is blunt object type of weapon that could easly be used for temporary pain type of attacks,unlike the knife.
if i did a light tap at you with the bottle,you wouldn't feel any pain at all,i am sure that would be intented murder from my side*sarcasm*,zak's action was between a light tap and a murderous hit,it was painfull,but no type of injury despite the neck being where olga got hit.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
pleadingeyes wrote:
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
actually i proved my point strongly.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
But you're not addressing what I said.
It could STILL be considered attempted murder. He STILL assaulted her with a WEAPON that had the capability of KILLING her. Even if he "held back", THIS point still remains.
It's the same as if someone held a knife to your throat, and only put enough pressure to draw a little blood. Sure, they held back so they didn't slit your throat open and kill you. But the point remains that they used a deadly weapon to ASSAULT you. This still could and most likely WOULD be considered attempted murder in a court of law!
And whose to say Zak even held back? If he was THAT angry to suddenly swing a bottle at her, I'm sure he wasn't thinking about her well-being. If anything, maybe Olga lucked out that he just so happened not to hit her on a spot that was fatal. That is sheer LUCK, not some great show of restraint on Zak's part.
unlike the knife,the bottle isn't sharp and doesn't couse easy blood loss,and olga got hit in the neck,if hit hard enough,she would have at least had extreme neck problems of sorts,some type of injury,but she was 100% fine after she recovered(which probably took a day or less....i dunno),the amount of force zak did was no where close to which would couse injury,let alone murder,the bottle is blunt object type of weapon that could easly be used for temporary pain type of attacks,unlike the knife.
if i did a light tap at you with the bottle,you wouldn't feel any pain at all,i am sure that would be intented murder from my side*sarcasm*,zak's action was between a light tap and a murderous hit,it was painfull,but no type of injury despite the neck being where olga got hit.
Justice has a point here.
If the damage had been close to fatal there would've been more lasting damage than a little memory loss it's possible he did somehow hold back or at least prevent himself from striking her on the head.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gender: Female
Location: Australia
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 2197
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
actually i proved my point strongly.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
Phoenix said Zak was 'uncontrollable'. Yeah, very restrained. How do you know he wasn't using a potentially fatal swing? Olga may have seen it coming enough to move or duck slightly. Zak clearly didn't. Intent of knocking someone so hard they fall unconscious still clearly marks them as a JERK.
'knock her out as "punishment" for her "failure"'= JERK.
LOL parody sig trend. Phoenix/Maya Day is Sept 5!
[ Read my fanfics! =) | Phoenix/Maya 'Evidence' List ]
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
icer wrote:
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
actually i proved my point strongly.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
you see,the force put into the swing of the bottle show's the intent.
if zak had swung the bottle at full power,then he would have killed her,showing us that either he intended murder,or he completly lost it.
but he swung the bottle with less power,which instead knocked her out,so he either intended to knock her out as punishment for her failure(especially due to the fact that she was supposed to be a pro and he thought she cheated him),or that he partially lost it,yet was able to contain himself enough to prevent the force he does to the swing from being that which would couse severe injury,let alone murder.
Phoenix said Zak was 'uncontrollable'. Yeah, very restrained. How do you know he wasn't using a potentially fatal swing? Olga may have seen it coming enough to move or duck slightly. Zak clearly didn't. Intent of knocking someone so hard they fall unconscious still clearly marks them as a JERK.
'knock her out as "punishment" for her "failure"'= JERK.
raplace the word "failure" with "cheating",she either cheated zak or zak misuderstood her for cheating him.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
'Sup?
Gender: Female
Rank: Desk Jockey
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:07 pm
Posts: 122
His case is very similar to Zak's. He hears that Nick "cheated out" on him (that is, had Trucy give him "forged" evidence) and because he's so angry, punches him. Is Apollo regarded as a jerk? Nope. But what if Trucy was in Phoenix's place? Y'know, tell him about the bloody ace and get punched? Maybe Apollo could've controlled himself and not punch her, but considering he was so mad he punched his own client, he probably wouldn't be able to. If it was Trucy who was punched, then Apollo would be called a jerk.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Mipeltaja = the real badass
Gender: Male
Location: That one place. No, not that place, the other place.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:14 am
Posts: 462
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
raplace the word "failure" with "cheating",she either cheated zak or zak misuderstood her for cheating him.
If Olga had any intent on cheating Zak, why would she even show up to not cheat? Why not just take the money and run?
Even if Zak thinks she cheated, since when are people free to assault people based on what we think they're doing?
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
LawfulMagician wrote:
Um... About the "moment of weakness" thing... I think "lapse in judgment" would be a better phrase. He was so angry that his emotions clouded his mind, so he acted before he thought. Don't forget that other characters have done the same thing. Especially Apollo.
His case is very similar to Zak's. He hears that Nick "cheated out" on him (that is, had Trucy give him "forged" evidence) and because he's so angry, punches him. Is Apollo regarded as a jerk? Nope. But what if Trucy was in Phoenix's place? Y'know, tell him about the bloody ace and get punched? Maybe Apollo could've controlled himself and not punch her, but considering he was so mad he punched his own client, he probably wouldn't be able to. If it was Trucy who was punched, then Apollo would be called a jerk.
His case is very similar to Zak's. He hears that Nick "cheated out" on him (that is, had Trucy give him "forged" evidence) and because he's so angry, punches him. Is Apollo regarded as a jerk? Nope. But what if Trucy was in Phoenix's place? Y'know, tell him about the bloody ace and get punched? Maybe Apollo could've controlled himself and not punch her, but considering he was so mad he punched his own client, he probably wouldn't be able to. If it was Trucy who was punched, then Apollo would be called a jerk.
I know,it's completly human and not jerkish tto have a "lapse in judgment"
Icarus wrote:
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
raplace the word "failure" with "cheating",she either cheated zak or zak misuderstood her for cheating him.
If Olga had any intent on cheating Zak, why would she even show up to not cheat? Why not just take the money and run?
Even if Zak thinks she cheated, since when are people free to assault people based on what we think they're doing?
it's called misunderstanding,you know,like at case 1-4 when you tell gumshoe you want help with gourdy he scream's at you becouse he thought you completly forgot about edgeworth.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Mipeltaja = the real badass
Gender: Male
Location: That one place. No, not that place, the other place.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:14 am
Posts: 462
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
Icarus wrote:
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
raplace the word "failure" with "cheating",she either cheated zak or zak misuderstood her for cheating him.
If Olga had any intent on cheating Zak, why would she even show up to not cheat? Why not just take the money and run?
Even if Zak thinks she cheated, since when are people free to assault people based on what we think they're doing?
it's called misunderstanding,you know,like at case 1-4 when you tell gumshoe you want help with gourdy he scream's at you becouse he thought you completly forgot about edgeworth.
It's almost as if causing harm to somebody because of a misunderstanding is a jerk thing to do, maybe?
Unless you're Bush, in which case it's perfectly OK to kill tons of Iraqi civilians because you thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
I feel violated... and crispy...
Gender: Female
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:14 pm
Posts: 325
Is ANYTHING a justifiable reason to club a person over the head with a weapon, other than self defense? Clearly Zak was in no danger from Olga. Regardless of his reason, he still clubbed her with a DANGEROUS WEAPON.
Think about this for a moment. if he'd wanted to restrain himself, he could have just not hit her, or even just punched her. But he grabbed a WEAPON. That means he WANTED to hurt her. He wasn't holding back, he was blinded by rage. He WANTED to cause harm. This was intentional. Why do you think Phoenix freaks out and goes to call the police? Zak wasn't holding back, Zak was out of control!
It is NOT OK to hit someone with a weapon, no matter how angry you are at them or how cheated you feel. It is NOT OK. And yes, he COULD have killed her. And unlike Zak who didn't see Kristoph's attack coming, maybe Olga managed to dodge. Or maybe Zak just didn't have a good enough angle. Whatever happened, she got lucky that he only knocked her out and didn't kill her. This was not a show of restraint, it was LUCK. HE STILL COULD HAVE KILLED HER.
And a concussion is no laughing matter. You can say that there wasn't serious damage, but the fact is that there could have been, and there was still enough to knock her unconcious.
Think about it. If someone shoots at you but misses, is "he didnt hit you with the bullets" a justifiable defense? Of course not! The person still SHOT AT YOU.
I know who Apollo's real father is, and I have evidence...
Spriters needed for fanmade GS5! It's gonna be BIG!
Spriters needed for fanmade GS5! It's gonna be BIG!
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
and as i said before,if she tried dodging,then where would have it hit,the forhead for example,but instead he hit her in the neck,are you telling me that his hit on her neck coused no type of series injury whatsover,not even an injury that lasts for weeks,then a hit on the head or the face would have coused series injury(and when i say series,i don't mean a nose bleed,i mean one that last's at least a week),so it wasn't luck,if he had hit her in the arm or chest,that would have counted as luck,but no series harm in the neck mean's no series harm in the whole head area.
and stop comparing the bottle with more lethal weapons like the gun,compare it with something similiar,even a baseball bat or a police nightstick would have done a better job,as i said,if a blunt object is used,the force put into it determines the amount of damage,that is an undeniable fact,he hit her,but no where as hard as that to couse an injury,so he didn't hit her with murder or series injury in mind,it was a lapse in judgement yet he was able to prevent himself from hitting her too hard.
and losing conciousness is indead something that doesn't happen a lot,however you can't say it could have coused series damage,we are talking about a blunt object here,a weapon that depend's on the force put by the attacker for the damage,if zak did only enough force to knock her unconsious and she wasn't injured,then you can't say he could have injured her,becouse the only way that could happen would be if he put more force to the hit,a cold fact is he put only enough force to make her lose conciousness,so with that,she couldn't have been injured with the amount of force zak put into the hit.
and if you'll say he could have put more force,then i'll counter by saying that the killer's in all blunt object murder methods could have put less force in which so many victems wouldn't be dead,thus saying what if zak put more force is like making a fanfiction so the amount of force zak put is constant in our argument,as is that of everyone else.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Mipeltaja = the real badass
Gender: Male
Location: That one place. No, not that place, the other place.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:14 am
Posts: 462
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
If it was a misundestanding,then how the hell did he know she didn't cheat him,he had a "lapse in judgement" , It's not the result "she wasn't the cheater" that counts,it's the thought that counts,the thought that she cheated him blinded him in rage for a second.
If you do something terrible to someone based on a misunderstanding, with no attempt to clear up any misunderstanding, then you're a jerk. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Even assuming that Olga did cheat him, he was in a small room with her and could grab her arm and demand his money back. Attempting to cause harm to her in a moment of anger makes him both a thug and a jerk.
Quote:
and as i said before,if she tried dodging,then where would have it hit,the forhead for example,but instead he hit her in the neck,are you telling me that his hit on her neck coused no type of series injury whatsover,not even an injury that lasts for weeks,then a hit on the head or the face would have coused series injury(and when i say series,i don't mean a nose bleed,i mean one that last's at least a week),so it wasn't luck,if he had hit her in the arm or chest,that would have counted as luck,but no series harm in the neck mean's no series harm in the whole head area.
He hit her on the back of the neck, it's pretty likely that when she saw the bottle coming towards her, she flinched and turned away, meaning that Zak was originally aiming towards her face. If a blow strong enough to knock a grown woman out was directed towards her face, it would have caused a lot more obvious damage, like bruising or knocking out teeth.
Quote:
and stop comparing the bottle with more lethal weapons like the gun,compare it with something similiar,even a baseball bat or a police nightstick would have done a better job,as i said,if a blunt object is used,the force put into it determines the amount of damage,that is an undeniable fact,he hit her,but no where as hard as that to couse an injury,so he didn't hit her with murder or series injury in mind,it was a lapse in judgement yet he was able to prevent himself from hitting her too hard.
Excuse me for caps lock, but OF COURSE HE HIT HER HARD ENOUGH TO CAUSE AN INJURY! HE KNOCKED HER OUT! Don't be stupid.
Quote:
and losing conciousness is indead something that doesn't happen a lot,however you can't say it could have coused series damage,we are talking about a blunt object here,a weapon that depend's on the force put by the attacker for the damage,if zak did only enough force to knock her unconsious and she wasn't injured,then you can't say he could have injured her,becouse the only way that could happen would be if he put more force to the hit,a cold fact is he put only enough force to make her lose conciousness,so with that,she couldn't have been injured with the amount of force zak put into the hit.
You are not a doctor. It takes a lot of force to knock somebody unconscious, so there was probably massive bruising, which we couldn't see, since we never see the back of her neck. Your whole argument that there was no serious damage is based on assumptions made from ignorance.
Quote:
and if you'll say he could have put more force,then i'll counter by saying that the killer's in all blunt object murder methods could have put less force in which so many victems wouldn't be dead,thus saying what if zak put more force is like making a fanfiction so the amount of force zak put is constant in our argument,as is that of everyone else.
If Olga hadn't cowered and turned away, Zak could have hit her directly on the forehead (which could have caused damage to the brain, see Kristoph) or the face (which could have caused massive structural damage, the face is pretty fragile). Saying what could have happened if the attacker acted differently is bogus, but considering what could have happened if the victim hadn't been as quick to turn away is legitimate.
Incidentally, Phoenix_Justice, could you define what a jerk is? I define a jerk as somebody who generally acts in a way that is not considerate to other people. You apparently define a jerk as somebody who has absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever, so if there's any possibility that a man has ever acted nice, he can't possibly be a jerk, whereas I think jerk is a pretty mild way of saying "Hey, this guy usually isn't very nice."
Zak Gramarye generally acts in a way that is not considerate to other people. He usually isn't very nice, what with the assault and all. Frankly, he's kind of a jerk.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gender: Female
Location: Australia
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 2197
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
If it was a misundestanding,then how the hell did he know she didn't cheat him,he had a "lapse in judgement" , It's not the result "she wasn't the cheater" that counts,it's the thought that counts,the thought that she cheated him blinded him in rage for a second.
"blinded by rage"? It's not like he randomly threw things around in a tantrum. He's coherent enough to grab a lethal weapon and hit enough to knock unconscious. Yes, maybe his 'instincts' took over - but only JERKS act this way instinctively in a fit of anger, with potentially fatal violence against someone who is no threat to you whatsoever. Such potentially lethal violence in REASONABLE people is only triggered instinctively when there's an actual THREAT to your wellbeing or possibly that of others. [And I'm willing to bet if Zak had lived, he'd have shown zero remorse for his out of control actions, further aligning him as a 'jerk' rather than an 'unfortunate loss of control' by someone who realises they have 'anger issues' or whatever]
And there's a big difference between Apollo punching Phoenix - Although this was a jerkish moment on Apollo's part, it CAN be taken as a momentary lapse because A) he sure as hell didn't pick up a handy object as a WEAPON, then hit hard enough to seriously injure B) Apollo's OTHER behaviours in the game do not continue the pattern.
Whether or not Olga is the world's most ethical person or was perceived to have somehow 'wronged' him has no bearing on whether Zak is a jerk or that he committed unprovoked ASSAULT, because Olga sure wasn't physically or otherwise threatening him.
For example, Kristoph is a 'murderer' for killing Zak, regardless of the distasteful individual Zak is. Or are you going to argue Kristoph should be wholly forgiven for this 'lapse in judgment'? Zak 'deserved' this murder as 'punishment'?
As I said earlier, every murderer or perpetrator of abuse and violent crimes believes their victim 'deserves' it in their warped worldview and considers it as 'lapse of judgment' if they are caught/face charges. Zak and Olga effectively had a business deal. Only JERKS commit assault when the business plan fails, as many do, all business strategies carrying an element of risk.
And why are we arguing about the assault anyway. Zak's other actions alone seal him as a JERK. I don't get it, why are you so eager to defend this character? Fandom consensus is he is a jerk for a REASON.
Quote:
compare it with something similiar,even a baseball bat or a police nightstick would have done a better job,as i said
Oh, maybe becuse there was no baseball bat or nightstick siting around handy and the bottle was the best weapon actually immediately available?
LOL parody sig trend. Phoenix/Maya Day is Sept 5!
[ Read my fanfics! =) | Phoenix/Maya 'Evidence' List ]
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
Spoiler: AAI/GK case 3
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
What is my liiiife?!?
Gender: Male
Location: UK
Rank: Admin
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 2504
I think the whole troupe's made of jerks, personally. (Even Thalassa, for not doing the right thing and actually, you know, tell her kids that she's their mum, and that she's alive).
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
The Real Human Being
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 3481
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Mipeltaja = the real badass
Gender: Male
Location: That one place. No, not that place, the other place.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:14 am
Posts: 462
Spoiler: AAI-Case 3
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
Icarus wrote:
Spoiler: AAI-Case 3
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Just a random passerby
Gender: Male
Location: Hyrule
Rank: Prosecutor
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:42 pm
Posts: 623
Yeah, I'm sure Olga would of been killed if Zak hit her on the head. Now I know that Max hit Ben on the head with a bottle and Ben wasn't killed, but Max's strength is far weaker than Zak or Kristoph.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
rydus65 wrote:
I compare Zak hitting Olga with the bottle because of the unsucessful cheating with Max hitting Ben with the bottle because Trilo was making fun of Max. Both were dumb reasons to do so. I'm assuming that the same people who think it was OK for Zak to hit Olga also think it was OK for Max to hit Ben as well. Despite the fact that Ben is one of my most hated people in AA, it was a stupid reason to hit someone.
Yeah, I'm sure Olga would of been killed if Zak hit her on the head. Now I know that Max hit Ben on the head with a bottle and Ben wasn't killed, but Max's strength is far weaker than Zak or Kristoph.
Yeah, I'm sure Olga would of been killed if Zak hit her on the head. Now I know that Max hit Ben on the head with a bottle and Ben wasn't killed, but Max's strength is far weaker than Zak or Kristoph.
the reasons aren't even the same,and max hit with the intent to make ben drop unconcious and take trilo away,and as i have shown,you can knock a person unconcious with a weapon capable of dealing death without luck being involved,although that point i can argue only with poeple who played AAI.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gender: Female
Location: Australia
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 2197
You don't have to hit hard enough to kill someone to be a jerk!
Why have we gone off on a meaningless tangent about whether Zak hit hard enough to kill or whatever.
Abandoning his daughter = JERK
Ruining Phoenix, time 1 = JERK
Just watching on Trucy give the forged evidence whilst he knew he had the real diary page on hand =JERK
Leaving Phoenix [and Valant] in the mess = JERK
Trying to ruin Phoenix time 2 by professional framing at poker = JERK
General attitude and demeanour = JERK
General deliberate portrayal by game writing mechanisms = JERK
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
Wright: (i......i shoved him and he fell unconcious)
Apollo: (i........i punched Mr.Wright...)
Zak: (i.........i could have killed her,what had gotten into me)
Apollo: (i........i punched Mr.Wright...)
Zak: (i.........i could have killed her,what had gotten into me)
As we've pointed out before:
a) neither Phoenix nor Apollo knocked anyone unconscious, nor intended to. It was the lightning/electric wire who knocked out Swallow and Phoenix never intended this. NEITHER used a WEAPON.
b) Phoenix and even Apollo were immediately freaked out and remorseful [especially Phoenix] about their action. Zak, on the other hand, was 'uncontrollable', not remorseful or shocked.
Didn't Zak knock Olga out from behind? Even cheaper.
Forget comparing to 'precedent' Max with the bottle [which was a spoiled brat moment as Max is depicted as] How about Dahlia striking Maya with the staff in 3-5? Such restraint, I'm sure she meant no harm to dear Cousin Maya!
Icarus wrote:
Unless you're Bush, in which case it's perfectly OK to kill tons of Iraqi civilians because you thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
Even this is an invalid comparison. Zak knows Olga's not going to fight back and doesn't even pretend he thinks she can.
icer wrote:
I don't get it, why are you so eager to defend this character? Fandom consensus is he is a jerk for a REASON.
This was not a rhetorical question. WHY?
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
zak didn't choose,he had a lapse in judgment as i mentioned before.
"to err is human,to forgive, divine"
"to err is human,to forgive, divine"
'lapse in judgment'.
This is nonsensical.
People are responsible for their own actions. "You can't punish me for shoplifting/murder/drunk driving, it was a 'lapse of judgement' therefore I'm blameless"
If they act like jerks on instinct, they are even more jerks.
This is a crime game. It's about sending killers to be executed, not forgiving their crimes. The game clearly intends us to view Zak as a jerk.
Gerkuman wrote:
I think the whole troupe's made of jerks, personally. (Even Thalassa, for not doing the right thing and actually, you know, tell her kids that she's their mum, and that she's alive).
Agreed. Magnifi is possibly worst of all. However, Valant is depicted by the writers as having more tolerable factors than Zak -I mean, his sprite gets fluffy bunnies! But Gramarye, well Arumajiki means 'unworthy'.
I'm pretty cynical over what Thalassa's 'forgotten'. No doubt something she doesn't want Apollo and Trucy to know- probably something which reflects very badly on HER and her past actions. Also, she seems to abandon her new 'adopted son', Machi, rather easily.
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
AAI
The badger knocking out Edgeworth was probably preplanned, not a fit of rage. Like Edgeworth isn't going to sue for damages otherwise anyway? He's a prosecutor. Zak expected to get away with whatever he did to Olga.
LOL parody sig trend. Phoenix/Maya Day is Sept 5!
[ Read my fanfics! =) | Phoenix/Maya 'Evidence' List ]
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
icer wrote:
*STUNNING REVELATION*
You don't have to hit hard enough to kill someone to be a jerk!
Why have we gone off on a meaningless tangent about whether Zak hit hard enough to kill or whatever.
Abandoning his daughter = JERK
Ruining Phoenix, time 1 = JERK
Just watching on Trucy give the forged evidence whilst he knew he had the real diary page on hand =JERK
Leaving Phoenix [and Valant] in the mess = JERK
Trying to ruin Phoenix time 2 by professional framing at poker = JERK
General attitude and demeanour = JERK
General deliberate portrayal by game writing mechanisms = JERK
You don't have to hit hard enough to kill someone to be a jerk!
Why have we gone off on a meaningless tangent about whether Zak hit hard enough to kill or whatever.
Abandoning his daughter = JERK
Ruining Phoenix, time 1 = JERK
Just watching on Trucy give the forged evidence whilst he knew he had the real diary page on hand =JERK
Leaving Phoenix [and Valant] in the mess = JERK
Trying to ruin Phoenix time 2 by professional framing at poker = JERK
General attitude and demeanour = JERK
General deliberate portrayal by game writing mechanisms = JERK
to show that zak still had enough restraint to prevent his anger from cousing olga's death and making the hit lighter than that of a person that lost his judgment for a split second.
as for your mathematics,zak didn't abondon trucy,he left her in wrights hands due to knowing wright,he knew wright would take her,besides,her gave her enough money to live for atleast a week untill wright adopted her,also,he told her to go to wright anyway since she told wright that zak told her to live with wright if he accepts,she might have gone to ask wright herself after more than a week in which,if zak couldn't know that wright would offer adopting her by himself,trucy would have gone to wright by herself,and from the poker game he knew wright was a good hearted selfless person,so in short,he didn't "abandon her",rather "left her in good hands"
and for the millionth time,it's kristof that ruined wright,not zak
he had no idea that the paper trucy was giving was forged evidence,and he kept the paper becouse if wright had it he would have got zak the not guilty virdict,which would have led to valant being found guilty as suicide didn't cross anyone's mind(but valant's) at the time.
valant deserved the mess,he framed zak,while zak thought he was the killer(anyone who knew zak was innocent would normally suspect valant by procces of elimination,and phoenix getting disbared wasn't in zak's plan at all,so since zak didn't plan for a way to help wright if that happened,he couldn't do a thing.
Wright deserved to have his reputation ruined becouse he was really a cheater,besides,the moment zak gave the rights,wright no longer needed his poker reputation,say for example,you and your son share the same computer(just like wright and trucy share the money together),I destroyed your computer which had no important software in it(zak trying to destroy wright's reputation),but gave your son an even better computer(zak giving trucy(or wright) the rights),and you and your son would share it like the last computer(phoenix and trucy would share trucy's big earnings from the rights).
Attitude,he showed regret and worry, "I.....am afraid i coused you trouble" "is...she alright"
portrayal,he had a locket with trucy's picture in it.
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
Wright: (i......i shoved him and he fell unconcious)
Apollo: (i........i punched Mr.Wright...)
Zak: (i.........i could have killed her,what had gotten into me)
Apollo: (i........i punched Mr.Wright...)
Zak: (i.........i could have killed her,what had gotten into me)
icer wrote:
As we've pointed out before:
a) neither Phoenix nor Apollo knocked anyone unconscious, nor intended to. It was the lightning/electric wire who knocked out Swallow and Phoenix never intended this. NEITHER used a WEAPON.
b) Phoenix and even Apollo were immediately freaked out and remorseful [especially Phoenix] about their action. Zak, on the other hand, was 'uncontrollable', not remorseful or shocked.
Didn't Zak knock Olga out from behind? Even cheaper.
Forget comparing to 'precedent' Max with the bottle [which was a spoiled brat moment as Max is depicted as] How about Dahlia striking Maya with the staff in 3-5? Such restraint, I'm sure she meant no harm to dear Cousin Maya!
a) neither Phoenix nor Apollo knocked anyone unconscious, nor intended to. It was the lightning/electric wire who knocked out Swallow and Phoenix never intended this. NEITHER used a WEAPON.
b) Phoenix and even Apollo were immediately freaked out and remorseful [especially Phoenix] about their action. Zak, on the other hand, was 'uncontrollable', not remorseful or shocked.
Didn't Zak knock Olga out from behind? Even cheaper.
Forget comparing to 'precedent' Max with the bottle [which was a spoiled brat moment as Max is depicted as] How about Dahlia striking Maya with the staff in 3-5? Such restraint, I'm sure she meant no harm to dear Cousin Maya!
a)wright knocked doug out..............ok it was for a very short time,but it's also loss of concious non-the-less.
b)zak afterwards sat on the chair to ragain his composure and regret his actions,but didn't have enough time due to our murderous friend.
and a hit on the back of the nack doesn't automatically mean he hit her from behind.
dahlia was controlling misty fey's body,who didn't have enough strength to kill maya using a blunt object.
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
zak didn't choose,he had a lapse in judgment as i mentioned before.
"to err is human,to forgive, divine"[/quote]
icer wrote:
'lapse in judgment'.
This is nonsensical.
People are responsible for their own actions. "You can't punish me for shoplifting/murder/drunk driving, it was a 'lapse of judgement' therefore I'm blameless"
If they act like jerks on instinct, they are even more jerks.
This is nonsensical.
People are responsible for their own actions. "You can't punish me for shoplifting/murder/drunk driving, it was a 'lapse of judgement' therefore I'm blameless"
If they act like jerks on instinct, they are even more jerks.
so if edgeworth's gun throw killed gregory,would that make him a jerk,yes,he was young at the time,but such a move could have coused death,yet it was excusable,so zak's move could have coused death,yet it would be excusable,however,it relied on force put,and zak showed restrained meaning death was prevented not by luck,all the more reason to excuse his actions,i am not saying zak isn't to blame for knocking olga unconcious,i am saying the intention wasn't jerkish becouse there was none due to "lapse in judgment",a human error made by many,who aren't jerks.
icer wrote:
This is a crime game. It's about sending killers to be executed, not forgiving their crimes. The game clearly intends us to view Zak as a jerk.
zak wasn't a killer
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
AAI
The badger knocking out Edgeworth was probably preplanned, not a fit of rage. Like Edgeworth isn't going to sue for damages otherwise anyway? He's a prosecutor. Zak expected to get away with whatever he did to Olga.[/quote]
I put it to show that a person can hit another with a death dealing object(a blunt weapon) without killing them,and not for any other purpuse.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Quote:
Abandoning his daughter = JERK
Ruining Phoenix, time 1 = JERK
Just watching on Trucy give the forged evidence whilst he knew he had the real diary page on hand =JERK
Leaving Phoenix [and Valant] in the mess = JERK
Trying to ruin Phoenix time 2 by professional framing at poker = JERK
General attitude and demeanour = JERK
General deliberate portrayal by game writing mechanisms = JERK
Ruining Phoenix, time 1 = JERK
Just watching on Trucy give the forged evidence whilst he knew he had the real diary page on hand =JERK
Leaving Phoenix [and Valant] in the mess = JERK
Trying to ruin Phoenix time 2 by professional framing at poker = JERK
General attitude and demeanour = JERK
General deliberate portrayal by game writing mechanisms = JERK
Abandoning his Daughter = Lesser of 2 evils as opposed to being executed for his crimes leaving her no chance of meeting up again.
Ruining Phoenix time 1 = KRISTOPH'S FAULT! NOT ZAK'S!
Watching Trucy give forged evidence= Prove he saw the transaction.
Leaving Phoenix and Valant = Was designed for VALANT'S BENEFIT as it originally put suspicion on him! As for Phoenix, his career was already ruined, Zak's actions didn't really make things any worse than they already were.
Ruining Phoenix 2 = Also there to give Phoenix riches beyond his dreams as well as accomplishing one of his own dreams of beating the unbeatable.
General Attitude and Demeanour = Awesome fun guy with a nice hearty laugh.
General Deliberate portrayal = HAH! Prove it's intentional or deliberate and not just how you see things and then I'll accept this drivel.
God I don't know why I came back, I already tried explaining all my points and you guys just ignore them without consideration.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Mipeltaja = the real badass
Gender: Male
Location: That one place. No, not that place, the other place.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:14 am
Posts: 462
Pierre wrote:
Ruining Phoenix 2 = Also there to give Phoenix riches beyond his dreams as well as accomplishing one of his own dreams of beating the unbeatable.
Stop saying "he was there to give Phoenix riches," there is nothing in canon to indicate this had anything to do with Zak's intentions. On the other hand, it is strongly suggested in canon that Zak wanted to cheat to win because of his foolish pride, and he reacted like a petulant child when his dishonest plan fell through.
He didn't cheat because he wanted to win (He'd always know he didn't earn it), he cheated because he wanted Phoenix to lose. And not only lose, he wanted to destroy his reputation. Otherwise, he could have just arranged for Olga to deal him better hands, but Zak went out of his way to falsely accuse Phoenix of cheating. HE'S A JERK, HE'S GOT FANGS, RAZOR SHARP ONES. MASSIVE PAWS, KILLER CLAWS, FOR THE FEAST.
Cheating to win is a pretty jerkish thing to do to begin with, but falsely accusing your opponent of cheating to win (like Kristoph arranged in the trial), thus making yourself look undeservedly good and causing your opponent to look undeservedly bad is Massive Jerk territory.
And then there's attacking people with minor provocation, WOW, LOOK WHO JUST HIT THE JERK JACKPOT, IT'S ZAK GRAMARYE
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Icarus wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Ruining Phoenix 2 = Also there to give Phoenix riches beyond his dreams as well as accomplishing one of his own dreams of beating the unbeatable.
Stop saying "he was there to give Phoenix riches," there is nothing in canon to indicate this had anything to do with Zak's intentions. On the other hand, it is strongly suggested in canon that Zak wanted to cheat to win because of his foolish pride, and he reacted like a petulant child when his dishonest plan fell through.
He didn't cheat because he wanted to win (He'd always know he didn't earn it), he cheated because he wanted Phoenix to lose. And not only lose, he wanted to destroy his reputation. Otherwise, he could have just arranged for Olga to deal him better hands, but Zak went out of his way to falsely accuse Phoenix of cheating. HE'S A JERK, HE'S GOT FANGS, RAZOR SHARP ONES. MASSIVE PAWS, KILLER CLAWS, FOR THE FEAST.
Cheating to win is a pretty jerkish thing to do to begin with, but falsely accusing your opponent of cheating to win (like Kristoph arranged in the trial), thus making yourself look undeservedly good and causing your opponent to look undeservedly bad is Massive Jerk territory.
And then there's attacking people with minor provocation, WOW, LOOK WHO JUST HIT THE JERK JACKPOT, IT'S ZAK GRAMARYE
It's known in canon he was there to pass on the magic rights to Trucy (and by proxy Phoenix) as thats what he did.
Phoenix is just as much a cheater as Zak. Bringing along your psychic daughter to read opponent's minds? Just because your opponent is especially good? We don't consider Phoenix a jerk because of it. Some of the big opponents he brought down would have had just as great reputations. What's more for all we know Phoenix has cheated a lot more than Zak and ruined many fair players reputations because of it. It's as bad as the old paintings of a western saloon poker game with a woman flirting with a player while really she's giving signals across the table to her associate about the hand.
In a twisted sense: Zak could be the saint bringing this poker criminal to light by forcing him to get caught cheating in a way he normally doesn't.
And Minor Provocation? If you thought you'd been conned out of possibly thousands of pounds or more (I don't know big crime underworld figures) and the culprit was standing before you looking defenceless and completely innocent and no one would be able to prove it. Would you not want to exact some justice on them?
Hell Apollo punched Phoenix for a lot less.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
Pierre wrote:
God I don't know why I came back, I already tried explaining all my points and you guys just ignore them without consideration.
they won't listen,it'll always be for example
them: zak ruined wright
us: kristof is who ruined wright
*after a few posts*
them: zak ruined wright
us: kristof ruined wright
after even more posts
them: zak ruined wright
us: kristof ruined wright
no matter how many times we'll counter all their arguments,they'll ignore our counter-arguments and continue giving the same arguments that were countered to avoid losing this argument,they have repeated how zak ruined wright,how zak abandoned his doughter,how he has a bad attitude despite the fact that we have numerous times repeated ourselves and countered their same old arguments again.
oh well,it's a good thing i am used to repeating myself
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gender: Female
Location: Australia
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 2197
Pierre wrote:
Watching Trucy give forged evidence= Prove he saw the transaction.
Watch the damn scene.
Pierre wrote:
General Attitude and Demeanour = Awesome fun guy with a nice hearty laugh.
Let's all go swimming! *Gant Clap*
Quote:
give Phoenix riches beyond his dreams
Where's the evidence Zak was 'rolling in riches' before he disappeared? When he adopts her Trucy tells Phoenix she's glad she's changing school because Zak has not paid her owed school lunch fees for over a year. Either Zak is broke OR too much of a jerk even to pay the school what he owes.
Pierre wrote:
Phoenix is just as much a cheater as Zak. Bringing along your psychic daughter to read opponent's minds? Just because your opponent is especially good? We don't consider Phoenix a jerk because of it. Some of the big opponents he brought down would have had just as great reputations.
Nothing Phoenix did would RUIN peoples' career or commit defamation. If Zak was simply punishing Phoenix for using Trucy for an advantage, he'd simply end Phoenix's win streak by making him lose. No, Zak intended to FRAME Phoenix for cheating in a manner he never did, deliberately and permanently ruin his entire personal reputation. It would end not only his poker prospects, but ALL of them.
Will anyone deal with [Gramarye rights?] or employ the man who is not only the 'Forgin' Attorney' but the Poker Cheat? Trucy is only 15, she can't legally run a business, sign contracts et al.. They're still going to starve till she's 18 because NOBODY WOULD EVER DO A BUSINESS DEAL WITH PHOENIX if Zak's poker plot had succeeded. It's possible Trucy won't even be able to do her Panties Show any more because of the negative association with Wright Agency.
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
Wright deserved to have his reputation ruined becouse he was really a cheater,besides,the moment zak gave the rights,wright no longer needed his poker reputation,say for example,you and your son share the same computer(just like wright and trucy share the money together),I destroyed your computer which had no important software in it(zak trying to destroy wright's reputation),but gave your son an even better computer(zak giving trucy(or wright) the rights),and you and your son would share it like the last computer(phoenix and trucy would share trucy's big earnings from the rights).
Hell, no. Here's a slightly better comparison. You destroy my computer, on which I've been running my business to keep YOUR son alive. You simultaneously besmirch my entire reputation among all my business circles AND the entire country. No business would ever deal with me or even employ me EVER AGAIN. Then you give 'my' [your] son some decrepit old computer with a 7 year layer of dust on which you used to run your [long ago lapsed] business 7 years ago, which you were forced to fold because you're an 'admitted murderer'.
Ah, look at the time. more later.
LOL parody sig trend. Phoenix/Maya Day is Sept 5!
[ Read my fanfics! =) | Phoenix/Maya 'Evidence' List ]
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Also your Gant example is nothing to me. To me he's also a lovely fun guy.
The riches would belong to Magnifi at that point from the rights of magic. It was still debatable who had the rights at that point so Zak couldn't have been performing his own wonderful magic shows for a while. After all with one member of the troupe gone and another dying I imagine there weren't many shows for a while.
For all you know Phoenix could have ruined someone's career. Could have played well renowned 'unbeaten' poker champions and trounced them with Trucy.
Also note since he is a 'forgin attorney' the stigma is barely any worse. People probably already think he must cheat at poker to be unbeaten (which admittedly he does sometimes). Since he can already get Trucy playing her magic shows at a bar I can't remember the name of and her shows are successful for the place I can't see why they'd object when all of a sudden she starts pulling incredible tricks.
Too tired to argue properly...or quote it would seem
It's all for Icer anyway.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
Pierre wrote:
Watching Trucy give forged evidence= Prove he saw the transaction.
icer wrote:
Watch the damn scene.
Zak couldn't verify the contents,the reason for his question(as pierre said)
Pierre wrote:
General Attitude and Demeanour = Awesome fun guy with a nice hearty laugh.
icer wrote:
Let's all go swimming! *Gant Clap*
gant is a fun guy that killed two poeple,zak is a fun guy that killed none,even made himself look like a killer for valant's sake,but mehh,pierre said an even better counter for that one.
Quote:
give Phoenix riches beyond his dreams
icer wrote:
Where's the evidence Zak was 'rolling in riches' before he disappeared? When he adopts her Trucy tells Phoenix she's glad she's changing school because Zak has not paid her owed school lunch fees for over a year. Either Zak is broke OR too much of a jerk even to pay the school what he owes.
please read pierre's vote.
Pierre wrote:
Phoenix is just as much a cheater as Zak. Bringing along your psychic daughter to read opponent's minds? Just because your opponent is especially good? We don't consider Phoenix a jerk because of it. Some of the big opponents he brought down would have had just as great reputations.
icer wrote:
Nothing Phoenix did would RUIN peoples' career or commit defamation. If Zak was simply punishing Phoenix for using Trucy for an advantage, he'd simply end Phoenix's win streak by making him lose. No, Zak intended to FRAME Phoenix for cheating in a manner he never did, deliberately and permanently ruin his entire personal reputation. It would end not only his poker prospects, but ALL of them.
Will anyone deal with [Gramarye rights?] or employ the man who is not only the 'Forgin' Attorney' but the Poker Cheat? Trucy is only 15, she can't legally run a business, sign contracts et al.. They're still going to starve till she's 18 because NOBODY WOULD EVER DO A BUSINESS DEAL WITH PHOENIX if Zak's poker plot had succeeded. It's possible Trucy won't even be able to do her Panties Show any more because of the negative association with Wright Agency.
Will anyone deal with [Gramarye rights?] or employ the man who is not only the 'Forgin' Attorney' but the Poker Cheat? Trucy is only 15, she can't legally run a business, sign contracts et al.. They're still going to starve till she's 18 because NOBODY WOULD EVER DO A BUSINESS DEAL WITH PHOENIX if Zak's poker plot had succeeded. It's possible Trucy won't even be able to do her Panties Show any more because of the negative association with Wright Agency.
please read pierre's post
Phoenix_Justice wrote:
Wright deserved to have his reputation ruined becouse he was really a cheater,besides,the moment zak gave the rights,wright no longer needed his poker reputation,say for example,you and your son share the same computer(just like wright and trucy share the money together),I destroyed your computer which had no important software in it(zak trying to destroy wright's reputation),but gave your son an even better computer(zak giving trucy(or wright) the rights),and you and your son would share it like the last computer(phoenix and trucy would share trucy's big earnings from the rights).
icer wrote:
Hell, no. Here's a slightly better comparison. You destroy my computer, on which I've been running my business to keep YOUR son alive. You simultaneously besmirch my entire reputation among all my business circles AND the entire country. No business would ever deal with me or even employ me EVER AGAIN. Then you give 'my' [your] son some decrepit old computer with a 7 year layer of dust on which you used to run your [long ago lapsed] business 7 years ago, which you were forced to fold because you're an 'admitted murderer'.
and the dusty computer win's you guys as much as(or even more than) what your other computer used to win you,you lost your name but you deserved it,yet you and my son can still live with the amount of money my son is earning,he's 15 but he can manage if a certain prosecutor can manage in the age of 13
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
: D
Gender: Female
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 6:11 am
Posts: 19
Quote:
Wright deserved to have his reputation ruined becouse he was really a cheater,besides,the moment zak gave the rights,wright no longer needed his poker reputation,say for example,you and your son share the same computer(just like wright and trucy share the money together),I destroyed your computer which had no important software in it(zak trying to destroy wright's reputation),but gave your son an even better computer(zak giving trucy(or wright) the rights),and you and your son would share it like the last computer(phoenix and trucy would share trucy's big earnings from the rights).
What?
He deserved to have his reputation ruined by the man whose daughter he is taking care of? Real good logic there.
See he already destroyed Wrights reputation once and is now trying to further damage it? Oh that's okay he'll be jobless for a few years then Trucy can support him! oh wait... Unless there is concrete proof that Zak was rich "beyond phoenix's dreams" I don't see how in any possible way they could live normally.
I also have a quick question: Does Trucy get the rights automatically or does she need to be 18 to acquire the rights? I haven't played the game in awhile.
d[^.^]b
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Quote:
See he already destroyed Wrights reputation once and is now trying to further damage it? Oh that's okay he'll be jobless for a few years then Trucy can support him! oh wait... Unless there is concrete proof that Zak was rich "beyond phoenix's dreams" I don't see how in any possible way they could live normally.
ZAK DID NOT RUIN PHOENIX'S LIFE FIRST TIME! Kristoph did. Getting sick of saying that. By the time Zak pulled off his vanishing act Phoenix had already lost the case and his badge.
Also Zak did not have the chance to USE the rights to get rich or earn any kind of fame as the trial he disappeared from the world in occurred not long after him actually acquiring the rights.
Quote:
I also have a quick question: Does Trucy get the rights automatically or does she need to be 18 to acquire the rights? I haven't played the game in awhile.
I don't think it's explained beyond the person inherits the rights when the previous owner dies. It's why he passed the rights on then as he was about to be declared legally dead.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
What is my liiiife?!?
Gender: Male
Location: UK
Rank: Admin
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 2504
Edit: And I'm sure that Icer will probably get some laughs from the irony of me saying that. XD
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Gerkuman wrote:
The reason we glide past your arguments is because they contradict the games to the point where we start to think you're pulling your answers out of your arse. :P It's almost as if you're saying 'waaah, I don't want a character I like to be bad so I'll ignore the bits I don't like!'. It's exactly what people do with Gant, and what even the writers themselves tried to do to Godot. Stop giving Draco Leather Pants.
Edit: And I'm sure that Icer will probably get some laughs from the irony of me saying that. XD
Edit: And I'm sure that Icer will probably get some laughs from the irony of me saying that. XD
Ugh our arguments are reasonable interpretations of the characters. I genuinely liked Gant and was really disappointed when he became a villain. I think you guys are blinded by your dislike of Zak and try to attribute other negative things to him. Like the wide variety who assume his disappearing act was to blame for ruining Phoenix.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
What is my liiiife?!?
Gender: Male
Location: UK
Rank: Admin
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 2504
Quote:
I think you guys are blinded by your dislike of Zak and try to attribute other negative things to him
Where did you get the impression I disliked Zak? I like him in the way I like Gant, that is that they're likable bastards. I don't whitewash characters because I like them, in fact I often like certain characters BECAUSE they're flawed. I kinda liked Godot until the writers tried to portray him as a matyr. Zak's jerk-itude comes because of his self-centeredness. (The same flaw that Valant had, before he learned his lessons). As such, I don't see him as conciously choosing to make people miserable as some people here seem to be suggesting, but just that he didn't care about the consequences of his actions.
He didn't care if the bottle knocked Olga out or killed her, or if his vanishment caused problems for his lawyer. He cared about his daughter enough to choose a lawyer that'd look after her, but not enough to actually, you know, take her with him. This isn't the actions of Manfred von Karma or Matt Enguard, but it's not exact;y sweetness and light either. In other words, he's a jerk. But he's no worse than the other jerks of the series, and certainly not bad enough to be considered a villain.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
I also don't think he cares especially about the consequences of his actions either and it's that light heartedness that makes me love him.
I just don't think he's an especially bad person
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Zak Gramarye is a JERK (Spoilers lol~)
justice is always wright ;)
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Posts: 290
on topic,for the bottle hit,zak was a bit reckless i guess,but so are non-jerkish guys like our greatly beloved clumsy gumshoe
or our beloved trouble maker larry 
,personally I like larry,i dunno about other's,but one thing for sure,not s single person hate's gumshoe,and not a single person would dare think of him as a jerk 
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed